I have just spoken to the media office of the Scottish government, and followed up with this email.
I shall let you know the response.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Craig,
No.
No.
Fckff noo.
Best, Dan
We await the response with bated breath.
It is creeping authoritarianism in a very British way – the government is steadily but quietly eroding democratic accountability, including the right to challenge arbitrary executive diktats such as we recently experienced with lockdown. A lot of nudge, nudge and a big stick.
Emergency anti terror laws, making loud noises in a safe space, causing anxiety to he, she, it, them, those and all else to come.
If Orwelliana comes to be, then the hating of crime itself is already a hate crime…_
https://declassifieduk.org/creeping-authoritarianism-the-next-threat-to-our-civil-liberties/
Lockdown was badly bungled, but it is not an “arbitrary executive diktat”; there are provisions for such emergency public health measures in human rights conventions.
@DiggerUK
Kidding, right? The UK is a mummified feudal state, gutted and dried by William I, soaked in natron and bandaged by the restoration. Even the best socialist Labour governments grovelled before the monarchy, the empire, and the aristocracy. Nothing can or will change except to get even worse.
I was taught to believe that we have “human rights ” in the “free world”.
The co-ordinated asocial action of the medical, political, and police authorities throughout the “free world” during the COVID-19 crisis showed me that I was wrong about that.
There are no rights, there is only power, and if you aint in the Big Club that Carlin spoke of, you aint got none of that either.
You do understand the difference between free speech in general , and restrictions that are necessary during a public health emergency, right?
People voicing opinions is a little different to acting however you like when there’s a deadly, highly contagious virus around. The former, one should be able to put up with. The latter can kill people in very large numbers. So they are a bit different, just in case there’s any confusion.
I second glenn_nl’s comment; see my 20:08 comment below.
Those who oppose lockdown as an infringement of liberty strangely seem to agree with the most right wing members of the Tory party that like a light touch deregulated government.
I have to say, it’s really impressive to see this happen, time after time.
Whenever a serious subject comes up (in this case free speech), the usual suspects just have to shoe-horn in their whacked out conspiracy BS and pretend that established respect for human rights should actually apply to their paranoid fantasies too.
Dude, your numbers are not growing – they are dying, literally, from your utter collective stupidity.
Just get back to Qanon, 4chan, 8chan, “Truth central”, or silly youtube/ bitchute hangouts where you and all your fellow nut-jobs can furiously agree with yourselves. This is a serious place totally unsuitable for your nonsense.
I hope you don’t imagine Covid was a deadly, highly contagious virus. With statistics showing that it was about the same strength as the flu, it was not an emergency.
Lol, funny statistics you looked at then because that’s not what they showed.
Mr Lee
– “I hope you don’t imagine…”
Covid killed thirty people that I either knew directly, or were known directly to people I know personally. More than twenty of those deaths were in a single month, during the second lockdown.
I have never before “imagined” twenty deaths in a month.
Mr Lee, look at the graphs of how quickly the death rate increased. Look at the “deaths from all causes”, so you don’t fall for the canard that the sharp peaks were an artefact of covid testing. So yes, SARS-CoV-2 is “a deadly, highly
contagiousinfectious virus”; the graphs prove both points.Please try to understand this genuine emergency, because erroneous thinking can and has caused much suffering and death. Without vaccination, covid causes about 3% of those infected to become so ill that they require hospital. Given oxygen support and some other simple treatments, the majority recover, whereas without treatment the majority die, rather horribly. But it is logistically impossible to give such treatments to anywhere near 3% of the population at much the same time.
Do not mistake a problem in dynamics for a problem in statics; covid’s rapid spread is crucial, and covid’s infection fatality rate is not a constant, it depends critically upon how many can be treated.
—
[ Mod: That’s enough arguing about Covid-19 in this thread, as it’s dragging the conversation off topic. Kindly relocate any further debate to the discussion forums. ]
That’s true. The CMO and politicians should never have been allowed to say that the vaccines were safe and 96% effective. They should be prosecuted.
The vaccines are highly effective at preventing the illness from becoming serious, as can be seen from the statistics for both hospital admissions, and deaths from all causes; I do not know the precise percentage, but 96% seems about right. The vaccines are far less effective at preventing infection.
—
[ Mod: Any further comments on the topic of Covid-19 and vaccination should be posted in the discussion forums, not here. ]
They’ll find a way of ensuring the people in question have committed a hate crime under their Orwellian new legislation. This is not the kind of independent Scotland that i want.
The establishment tends to close ranks so this email will likely be ignored or at best, you’ll be palmed off with attempted platitudes.
Shock horror, Englishman arrested, for asking question*. Shock horror, Englishman de-arrested for asking question*.
I have to admit, I’ve never even heard of being de-arrested. I have now…_
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62878954
* The answer, in case you wondered, is “watery tart”
– “I’ve never even heard of being de-arrested.”
You would have if you’d done any protesting.
Clark,
I never had the privilege of being ‘de arrested’ which turns out to be a proper police action, sanctioned under law.
