Sunday 6 October 2019


Trying to write some kind of account of the craziness that now engulfs the western world in 2019, my head is so scrambled I feel like Picasso staring at a blank canvas in 1939.  So I'm just going throw a bunch of unrelated inanimate objects together, linked by crazy faces and naughty bits.  I'll just go put a head in the corner there, and top it off with a few unexplained tits.

Inexplicably, we the UK and the USA, for decades at the forefront of progressive, compassionate, governing, have 'elected' as our leaders, two of the worst human beings ever to walk this planet.  As simple as the people of BC (Before Christ) were, they knew at least to follow the guy who preached justice and fairness for all, even for the lepers and immigrants.  The first JC, Jesus Christ was of course crucified for his socialist preachings, the present JC, Jeremy Corbyn is experiencing similar.  Christians have of course, been torturing themselves for centuries for not following the original JC at the start.  That is, not standing up to their oppressors (the Romans) more aggressively, and for accidentally assisting their oppressors in crucifying their saviour.  On the face of it, most of the blame of course lies with the Jews, Christianity was pretty niche at that time and the Jews were already the scapegoats in the ancient middle east, probably because, even before the AD Roman calendar kicked in, the disciplined, cultural hard work ethic of the Jews had (in the ancients' minds) established them as superior, elite even.  Money makers, which was bound to incite envy.

But I am not looking for a theological debate.  My question, and indeed terror, lies in how the f*ck did we, the most informed, most enlightened mass populations in history, get to a position where our two countries are being held to ransom by two sociopathic lunatics?  Has democracy gone wrong?  Because it's looking that way and alarm bells should be going off everywhere.  Both the UK and the USA are on the verge of Civil War.  And the majorities, in both countries, are fighting the rise of the extreme Right.  As in Hitler's time, the extreme right demographic rarely goes above 30%, but sadly they are the loudest and most destructive and they are supported by the richest.  And that makes it all the more repugnant. Tommy Robinson may look and sound like a representative of the working classes, but he is working on behalf of their oppressors, the Eton boys who through nature and nurture instinctively know how to get the plebs to do their dirty work.  Be in no doubt TR wants a 'class system', one in which he moves up a few notches on the social scale on the basis of being white British.  Clearly, he has never been able to scale those few notches through academia or achievement, so he has opted for kicking those he perceives to be below him, those who arrived in this world via a different geographical location.  Who knows what tf happened to him, who hurt him so badly, and very few sane people, I imagine would care, but he is a danger, who ramps up the chaos, the first in line to form a new SS, should Boris give the nod.  

Happily, this time around, the people of the US and the people of the UK are aware of the dangers of fascism and are not afraid to point out it's evils and to fight against it.  But on the flip side, both countries have demographics where education and information just isn't getting through.  They have generation after generation who swear 'the old way (whatever that might be) was better'.  I'm never quite sure if they are referring to Angleland (land of the Angles) or the hat doffing days Queen Victoria.  In the old days, the words 'but we've always done it that way' always featured in my disciplinaries and firings for some reason.  Boris is toast, all his crimes are catching up with him and he is despised by the British public, booed and jeered wherever he goes.  He is not the Emperor, he's not the Saviour, he's not the chosen one, he's a very naughty boy, who should spend the rest of his life standing in the corner for all the lies he's told.  

Mob Boss Donald Trump is being exposed hourly as a 'mob boss', a cheap two bit hood, who would sell out the USA as quickly as he sold out his ex wives and ex friends and yeah, his kids.  I doubt he has a single close friend or family member, his wife clearly despises him, his kids seem to have much to hide.  They are not even attempting to save him right now, even as the world watches every cringing, embarrassing tweet and public appearance.  That's cold.

As much fun as it is watching the downfall of these two present day monsters, I still fear that they each, will somehow survive being caught with their hands in the cookie jar.  They are committing their crimes in plain sight!  Something has got to give.  Bizarrely, at this same juncture in history, the USA and the UK are fighting to hang onto democracy because they have elected to power, leaders crazier than Hitler or Caligula.  Imagine a group of Roman senators, 'so yeah', 'these free un-enslaved people with access to every form of communication imaginable, chose tyranny and corruption over reason, logic and their own personal well being'.  'Go figure' said Seneca.  

These are tense and anxious times for all of us who are watching the news, but the hardest part for me is the 'hope', finally there is a real beacon of light within touching distance.  The UK desperately needs a genuinely strong stable leader who will reach out to every community and bring us all together.  The only leader who respects the rights of all the British people to have the European Union options put before them again.  With Jeremy Corbyn there is no fear that he will sell the NHS, London Bridge, or indeed any of the UK's assets to Donald Trump and Russian Oligarchs.  Hope is literally there, on the horizon, in the form of a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government. Where Boris Johnson has been winging it all his life, never bothering to do his homework, he is up against a man who has spent his entire life studying.  

