Morning music
Saturday quiz
A second unusual week, in which political journalist John Rentoul scored higher than me. He made 6/10, but I could manage only a fairly miserable 4/10 (questions 6, 7, 8, and —a complete guess— 10). I had in fact heard of the answers to questions 2, 3, 5, and 9, but could not bring them to mind, so a very poor 4/10 it is this week.
Well, there it is. Some Indian “Bombay Failed” is still at the Bar despite proven dishonesty, and (looking at the background of that photo, New Hall and the Library of Lincoln’s Inn, London) still welcome at what was my own Inn of Court, whereas I myself was wrongfully —and actually unlawfully— disbarred in 2016, which therefore also triggered automatic expulsion from Lincoln’s Inn. See:
To give the Bar Standards Board their due, they did write to me a couple of years later, admitting that I should never have been disbarred (because my “case” should have been heard by a 3-person Tribunal panel, and not a 5-person one; 3-person panels have no power to disbar). I declined for several reasons, among which the facts that I would be unlikely to return to active Bar practice and that the Bar is now a dustbin anyway.
What were my supposed defaults anyway? To have tweeted on Twitter five —yes, only 5, out of 150,000— supposedly “offensive” tweets (and retweets).
All five “offensive” (not at all offensive) tweets were completely true. For example, that that snivelling little bastard, Michael Gove, was a puppet of Israel and the Jewish lobby, as well as having been an expenses fraudster when serving as an MP.
All true.
At that time, it was unknown (at least to me) that the little bastard (Gove) was also a drunk and a drug abuser.
So, as seen, the said “Bombay Failed” is now reinstated as a barrister (indeed, still holds the —now-very-degraded— status of “KC”), while Gove has been, ludicrously, elevated to the House of Lords (despite the drugs, drink, fraudulent dishonesty, and other deviant behaviour).
I, on the other hand, am now effectively an “unperson”…
Does that not say rather a lot about our whole society?
As regular readers of the blog will know, my matter only came to the attention of the Bar Standards Board (2014) and so to a Bar Disciplinary Tribunal (2016) because of a long and conspiratorial campaign by connected packs of Jews— UK Lawyers for Israel, and the so-called “Campaign Against Antisemitism”, the memberships or support cadres of which overlap to a certain extent.
The latter pack also managed to have me tried in the magistrates’ court in 2023 for entirely true and correct blog posts. See:
The blog continued to be published, and on a near-daily basis, right the way through the process of trial and sentencing in 2023 and 2024. It will continue to be published, no matter what, even if it has to be switched to another jurisdiction.
It will quite soon be 10 years since I was so wrongfully and unlawfully disbarred (in October 2016), nearly 3 years (November 2023) since I was wrongfully put on trial for exercising my free speech rights, and well over 2 years (March 2024) since I was sentenced for having exercised my right —and duty— to publish the truth. Time flows on, and truth continues to be the truth.
More tweets seen
Translates to a Commons with about 276 Reform UK MPs (50 short of bare majority), Lab 105, 77 Cons, 60 Greens, 51 LibDems, 45 SNP, 12 Plaid [etc].
Once again, as in all polls since the Makerfield by-election, Reform UK falling short of a Commons majority and therefore reliant on the votes of at least two-thirds of Con MPs to get anything through.
We hear so much about “the high street” and how the shops there have to be helped etc. I am not so sure we even need to “save the high street”. After all, you go there, and half the time you cannot find a park spot, and when you do you are expected to pay for it, even if you are only going to be there for half an hour.
Most of the really useful high street stores and facilities have been closed or are about to be closed (banks, post offices, Woolworths, W.H. Smith etc).
Maybe it is time to accept that, just as the towns of Roman Britain fell into disuse, many of them being abandoned, once the Romans left Britain and Roman society stopped working in Britain, the 18thC/19thC/20thC “high street” has now outlived its usefulness in the UK.