I have been bailed, bailed again when surrendering to bail and had charges dropped twice when I turned up at court.
I have also been bound over twice to keep the peace after having a not guilty plea recorded at the court.
I have further been found not guilty on two occasions in a magistrates court and had a judge dismiss charges against me in a jury trial and a not guilty verdict recorded.
I did moan a lot about my treatment, but I have to acknowledge I didn’t protest about it. Maybe if I had protested, I could have experienced what it is like to be arrested and then de arrested for protesting.
I’m no lady when it comes to protesting., but thank you anyway for your helpful comment…_
Don’t hold your breath please
You’ll probably be fobbed off with, “We rely on the discretion of the officers attending, as to whether they feel a public danger or nuisance was being caused, and what they consider to be the most appropriate response…” etc. etc.
Question?
How many of the draconian rules, introduced by the government during Spring 2020 under the guise of the Covid pandemic, have been rescinded in the last two years?
Are we actually acting illegally if we do anything other than remain totally silent in the days until next Tuesday? Apparently, someone was arrested for holding up a blank sheet of paper.
?????
When the BBC devotes two and a half prime time hours to something called “The Eve Of The Procession To Lying In State”, we know we are in deep trouble.
The ‘Procession To Lying In State’ might be acceptable for blanket coverage, but that is not until tomorrow.
Heaven knows what we might get between Thursday and Sunday inclusive?
– “How many of the draconian rules, introduced by the government during Spring 2020 under the guise of the Covid pandemic, have been rescinded in the last two years?”
All of them.
But while everyone was agonising about lockdown, a new bill was passed, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022:
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/pcsc-policing-act-protest-rights/
I tried to warn readers here but kept being dismissed as either a sheeple or an evil agent of the establishment.
I wrote:
“All of them.”
Sorry, not quite all of them. The enabling act was time limited for two years. Most of it expired this March; the remainder is due to expire in a couple of weeks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_Act_2020&oldid=1107624620#Evolution_and_partial_expiry
Only one provision (concerning remote court hearings) was permanently retained, which was done by incorporating it into the aforesaid Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act.
And remote court hearings are a long overdue facility in a 21st century justice system. They are not suitable for all cases or all hearings, but there are plenty where the parties and their lawyers find it far more convenient and efficient to deal with hearings remotely.
Years ago on my first evening in the UK of being in a position to watch TV, the BBC program for that evening consisted of a riveting 30 minutes about bee-keeping followed by three hours of championship billiards. I should think that, being used to such fare, the BBC audience would relish 150 minutes of being primed for a next day procession. In fact I suspect some would fall into emotional overload and require assistance. Just don’t call any police.
FJ Anecdotally.
My transport worker friends tell me they are expecting a lot of people in London.
Bus loads in shaded windows arriving today already.
Probably mainly Forces being readied for state funeral. But will form part of crowds too.
The locality is pretty much quiet this week. Mostly because it’s back to school week and everyone is suddenly skint because of that and energy bills.
(I’m cancelling my dd 1st October btw in support of the million committing to do so across the country. Cant Pay, WONT PAY. No one’s bills should go by 10% let alone hundreds of percent.)
There aren’t any photos of the departed in the windows. Not seen any wreaths or anything else. Some individuals have taken it to heart in some form of unresolved loss issues some genuinely because I f their age. Most people are sanguine. C3 is not in anyway welcomed.
If there are peaceful protests as in Scotland, I expect there will be many more than there. I wonder if they too will be arrested.
It’s beginning to simmer.
What do you expect? Britain is now another Thailand in terms of its deification of the boring old Windsor family. Scotland, I am sorry to say has demonstrated why it is not suited for Independent status. Just cringe of the highest order from top to bottom
Unfortunately, I think you’re right.
Reza you have lost your rezaning, silly fool.
Breach of the peace is a common law offence prosecuted in court under summary, rather than solemn, procedure before a Sheriff.
Freedom of expression doesn’t confer immunity from the effects of statutory or common laws, or powers afforded the Polis.
You are, with respect and without prejudice, making a mountain out of a molehill, as are many others.
Scotland is in the early days of its new constitution, as affirmed at Accession Council.
King Charles gave Scotland to the Scottish Government [not WM in any form] and its new Great Seal to its First Minister, for the benefit of the common good.
He recognised both kingdoms of Scotland and England as entire and separate entities, as he did with the peoples of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
Once mourning has passed, clarity will follow.
Carpe diem.
“Breach of the peace is a common law offence prosecuted in court under summary, rather than solemn, procedure before a Sheriff.”
As I commented back on 24/2/22 with respect to CM’s (retrospective) conviction for his work on AS’s legal troubles:
“Roddy Dunlop’s point relates back to both the “No punishment without law” precept enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) and the common law precept illegitimising retrospective/ex post facto “justice”.
