Morning music

Saturday quiz

Well, this week a clear victory over political journalist John Rentoul; he scored 3/10, but I trumped that with 6/10. I did not know the answers to questions 5, 8, 9, and 10.
Talking point

Utter barbarity.
Talking point

Tweets seen
How is this “news”? It has been obvious to all for weeks.
When I had a Twitter account (the Jew-Zionist lobby had me expelled in 2018 after a long and conspiratorial campaign), I found that practically all the “hate” directed against me came from Israel-fanatic Jews, together with a few non-Jew but vicious and/or mentally unstable types such as fake “doctor” Louise Raw, a loonie from Manchester calling himself “DaveAFAF” and a half-crazy part-Jew psychiatrist called Tim G. Stevens of Essex (Epping Forest area).
Most of the vitriol came from Jews, several of which have now, however, died.
See also:
One has to ask why Jews have been expelled, historically, from over 100 states and territories.
Wall. Squad. End.

Numberplate Enthusiasts’ Club

More tweets seen
See also:

Upsetting to think that some (I hope only a small minority of backward) Americans hurt these lovely creatures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_opossum
I have commented previously on the fact that in the UK we are now moving rapidly to a non-civic society, i.e. one where people vote (whether in elections or when on juries) according to racial and cultural loyalties. Call it the “O.J. Simpson syndrome” if you like.
I fully support the jury system, in principle, and was myself a practising barrister for a number of years (based in London and later Exeter when not overseas) (1992-2008), but the jury system falls to pieces in a “multicultural” society. The same is true of voting “democracy”, and a police force that can be relied upon.

Talking point
At various times in history, states have promulgated “sumptuary laws”, defined by Wikipedia as follows:
“Sumptuary laws (from Latin sūmptuāriae lēgēs) are laws that regulate consumption.[1] Black’s Law Dictionary defines them as “Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures for apparel, food, furniture, or shoes, etc.”[2] Historically, they were intended to regulate and reinforce social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures, often depending on a person’s social rank.
Societies have employed sumptuary laws for various purposes. They were used to try to regulate the balance of trade by limiting the market for expensive imported goods. They made it easy to identify social status and privilege, and as such could be used for social discrimination and to stabilize social hierarchies.[3][1] They could also be used to prevent, or at least reduce, opportunities for political bribery and corruption.
The laws often prevented commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats and could be used to stigmatize disfavoured groups. In cities of the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to limit the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie. Bourgeois subjects as wealthy as or wealthier than the nobility could undermine the latter’s presentation as powerful and legitimate rulers. This could call into question their ability to control and defend their fiefs, thus inspiring traitors and rebels. Such laws continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.”
[Wikipedia]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law
I think there are cogent arguments for similar laws in the UK at present. Let’s stamp on the nouveaux riches types (indeed, all of the excessively-rich) and those aping them and their lifestyles, including “influencers” and “celebrities” of one kind and another.
Society needs calm and reason, and a less-materialistic ethos.
Plain living and high thinking.
More tweets
[“BREAKING: its been revealed that Andy Burnham snapped up an ex council flat in Kennington for just £215,000 in 2005 while serving as an MP.
He then happily billed taxpayers for the mortgage interest payments because the rules let him get away with it.
That same flat is now worth 480000 to 500000 pounds and he rents it out while insisting the income barely covers his costs and he makes no profit.
Yet this is the same man demanding rent freezes council housing takeovers and lower rents for ordinary people.
Pure hypocrisy from a classic Westminster grifter feathering his own nest on the back of the system he loves to lecture everyone else about.“]





















































