Afternoon music
Tweets seen
I can think of one way…
See also:
Who really are the 11% so stupid that they think the migrant-invaders “share the same values” as us? Or are they malicious? I rather think the latter.
Interesting report about the Gulf Stream
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14982353/Gulf-Stream-weakening-300-YEARS.html
“The Gulf Stream has been getting weaker for much longer than we thought – and it could be on the verge of total collapse due to climate change.
According to British scientists, the Gulf Stream – which is part of a much wider global system of ocean currents – moved northwards 300 years ago.
This, they say, is a sign that it started slowing down then – before the Industrial Revolution and about 200 years earlier than previously believed.
And the ‘sensitive’ system could soon ‘cross a tipping point’ prior to its total collapse.
The Gulf Stream is a major ocean current that moves warm surface water from Mexico northward across the Atlantic towards Europe.
It’s one of the most important natural weather systems, keeping northern and western Europe warm.
When it collapses, it could plummet Europe into a deep freeze reminiscent of the Hollywood film ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.
In the 2004 movie, the Thames freezes over and the Houses of Parliament are smothered in a deep layer of snow.“
[Daily Mail]
See also:
More tweets seen
There is a global…”problem”… of which this is merely part. You could even say “two global problems“.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreshnik_(missile)
A warning to both Germany and Poland.
[“Vladimir Zelensky hopes to use the West’s help to force Russia to unconditionally stop the SMO, says Viktor Medvedchuk. “Zelensky needs Russia to end the conflict unconditionally, but he himself has no intention of ending it”, Medvedchuk stated. He called Zelensky a political clown who knows how to beg and whine but is completely incapable of solving political issues at any level.“]
Why should Russia freeze the situation, when it is steadily, albeit slowly, taking over the whole of Ukraine east of the Dnieper?
[“The decision about Ukraine is made exclusively by Putin. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not even have to come to the negotiations, because the terms of peace will be dictated exclusively by Russia — said American journalist Clayton Morris. “Zelensky decides nothing. He can send a letter or one of his subjects — it doesn’t matter, because all the cards are in Putin’s hands,” he said.“]
Sochi is scarcely a strategic or other military target. Why do the “Western” ((( msm))) not report on these crimes by the Zelensky regime?
Wall. Squad. End.
In the early 1930s, Germany faced problems almost as bad as (in some respects, worse than) the UK in the 2020s. National Socialism solved most of the more obvious challenges to decent ordered life, and was then able to look to the future. That the “you know who”-ridden outside world (finance-capitalist West, Stalinist/socialist East) turned on Germany from 1939 does not take away the immense achievements of 1933-1939, the years of peace.
That tweet refers to the aftermath of the libel case Wilson v. Mendelsohn, Newbon (deceased), and Cantor, which was launched by Northern academic James Wilson after a campaign of harassment by a pack of malicious Zionist Jews.
During the currency of the matter, the defendants’ Jewish solicitors (Daniel Berke of “3D Solicitors” of Manchester, and the notorious Mark Lewis of Patron Law, West London), and Counsel (Beth Grossman, of Doughty Street Chambers, London) appear in various degrees to have been incompetent and/or dishonest. The defendants’ (arguende, perjuring) Jewish/Zionist witnesses (every single one was a Jew) were simply not believed by the trial judge.
James Wilson won his case against the odds (and much dishonest Jewish chicanery) and now is actually trying to save defeated defendant Cantor from losing his house as a result of the negligence and dishonesty of Cantor’s fellow-Jews, and particularly “Mark Lewis Lawyer”.
I have to say that the successful claimant, Wilson, appears to be a great deal more forgiving than I would have been in his place. Wilson is now trying to save one of the Jews who targeted him, which Jew has been thrown to the wolves by his own Jewish lawyers and a number of other prominent Jew-Zionists who urged on the defence case against Wilson. Those other Jews, and the Jewish lawyers involved, have been trying to wash their hands of their default(s).
I have blogged extensively about the aftermath of this case, and about (in general, too) the self-promoting yet incompetent and dishonest Jew-Zionist solicitor, Mark Lewis. Use the search box on this blog for more.
As for the other losing defendants in that matter, I know little about Mendelsohn. As to Newbon (a vicious pro-Israel social media troll, whose own university, Northumbria, had to discipline him repeatedly), he killed himself rather than face up to the consequences of his badness.
At one time, Jews were not even allowed to become barristers in England and Wales (until the Jews Relief Act 1858 was passed, by which time the political influence bought by their money had permeated English society in the Victorian age).
Readers of the blog will be able to guess what my views on this subject are.
Incidentally, and while I am very rusty on the current law — I ceased active practice in 2008, and was wrongly and in fact unlawfully disbarred at the instigation of a connected packs of Jews —inc., in the shadows, “Mark Lewis Lawyer”— in 2016, my understanding is that legal professional privilege is not available against a barrister’s own client. Legal professional privilege, which protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client for the purpose of legal advice or litigation, is intended to benefit the client, not to shield the lawyer from disclosure to the client.