The first (to my knowledge) Scottish legislation which broke the retrospective/ex post facto principle was Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, designed to plug the holes in Scottish breach of the peace common law resulting from the Smith v Donnelly (2001) case (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8d760d03e7f57ece4a6). This codified the “body swerve” around the principle (confirmed by the APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION BY EWAN PATERSON AND OTHERS AGAINST PF AIRDRIE – https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=6da6a1a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7) in the following way:
One aspect of the damage done by Smith v Donnelly was that swearing was no longer a breach of the peace (it never was, but it had “become so” after some particularly corrupt cases, particularly in the 1950s). A potential defence against Section 38 in the case of swearing at the police had been that such abuse would be “reasonably expected as part of their job”. A work-around was needed, and so the “abstracting from those actually subject to the abuse to the reasonable person” wheeze was introduced to ensure that all miscreants were rounded up. Hello retrospective/ex post facto “justice”.
Only the working class and their lawyers noticed this in the intervening years. CM’s case has now, in the context of retrospective “jig-saw” identification, shown the “middle class” exactly how the “justice system” works around little “local difficulties” to get its man.”
Breach of the peace has therefore been a statutory offence in Scotland for 12 years.
Since the Irish “troubles” in the UK and 9/11 in the US, a series of proto-fascistic pieces of legislation have been introduced under the rubric of “security”, the public effectively being “slow-boiled” into authoritarian rule. In America (where their written Constitution (theoretically) gives citizens (not subjects, as in the UK) some protection against State over-reach), the Democrats are co-ordinating with financial institutions to make the non-cash purchase of firearms and ammunition increasingly subject to State overview in the form of a de facto “arms registry”, illegal under the Constitution (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/11/visa-caves-will-recategorize-gun-purchases-so-democrats-can-flag-them/), since (at present) there is no chance of rescinding the 2nd Amendment itself. Biden’s recent 20-minute “tribute to Hitler” speech (in both content and visuals, and which really has to be seen to be believed), the result of a “meeting with historians” 2 weeks previously, shows the way ahead as MAGA voters are redefined as de facto terrorists.
Interesting CounterPunch article from a couple of years ago: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/12/removing-a-u-s-president-without-an-election/. The “official” Watergate narrative never sat right with me (currently reading both Hougan and Colodny/Gettlin) and am looking forward to Aaron Mate’s forthcoming book on Russiagate.
In Scots law, every case turns on its own merits.
Nobody has to enter a plea or defence when before the court, nor can such action be found prejudicial against them, but everyone can declare ready to proceed to trial and the prosecution of the case laid in the name of HMA.
Anyone who chooses to engage beyond that risks their own liberty etc.
Even at the Polis stage, confirmation of identity and request that matters be brought before a court would be my statement in its entirety.
The reason there are three verdicts available to a jury become easier to understand if you understand your own rights.
The house doesn’t always win, it only wins when it does because people volunteer to lose.
COPFS only prosecute if *on the balance of probabilities* a jury or Sheriff is likely to assume guilt of the accused based on evidence collected, notwithstanding statutory effect. HMA can abandon at any time.
When facing a jury – Not Guilty & Not Proven take the advantage from the house, raising the bar used in civil cases & decisions to actually prosecute, in the name of fairness & natural justice.
Solicitors are welcome to critique, I’m just a private citizen.
Breach of the peace is a summary offence. People are losing their shit trying to imply persecution of the recently accused and the common rights. It’s utter gibberish, and laced with paranoia in some instances and deliberate agitation in others (a breach of the peace itself). In others, it’s a plausibly held belief, I guess…
Stop moaning at a time of the deepest grieving.
If you support the use of a summary procedure for “Breach of the peace” to outlaw expressions of dissent, Scott, you are a fascist behind your legal mummery.
With respect, each and every case turns on its own merits in Scots law and any plea, defence or declaration can be lodged. Single bench procedures are the norm for civil cases – the criminal law is a subset, but its procedures aren’t unique.
The person on the last bus to Glasgow Central can easily be intimidated by the incorrect application of terminologies, which is why I stand fully behind the meaning and spirit of the common law and judicial procedures involved in prosecuting for remedy – be that in the civil or criminal courts of first instance, and equally the courts of appeal, with absolute commitment to and respect of the nobile officium of the supreme courts of Scotland. (I won’t attribute any descriptor to you personally as I’m not certain if ‘fascist’ is applicable, but I’ll say that I still find it procedurally unusual that you did not choose to appeal your sentence at the highest level in Scotland. In general terms, the nobile officium is regarded as an under-used route to remedy and particularly wrt contempt proceedings – by the justiciary itself.)
Arrest/detention does not imply absolute guilt, but is a procedural tool available to not only the Polis but the individual in Scotland as a means to uphold the peace, and can actually save people’s lives when used eg individual threatening harm to self/other. You willingly surrendered your own liberty having toasted your own incarceration beforehand – was that to disrupt the ‘fascists in charge’, to save vehicular emmissions/cost to public purse or to satisfy an inner need? To me, it highlighted a failure in either legal advice re nobile officium or a deliberate choice to enable appeal to international tribunals later. I was going to recommend ‘Harpo Speaks’ as a source of distraction during your time inside, but chose not to. I don’t know if the prison library holds a copy, or if you’ve read it, but it’s the story of a man who knew how to listen, and when to speak and to what, despite none of us knowing what his voice sounded like and likely not to have even thought about that aspect of him. It’s a source of inspiration for me – pragmatism, honesty, fairness and fun from start to finish. You need more fun in your life.