Fertilizing of fields
I was idly wondering whether human bodies, in large numbers, are a beneficial source of fertilizer for soil, or more of a contaminant. As people say on Twitter/X, “genuine question”. I do not know.
I know that Rudolf Steiner made the point that certain types of tree, in the northern temperate zone, have always been planted in or around churchyards with the idea of decontaminating the area. Yew trees are the best-known of such trees.
I do not know, cannot recall, though, what Steiner said specifically about all that.
Of course, there are areas of the world, particularly areas where large-scale battles took place, and where most of the fallen were buried where they fell: the Somme in Northern France; the area around Volgograd (former Stalingrad) in southern Russia etc. The farmers around Volgograd still find skulls which come to the surface in the Spring.
I myself have travelled through the area of the Somme several times, and there is a strange feeling at times there, a heaviness in the spiritual atmosphere; sombre. However, my interest at present is more in the practical biochemical aspects.
Perhaps I shall consult with the excellent Google AI system.
More tweets seen
[“Professor of the University of Chicago, international political scientist John Mearsheimer:
- I constantly encounter broken logic. For example, everyone is saying that Ukraine is winning – Russia is suffering huge losses, and Ukrainians are regaining their territories. But when you look at the figures for the exchange of dead bodies, the ratio is from 1 to 20, and even 1 to 40. A huge number of Ukrainian remains versus a relatively small number of Russians. Where’s the logic? If Russia is suffering huge losses, the ratio should be the opposite! They object to me: the Russians are constantly attacking and picking up their own. But how can they attack if we simultaneously hear that Ukrainians are regaining territories? Where’s the logic?
- Let’s talk about losses. The New York Times just published an article about the ratio of losses, where losses refer to those killed on the battlefield, plus the wounded. The Times cites an estimate of the number of dead on both sides, which is based on data from the Washington-based think tank CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). So the newspaper writes that 450,000 Russians were killed, and somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000 Ukrainians. Well, let’s say there are 150,000 Ukrainians and 450,000 Russians. A ratio of 1 to 3. That is, for every Ukrainian killed, there are three Russians. But this is impossible to believe. This can’t be true. I don’t understand how they came up with these figures?
- The main losses on the battlefield, as is well known, are caused by artillery fire. Throughout most of the war, the Russians have maintained an advantage in artillery, with various estimates of 5 to 1, 7 to 1, and even 10 to 1. And so-called smart bombs, guided artillery shells, dropped from the sky? The Russians have countless arsenals of these bombs, which they constantly rain down on the heads of Ukrainians. But the Ukrainians, in turn, have almost none of these bombs.
- To those who say that the Russians are constantly attacking (and picking up bodies), there’s also something to object to. Firstly, the Ukrainians also attacked a lot. Just remember the Kursk operation. Or their famous summer counteroffensive in 2023, which was supposed to turn into a blitzkrieg, take Ukraine to the Azov Sea, and split the Russian front in two. In the first year of the war, the Russians suffered two defeats when the Ukrainians attacked near Kherson and Kharkov. Not to mention the current counteroffensive actions of the Ukrainian army. That is, Ukraine attacked a lot in this war, so it’s impossible to say that it’s always on the defensive, and in the defensive, the army suffers fewer losses and therefore, it’s not surprising to see the figures from The New York Times.
- No, using such arguments, these figures cannot be explained. They’re meaningless. I think that when we eventually learn the real figures, there will be a million losses on the Ukrainian side. And that’s just the dead. To say 150,000 is ridiculous and meaningless.
- Nevertheless, all this is presented as “facts” and on the basis of these “facts”, people are trying to assess what is happening between Russia and Ukraine now and guess what our next steps should be. It’s impossible to believe these figures, they’re ridiculous. But there are those who believe them. And they, relying on these figures, advocate for raising the stakes in the game against Russia, increasing support for Ukraine, breaking Russia and ending it as a great power. There are many such people.