In this case, Cantor has (Wilson says) asked his former lawyers to disclose.
A few pertinent quotations, found here and there:
- Purpose of the Exemption: Legal professional privilege exists to encourage open and honest communication between clients and their legal advisors, ensuring clients can fully disclose information relevant to their case without fear of that information being disclosed to others.
- Who Benefits? This privilege is solely for the benefit of the client, not the lawyer. A barrister cannot claim privilege to withhold information from their own client.
- Duty of Confidentiality: Barristers have a strict duty of confidentiality to their clients, but this duty is not absolute. It is subject to exceptions, such as where disclosure is required by law or where the client provides informed consent for disclosure.
- Client’s Right to Information: Clients have a right to access information held by their barrister relating to their case, including confidential communications, unless specific exemptions apply.
- Examples of Disclosure to Client: This includes, but is not limited to, the barrister’s advice, opinions of counsel, experts’ reports, and other documents relevant to the case.
Incidentally, I have recently found AI (Artificial Intelligence) to be a wonderful resource in various areas of study or research. This, below, is what it has to say about Legal Professional Privilege:
“Legal professional privilege
LPP protects confidential communications between a client and their lawyer, including barristers, and is a right held by the client. There are two main types:
- Legal advice privilege: Covers confidential communications for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice.
- Litigation privilege: Covers confidential communications made for the dominant purpose of obtaining advice or evidence for existing or reasonably contemplated litigation.
Exceptions where LPP does NOT apply
LPP has limited exceptions where a barrister might be required or permitted to disclose information, even to their own client:
- Iniquity Exception: LPP does not apply if the client seeks advice to further a crime, fraud, or similar conduct.
- Waiver by the client: The client can waive privilege, either expressly or implicitly.
- Disclosure required or permitted by law: Statutory or regulatory obligations may compel disclosure, such as reporting suspicions of money laundering.
- Public Interest Immunity (PII): A court may order non-disclosure based on PII, where the public interest in withholding information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
In summary, while a barrister generally must protect client confidentiality and uphold LPP, exceptions exist when the client seeks advice to further a crime, or when disclosure is required by law or court order.”
It can be seen that at least one exception (Waiver) might well apply. to the Cantor/Wilson matter. Possibly “Iniquity Exception” and/or “Public Interest” as well.
Looks as though Beth Grossman is on a loser (again).
Beth Grossman and “Mark Lewis Lawyer” must both be squirming.
I think that he should.
If Beth Grossman is going to take an absurdly bad point of the sort mooted by her chambers, Doughty Street Chambers, then it says something about her, arguende…
The two surviving Jew defendants may eventually sue “Mark Lewis Lawyer” and the other defence solicitors and Counsel. We shall see.
Lewis has no or significant assets within the jurisdiction (England and Wales), though he is believed to own a flat in Eilat, Israel, a fact which was concealed from the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. When Lewis was found guilty by the that Tribunal in 2018, his own (unpaid) Counsel said to the Tribunal that “Lewis has no assets except his own clothes, a used mobility scooter, and a private pension worth £70 a week”…so much for the supposed great defamation lawyer!
So Lewis can only be (effectively) sued jointly and severally with others, notably his fellow partners in the Patron Law firm. Presumably, he has professional indemnity insurance, though.
When I was a practising barrister, I had indemnity insurance, as all barristers are expected to carry. I was never sued anyway, but when I was instructed or “briefed” by a London law firm to draft contracts for the transhipment and sale of oil, my insurance had to be very radically increased, because even one shipment was worth tens of millions of U.S. dollars.
Late tweets seen
[“Pakistani Tariq Islam kidnapped a 12-year-old British schoolgirl on the pretext of playing. He forced her to take drugs and alcohol. He r*ped her several times and invited three more Pakistani friends. The 12-year-old girl was tortured and overdosed on drugs, leaving her with permanent brain and body damage. The perverts who appeared in court said they had no regrets. This happened in Leeds, UK. We urgently need mass deportations.“]
In this case, though, not deportation but a wall, a squad, and an end (to the untermenschen).
Parasites, as well as traitors.
Refer to previous comment.
Landlordism is parasitism. That is not, as such, a political statement, but one that is simply an expression of reality.
[“Zelensky admitted that Ukraine cannot retake the territories occupied by the Russian army by military means, and it is necessary to resort to diplomatic options This was reported by the British The Telegraph, claiming that Ukraine is ready for a ceasefire without recognizing Russia’s control over the new Russian territories, referring to the constitution of Ukraine. At the same time, the British publication does not report Ukraine’s readiness to withdraw the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.“]
Late music
Ian Robert Millard 