Finally, the court doesn’t convict everyone in criminal cases, and the respondent is as likely to win as the appellant in civil cases – the prosecution rests.
Being a USAn, despite my name here, I have no idea of the legalities Scott brings up. Though being against the First Amendment is UnAmerican and at least semi-fascist. 🙂 But I must second the recommendation of Harpo Speaks! On stage with – and upstaged by – Maxim Litvinov is but one of the many priceless moments in a life funnier than the movies.
Don’t start reading it late at night. Or you will have one with much laughter and no sleep and a hangover from it in the morning.
Mods:
How does one access formatting options on this website? In the case of this post where a large chunk was a quote from a previous one, your efforts were almost spot-on, but it would be great if I could insert bullets, etc. myself to avoid confusion. I tried contacting you via the support forum but got the following reply: “Error: your topic cannot be empty”. It wasn’t empty. Hence this…
—
[ Mod: Thank you for your enquiry, which has been posted as a new topic in the Blog Support forum on your behalf. In summary, you need to enable javascript to see the formatting buttons – or to create a new topic in the forums.
The comment you mentioned above has been tidied up now, by referring back to the original comment (for which you didn’t provide a link). It required a bit of detective work, not to mention creative CSS styling, so please don’t make a habit of quoting your previous comments too often. ]
American news is running with Charles III’s second temper flare-up in as many days:
https://twitter.com/Rachousame/status/1569728474914476034
He’s undoubtedly under a lot of strain, but already, signs he doesn’t have the temperament of his mother. Truth be told, she should’ve abdicated at least 10 years earlier, when Charles was in his early sixties. Acting as steadying influence, as Queen Beatrix did in the Netherlands for their new King.
Have you ever signed documents day after day after day with cheap Fountain pen?
Who got this crazy idea to change a feather?
I prefer when he gets annoyed (at a servant or whomever) with ink and pens in his way signing two documents!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2022/sep/10/king-charles-signals-to-aide-to-remove-pens-during-signing-of-oath-video.
?
Oh yeah, He Charles the turd does’t signal as Guardian put’s it in a title. He is annoyed and grimacing like spoilt child.
Geez a job!
I can do that!!
Perhaps the temperament of his father
The incident where he showed irritation at a flunkey who was a bit slow in moving the inkwell simply would not have happened with the Queen. She’d have sat down without a word and would have slid the thing sideways herself, perhaps giving that slightly frownful look to the flunkey.
As for Charles and the leaky pen, I’m surprised that he doesn’t know that fountain pens and air travel at altitude do not mix well. The cabin pressure equalises with the ambient pressure of the pen’s ink reservoir with predictable results.
Walking out of the room in a huff before the Queen Consort had finished signing the book was downright bloody rude.
He’s behaving like a spoiled brat.
Two huffy performances in his first week of his first job does not bode well. A bloody disgrace, actually.
The next 3 or 4 weeks is as good as it gets for Chazza. It’ll be downhill all the way after that. Walking around Harrods with a carrier bag full of cash from some head chopper Sheik is not a good look. See article from Chris Hedges-
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/monarchs-belong-in-the-dustbin-of
Daily Mail and BBC in full psyop saturation mode.Scary.
It’s HM BBC
?.
I noted in some of the press reports about these politically motivated arrests that they said:
“Police in Scotland have… ” as opposed to “Police Scotland have…”
Therefore, it poses the question as to who authorised the arrests?
Was there an accompanying Met entourage in Scotland?
Cactus:
“Was there an accompanying Met entourage in Scotland?”
Cf. People in Edinburgh on Sunday being directed by officials to some place apparently called “Meadows Park”…
Collie Dog, yeah last Sunday there was quite the choreography and movement of persons from (and visitors to) Edinburgh.
THIS coming Sunday I’ll be directing myself (as will many others) to Glasgow’s central square for high noon.
The ‘event’ may have been postponed, but the show must go on! 🙂
The Queen of Scotland has died. Whatever one’s attitude towards the monarchy, save the protesting and attention seeking for later. Yes, peaceful protesting is an absolute right of a free people and neither the police, nor any one else, should interfere; but, have a little class and don’t show up at a solemn gathering with a soap box.
You missunderstand the point of protest, it is to get the maximum amount of coverage so why would people pass up the opportunity to highlight this farce? Also, to republicans and people with any common sense, the monarchy is an affront to the democracy that we (do not) have.
Andrew Miller
“Have a little class.”
Who defines class-and why?