- I ask myself: “What’s the matter with them? Are they just making it up? Taking figures out of thin air? I’m talking about The New York Times. No, hardly. Rather, they themselves trust these figures. Objectivity blinds them, and they don’t notice it. But, alas, in the end, we have elites who have convinced themselves of what they believe. This is a false narrative, but they are guided by it and continue to move forward.“]
“Ukraine” (support for the corrupt, shambolic, and brutal regime in Kiev) has become a kind of totem for the decadent political class in Western Europe. At the same time, their own societies are falling apart via migration invasion, finance-capitalist exploitation, and rightly-disenchanted and angry native populations.
British people, in overwhelming majority, want them gone. Lawless predators and scavengers have no place in a civilized society.
TV journalist types (who probably live in Hampstead, or Blackheath, or some other affluent area where “travellers” do not go or live) think that you can reason with them. Pathetic. Not a word they say can be trusted or taken seriously.
The Guardian published some reportage recently about the line of “fortress”-cities still holding the line for the Kiev regime: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2026/jul/03/kill-zones-drone-nets-journey-ukraine-fortress-belt.
Ursula von der Leyen— an evil little sprite.
As blogged about previously.
It would not matter if the population of the UK were reduced to a million, or even 100,000, so long as that number consisted of real English/British: see
Ian Robert Millard 
What a “coincidence”! All over Europe, and in Argentina too, gypsies have been/are despised/disliked. It reminds me of a certain evil tribe that has also been hated and expelled from dozens of countries over the centuries.
I remember that, when studying Spanish classics at school, we had to read Cervantes´ novel “La gitanilla” (“The gypsy girl”). Although the girl is depicted as a nice person, Cervantes speaks very badly of the gypsies calling them “una nación de ladrones y mentirosos” = “a nation of thieves and liars”. Just like the aforementioned tribe, what a “coincidence”!
LikeLike
Claudius:
This has always been a confused picture in England, mainly because there are two or more connected groups. Both are colloquially called “gypsies” by many.
The first are the “real” gypsies (so-called because English people thought, hundreds of years ago, that they were from Egypt; in fact they are of Indian origin, as I am sure you know).
In the time of Henry VIII, the Egyptians Act was passed, requiring gypsies to leave the realm on pain of death.
Google AI says:
“The Egyptians Act 1530 (passed in 1531) was an English law enacted by King Henry VIII to banish Romani people (then called “Egyptians” or “Gypsies”). It ordered all Romani people to leave the country within 16 days or face imprisonment and the forfeiture of their belongings.Historical Context & Impact:False Origins: The term “Egyptian” originated because arriving Romani people were falsely believed to have come from Egypt due to their dark complexion.The Law’s Target: The Act outlawed them from travelling, claiming they used “subtle and crafty means” to deceive people (such as palmistry and fortune-telling).Intensified Persecution: Later Tudor laws (such as the Egyptians Act 1554) made simply being a Romani immigrant a capital felony punishable by death.Repeal: Despite the brutality of the laws, enforcement waned and they were not formally repealed until 1856”
The second group are also often called “gypsies” and even sometimes refer to themselves as such, but are so-called “travellers”, of Irish origin ethnically. People also refer to them as “tinkers” because many (19thC) would ply a trade as itinerant repairers of cooking pots etc. I think that these Irish tinkers or “travellers” must have entered England, many of them, as Irish labourers working in the 17th/early 19th centuries as “navvies” or “navigators”; they dug the canal network. That is my theory, anyway.
Now, sub-groups of formerly Eastern European-resident gypsies (Roma, Sinta etc) have made their way to the UK and create havoc here. Predators and scavengers. I remember when I first saw one, a woman, in 1988 in Krakov, Poland. I thought she was an actual Indian until corrected by a Polish girl.
LikeLike
Anna Lapwood
Incredible
https://youtu.be/swDuXAKLy8U?is=QfMsDD7EPGT0_Pxf
LikeLike