On a similar topic, but way back in Elizabethan England, I read today that the character of Irish Captain Macmorris may have been cut from Shakespeare’s Henry V around 1599 because the English Privy Council had decreed that “discussion of Irish affairs carried the death penalty” (Janet Clare, ‘Art Made Tongue-tied by Authority: Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship, p72). So much for the cradle of free speech. Anyway, I couldn’t easily find any confirmation of this, nor any detailed historical timeline of British jurisdictions (including England and Scotland) which listed laws and penalties for prohibited speech. Does anyone know where I can find a summary that would include the ‘Irish affairs death penalty’ law mentioned above? Also it would be interesting to have statistics on prosecutions and sentences through the centuries.
Re Elizabethan censorship of Irish matters: There is an article on the subject, here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/515421 is the first page, it will cost you $51 to read the whole article. Copyright law is the modern equivalent of censorship, keeping knowledge in the hands of the wealthy and out of the hands of dissidents.
@pete, thanks, that article was one which Janet Clare drew on in writing the aforementioned book (which I managed to pick up recently secondhand for less than $51 in sterling equivalent). I’ll tell you what the footnote says:
On 21 July 1599, Francis Cordale, in correspondence with Humphrey Galdelli in Venice, wrote: ‘I can send no news of the Irish wars, all advertisements thence being prohibited, and such news as comes to Council carefully concealed. I fear our part has had little success, lost many captains and whole companies, and has little hopes of prevailing.’
I am not against copyright law as such, since it tends to rein in some of the abuses of copying (including misrepresentation and profiteering). However, in my private self-funded researches (which include trying to piece together the history of forced/unfree labour in the British Empire after the formal abolition of first the slave trade then, in some jurisdictions, chattel slavery). I tend to find the books I need are indeed quite pricey. The British library even said that it did not have any such books and did I want books on slavery instead? The history of British political censorship and official secrecy is likewise suppressed; the extent of official secrecy is itself a secret. I’m not sure if our host will one day be emancipated from a lifetime of official silence due to becoming a citizen of new state.
Charles has questions to answer concerning:
“Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/world/europe/prince-charles-peter-ball.html
Britain’s most prolific paedophile Jimmy Savile and America’s most prolific paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (ably assisted by Ghislaine Maxwell).
The former close friends with Royal Brother A; the latter close friends with Royal Brother B.
Clever schemes, obviously — which explains the improbable “coincidence” of 2 brothers both being separately targeted by the most prolific paedophiles of 2 different continents in partially-overlapping time periods — but why were MI5 and Special Branch/SO14 either *complicit* in these 2 schemes (since they didn’t disrupt the royal brothers’ dangerous friendships), or else inexplicably *inept* at doing background checks on the close friends of royalty (since they didn’t disrupt the royal brothers’ dangerous friendships) ?
The only way for the security and police agencies *not* to have been either complicit in the schemes, or inexplicably inept at doing background checks, would be if the agencies *did*, in fact, warn the royal brothers about their dangerous paedophilic friends… but Charles and Andrew overruled the agencies’ warnings.
All of which begs the further question of why the likes of Savile, Ball, Epstein, Maxwell and others saw in the royal brothers such “easy targets” for deceiving in the first place … if deceived indeed the royal brothers were.
Are Charles and Andrew really so monumentally stupid as to not see what was happening under their proverbial noses?
Or was something else going on? For example, that Savile, Ball, Epstein and Maxwell may have already possessed “dirt” on the royal brothers *prior to* identifying the royal brothers as suitable targets for their schemes? Savile was, after all, reportedly introduced to Charles by the alleged paedophile Lord Mountbatten. And Prince Andrew — according to the investigative reporting of Ireland’s “Village Magazine” — had a strange and long history with the paeodphile Lord Janner.
Did you really mean ‘prolific’, in the multiple times you used it there?
Or might ‘infamous’ or (bending the definition somewhat) ‘notorious’ be the term you wanted?
I don’t think the word ‘prolific’ really means what you think it means.
Prolific Offenders – Defining a Prolific Offender
“ A basic definition means a prolific offender must have multiple offences resulting in convictions or cautions in their criminal career history.”
I suspect Savile racked up a number of cautions for the legion of offences committed over the course of his criminal career, even if some or all were “unofficial” and did not, sadly, result in convictions. Though of course it seems probable that he would been convicted on multiple historical counts of abuse had he lived a few more years. Epstein had a 2008 conviction and was scheduled to face trial on more charges at the time of his death. I apologise if I use the term imprecisely. It is true that Savile escaped convictions during his lifetime and that Maxwell was only convicted a couple of years after her friendship with Andrew (we presume) ended.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/659655/prolific-offenders-2017.pdf
“Notably, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Service released a joint report in 2013 which stated that Savile had been a ***prolific abuser***, sexually assaulting up to 500 people, the majority of whom were young girls.”
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jimmy-Savile
“There will come a day when we realize Jeffrey Epstein was ***the most prolific pedophile*** this country has ever known,”
https://www.republicanleader.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ABC-News-Letter.pdf
Sure. And how do you know for a fact these two individuals are THE MOST prolific offenders, in the UK and US respectively, as you asserted?
By the way, “begging the question” doesn’t mean quite what you think it means either.
@glenn_nl
I beg to differ.
MF:
“I beg to differ.”
I am sorry, you are simply wrong.
There is absolutely no way you can know these two were “the most prolific”. The actual winner in that category might never come to light, might well have been a Catholic priest, someone whose deeds were covered up, or a cult leader.
The best you can really say is that these are the most famous, or suspected, since Saville didn’t actually go to trial, unfortunately. In fact, neither of them had an opportunity (and given sufficient motivation, of course) to rat out a few of their mates, who might well have been even worse. That’s how things work, particularly in the USA, where you give up someone higher up the chain for a lighter sentence.
Anyway – unless you have God-like knowledge, you cannot know these were the most prolific, and you’re making yourself look silly by maintaining that you do. Which was not my intention, fwiw.
Martin Freeman
Yes, the British royal family has an exceptional tolerance of paedophilia (to say the very least) going back generations. They’re secure in the knowledge they will never be held to account because Britain’s political class shares their relaxed attitude to the practice. Look at the disappearance of any attempts to investigate elite politicians’ child abuse rings, Tory outrage at any suggestion Starmer let Jimmy Savile off the hook, etc. They were unanimous in their approval of the Queen giving £12 million of taxpayer money to a lady the Duke of York had never met, for something he never did. Not one murmour of protest in the chamber of democracy. The monsters know that in this country they have a green light. Similar in EU/NATO circles if you look into the Dutroux case in Belgium and of course the Epstein ring in the USA.
King Charles’s staff given redundancy notices during church service for dead Queen. Clearly the “respect” only flows in one direction.
Shades of P & O.
There’s a certain lack of perspective and proportion here.
OK, we are all (or nearly all) republicans. We agree that the monarchy is an outdated institution that should be abolished. Fine.
But how high does it rank on a list of the most important issues of the day? The rituals around the monarchy are mostly harmless. The hangers-on (a lot of people related to the monarch get subsidised housing etc) are an unnecessary expense, but trivial compared with, say, the military budget.
Much more important are:
(1) The unelected House of Lords can actually affect the progress of legislation, which is outrageous.
(2) The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 aims to eliminate the right to effective protest (basically, it will allow you to protest only as long as nobody notices your protest).
(3) The government can seize your property, effectively making it impossible for you to live in the UK, without even accusing you of any crime (let along charging or conviction you): see the articles about Graham Philips.
(4) Revealing serious crimes committed by the US government is harshly punished by the United States, and the UK government will do whatever the US government tells it to do to persecute a journalist who does this.
(5) The defence of ‘double jeopardy’ in criminal trials has been all but eliminated: the government has legal tricks which effectively enable it to prosecute you twice for the same crime, until you run out of money or energy to defend yourself. Etc.
On a scale of importance from 0 (least) to 100 (most), I’d rank these somewhere between 60 and 100 in seriousness. I’d rank the unnecessary ceremonies around the monarchy at about 2. Let’s not get distracted from what’s really important.
That’s odd, because all your previous contributions suggest you rank Meghan Markle’s fake blackness, “victimhood” and smears against the royal family as the most urgent issues of the age.
Not true. I suggest you read them again.
And point out exactly where any “urgency” was mentioned.
The importance of the monarchy and ceremonies is that they are an effective smoke screen for many – not for any intrinsic value.
Roger
2) and how will “protest “ be defined
How will the police in Scotland behave when a majority vote for Scottish independence
The monarchy is a blunt instrument
If the monarchy is scrapped, who’s going to sell British weapons to the Saudis? Saudi royals might not feel so comfortable doing the Sword Dance with a mere commoner. Think of all those job losses in the arms trade.
The Saudis didn’t mind about Trump. You can’t get more vulgar than that.
Yes, there is a right to peaceful protest, and not only against the arseholery of Andrew, but there are times and places for such demonstrations of emotion.
The sheer crassness of breaching the peaceful solemnity of that occasion quite certainly was a breach of the peace by any reasonable interpretation of the common usage of that phrase. I was glad to see that two nearby members of the public dragged him to the ground and held his ear to the pavement pending the rapid arrival of the polis.
The fact that the incident occurred very close to the grave of my namesake is co-incidental to my writing this post.
Police Scotland and the COPFS seem to regard the rule of law as more like guidelines.
Refer to the recent Lord Advocate Wolff’s admission of malicious prosecutions – and the subsequent – and ongoing – multi-million pound compensation payouts for us taxpayers.
Wolff has since moved on, but NOBODY was sacked for this admitted incompetent and/or corrupt behaviour. Untouchable…?
That’s the kind of government the Wee Liar wants, and so that’s the kind of government the Wee Liar gets.
Police Scotland and the prosecuting body C.O.P.F.S. have demonstrated corrupt and ultra-pro-unionist polices for a number of years.
Craig’s own Kafkaesque prosecution for ‘jigsaw’ i.d. of witnesses is a prime example of collusion by Scottish Government, Crown agents (M.I.5.) police and civil service There have been many malicious prosecutions aimed at silencing and bankrupting any nationalist minded voices over the years.
The Scottish ‘government’ led by Sturgeon has shown active hatred of ex SNP members who have rebelled against her and the benchwarmers who back her in their collusion with our subjugated state. Scotland is continued to be held down by a democratic dictatorship of English votes. Unionist/Britnat low level fascists have existed for years in Scotland. They used to be described loosely as ‘Orange’ or Rangers fans. Certainly for at least a century, with a brief period in the ’30s, when Billy Boys’ leader William Fullerton got them donning the Blackshirt mantle, they demonstrated mainly atavistic hatred of Irish and Catholics within Scotland. Since the Ref. of 2014 they have been organised and active both against Catholics as ever, but their ire is now against the broad Scottish Indy supporting population.
Their violent and aggressive politicised behaviour first appeared fully formed on Sept 19th, 2014, when the Ref. being lost to the concerted lies of the ‘Better Together’ campaign, they arrived in their hundreds bedecked with Union Jacks, rangers’ regalia and proceeded to beat up the disparate and disorganised youngsters still mourning the defeat in Glasgow’s George Square. The organised and deliberate attack on men, women and children by these loyalists was hopelessly ‘defended’ by the Police. An abiding image is of two sisters holding a Saltire flag in front of the scabrous hordes, only to be knocked down and the flag torn from them to be despoiled.
No ringleaders were arrested and charged with planning this disorder. Since then, there have been similar scenes, again in George Sq. with the so-called ‘Union Bears’ a rangers’ supporting organisation with links to the Ulster paramilitaries being allowed to march on mass with black masks shepherded by unconcerned police. Now, the first attempt for the ‘Yes’ campaign, unaligned to Sturgeon’s cabal to get together in George Sq. on this Sunday has been ‘postponed’ due to concerns for the ‘safety’ of Alec Salmond and fellow ‘Yessers’. This comes from Police Scotland’s chief, Sir Ian Livingstone.
This admission by an individual in charge of the biggest police force outside London is shocking and if based on true fears for public safety is a stunning indictment of either Police Scotland’s abject uselessness or its craven politicised control by Sturgeon and her handlers. I believe it to be the latter and it seems now that any civil demonstration by Scots opposed to British rule either parliamentary or Monarchy based is verboten and consequently, we are entering a very dark place in our history.
Lochside, I agree with a lot you say but there is zero proof that Nicola Sturgeon is working against Scottish independence or that she uses the Scottish police force against Scottish Independence. I have heard others say this but I do not believe it. I think it’s panic setting in now that so much of Scottish independence hangs on what Nicola Sturgeon and SNP do to lead a successful independence campaign.
Media Lens article on one of the most intense propaganda blitzes in British history:
Imposed Insanity – Royalty, Propaganda And The Coming Catastrophe
https://www.medialens.org/2022/imposed-insanity-royalty-propaganda-and-the-coming-catastrophe/
Of course you (and the article you link to) are right. The propaganda blitz is a screen, a distraction, a conjuror’s trick to take our attention from the things that really matter.
And oh boy, is it working! On republicans as well as royalists!
Forget about Charles III, the comic-opera ceremonies etc. They are not important, they are the smokescreen, the matador’s muleta that distracts the bull while he wields the sword – or in this case, while the politicians gut our civil liberties.
You clearly didn’t read it because it says nothing of the sort. And why would it? The politicians had no need to use the Queen’s death as a distraction. All their nefarious legislation passed into law months ago, with barely a peep of protest. And this period of fake mourning isn’t being used to pass any more legislation because the politicians have all been awarded another long holiday til the middle of October.
No, despite your own lame effort to distract, the purpose of this tsunami of royalist propaganda is to legitimise and prop up your pathetic monarchy and ludicrous king in a moment of extreme peril for the institution. Read the article.
Of course I read the article. My comment was not paraphrasing the article, it was commenting on it. That’s what comments do.
Not sure why you write “your pathetic monarchy”. I don’t live in the UK and if you think I’m a royalist, you haven’t read any of my comments.
Great article, Thanks.
I think of my grandfather, who having been born in the 1890s, was called up and served in France in WW1 and 2.
He laid his life on the line for “King and Country”, twice, but before during and after, he worked as a loco driver down the pit.
In other words, he gained zero for the risk he was obliged to take.
Meanwhile, the royals gave up their German titles in 1917, when it became obvious the Germans were gonna lose WW1.
Then there’s those photos from between the wars of the recently deceased being instructed in the Nazi salute by her, aunt and uncle was it?
God bless my grandad.
As for the other lot, well, what can I say?
Indeed John, a German aristocratic family paraded as the heart and soul of Britain. Ongoing silliness beyond words.
They’re only German if you are slavishly patriarchal. Queen Elizabeth’s mother was English, and her grandmother and great grandmother on her father’s side were Danish. Prince Philip was half Danish and Diana was English, as is Princess Katherine.
You clearly do not know of the story about “Queen Elizabeth’s mother” during the royal tour of empire in 1947. Visiting South Africa she and her husband were introduced to a lineup of locals. One, an old Boer spat on the ground and remarked “I hate the English”.
Quick as a flash she replied “Oh I do so agree. You see I’m Scottish!”
My apologies to the Queen Mum. Still not German, though.
They were only Danish and not German if you insist on the precise details of a border change in the 19th century.
Very much feels like the Daily Mail has hired a few thousand hands for its comments section.
A Modest Proposal.
That we refer to the ‘incumbent on the throne’ from now on as ‘Big-Ears’. This is not a piece of childish name-calling – this is to deny the clown of any pretensions to dignity, where, if he is indulged, he will only gain more credibility.
You can be arrested in U.K. for insulting royalty
I think the offences of sedition and lease-making were eventually abolished in Scottish legislation in 2010:
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/part/2/crossheading/abolition-of-offences-of-sedition-and-leasingmaking
although I am not sure why it took so long, unless the Queen herself opposed the change.
Actually it does seem to me that attacking Charles as a person is childish. We should abolish the institution of monarchy; Charles has done nothing wrong that he deserves to be pilloried for; in a way he is a victim of the whole charade, because he never had any real choice about what to do with his life, and comes to the throne at a time when it has no real function or meaning.
Jams, FYI in Scotland we say ‘Jug Lugs’…. 😉
I checked Wikipedia for background on what happened at Japanese Emperor (Shōwa) Hirohito’s funeral, which said there were limited protests, about four arrests, and only 3 foreign states refused to send representatives. This linked to a page on the Chrysanthemum taboo (don’t talk idly about or criticise Emperor or family), and it is interesting what the Sun reportedly said:
“Hell’s Waiting for this Truly Evil Emperor” and “Let the Bastard Rot in Hell”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysanthemum_taboo
The Scottish Sun these past few days, however, seems to be tutting about the ‘disrespect’ shown the British (also war criminal) Queen. What might it say if Japanese news coverage said “Hell’s Waiting for this Truly Evil Queen” and “Let the Biddy Rot in Hell”?
You may not have had any response yet, but Tim Rideout has received his from the SNP.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2022/09/15/the-strange-world-of-the-snp-member-conduct-committee/
It is not surprising England’s elites – whether conservative or liberal – won’t tolerate plebs heckling royalty. The monarchy is now the only thing they have left to puff themselves up about. The empire is long gone; they have been shut out of the EU by the plebs and are being led by Liz Truss. Pundits of both stripes are raging that the New York Times has dared question and deride their charade. But the only real surprise for me in all this is the instinctual servility of Scottish nationalist politicians to a new English king. It makes for very uncomfortable and pretty depressing viewing.
He is not an “English king”. He is a British king.
The union of the crowns was created by a Scottish king, not an English king.
Forget the fantasy crap about England colonising Scotland. That’s the opposite of what happened with both the union of the crowns and the union of the parliaments. Both were carried out by Scotsmen, not Englishmen.
He’s comedically upper crust English, of German heritage. Nothing Scottish there whatsoever. Just as significantly, an unelected noble overlord, leech and landlord who views ordinary people as less than cockroaches.
“of German heritage”
George V was half Danish, as was Charles’s father. George VI was three quarters Danish and his wife was English. That makes Charles more Danish than anything else. Saying that Queen Elizabeth is German is like saying that someone with one African great grandparent is Black.
Quite sensible they should be top of the pile over here. Have you ever considered how they would regard you?
As British, I suspect.
Bayard, are you sure George V was half Danish? You should check lineage. for examples your Danes and Greeks belong to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Gl%C3%BCcksburg. Sounds very German to me and of course Danish.
From your link “The family takes its ducal name from Glücksburg, a small coastal town in Schleswig, on the southern, German side of the fjord of Flensburg that divides Germany from Denmark.” The southern Danes are going to be pretty indistinguishable from the northern Germans. It’s the same anywhere where you don’t have the sea as a border, so, to the extent you can distinguish German from Dane at all, the late Queen’s grandmother and one great grandmother were Danish.
Bayard
I imagine you’re a contributor to Pedant’s Corner in Private Eye. They’re German.
“They’re German.”
If you insist that the Danish royal family is German because they have a German name, yes they are, or to be precise, Charles is. William is more than half English and his son is more than three quarters English.
Police Scotland officers who arrested a woman in Edinburgh who held up a placard demonstrating against the monarchy, felt embarrassed about the arrest, and they themselves thought the arrest was unlawful, however their superiors made them arrest the woman, in what can only be described as an attack on the freedom speech.
Police Scotland has now switched their arrest from sporting a placard, to breach of the peace, even though the woman never spoke whilst holding the placard aloft.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/09/13/anti-royal-protester-even-police-doubted-arrest-legal/