The UK is potentially on the brink of a whole new beginning just as it was at the end of WWII, with a Labour government ready to introduce sweeping new changes that will benefit the many, not the few.  Jeremy Corbyn differs from the tory politicians who have attempted to negotiate Brexit, because he shares similar values to many of the EU leaders.  On top of which, he is a Statesman, a good communicator, he treats everyone with equal respect, he is the kind of Prime Minister we need right now to clean up the botched job the tories have made of negotiations with our European friends and allies, and to somehow restore the UK's reputation.  We may be a popular destination for hardworking, talented, immigrants who still want to come here now, but that could change.  In centuries, maybe even decades, to come,  other more progressive countries will become more appealing to those hard working, skilled and talented immigrants.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility that in years to come countries will be competing for new citizens because they simply don't have an indigenous population big enough to keep the wheels of industry and society turning over.  It is worth remembering that the Windrush generation were invited to the UK and welcomed into the British workforce.  

Watching the downfall of the US tyrant, and the UK tyrant, simultaneously, gives us a fascinating insight into the goings on of the Western governments.  I very much doubt Trump's 'quid quo pros' are anything new in the backscratching world of international politics.  Not that I want to give Trump's defence team any tips, but if they had any historians among them, it would not be hard to pull 'quid pro quos' from every government that has gone before.  The trouble with Trump's quid pro quos, are that they are blatantly just for himself.  He is also too dumb to realise that going after Joe Biden's son, takes any 'leave my kids out of it' arguments he might have had, as his enemies now hone in on the money his own kids are making out of him being the President.  He really should add Homer Simpson's 'Doh!' to every public statement he makes.  

As for our own PM, logic and reason would dictate that the tousled white head of Boris Johnson will not be emerging like a phoenix from the ashes.  He is engulfed in proven lies, personal scandals and the revelation by his own sister that is working on behalf of billionaire backers.  But I will leave the last word to the lovely lady trending on twitter so eloquently put it 'he's a filthy piece of toe rag'. She speaks for all us.  


  1. I am sure you can fill ya boots with an analysis of the Jennifer Arcuri interview today Ros.

  2. George Carlin on soft language

    Swedish Feminism = Men Pee Sitting Down

    Bjorn? Can you hear me?

    Butler Bob

    1. Hi Butler Bob, I see that my name is mentioned, so although this is rather apart from what Rosalinda is discussing now, I felt I had to answer you.

      Actually a non-issue for anybody, unless you’re a Swedish feminist, I’d say. Anyway, let us just try sort things out. First of all, it isn’t so easy to pee outside the toilet seat if you’re sitting down, which may be the reason as to why Swedish feminists, who’re getting tired of cleaning up, have it on their agenda. Another aspect refers to the inherited male habit to pee standing in order to mark territory, while being careful not be taken by surprise by the enemy.

      Moreover, public urinals in the 60s, as far as I remember, used to be everywhere, still in the UK, aren’t they? Now they’re completely gone in our country (France/Paris is trying to reintroduce them again in new shapes and forms, I’ve heard) but you’re actually free to pee both sitting or standing anywhere in Sweden, so you’re very welcome if you’re just carrying out your ”business” where there’s park, wood or at least a small area, that looks like a piece of nature and of course you’re expected to turn your back to the audience, if there’s not anything to hide behind.

      Unfortunately, some Swedish men take this practice with them to the continent forgetting where they are and have to face consequences.

      P.S Swedish feminism is “awesome”, what else can I say!

    2. Great to see you back, brother bear.

      “…it isn’t so easy to pee outside the toilet seat if you’re sitting down.”

      Yes, and that’s why in my household no man or boy is allowed to pee standing up.

      Many thanks.

      Butler Bob

  3. Jonathan Sacoolas Is Not, and Has Never Been, a Diplomat

    Butler Bob

  4. Rosalinda dear

    This may be of interest to you – Irish, Nationalism, Marxism, Capitalism, and Feminism.

    George Bernard Shaw (in the preface to John Bull’s Other Island):

    [My emphasis. T] “Nobody in Ireland of any intelligence likes Nationalism any more than a man with a broken arm likes having it set. A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation’s nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again. It will listen to no reformer, to no philosopher, to no preacher, until the demand of the nationalist is granted. It will attend to no business, however vital, except the business of unification and liberation.”

    From the back covers of Shaw’s John Bull’s Other Island:

    “According to Shaw, 'John Bull's Other Island' was written in 1904 at the request of W.B.Yeats 'as a patriotic contribution to the repertory of the Irish Literary Theatre', but when Mr Yeats read the script he rejected it, claiming that it was beyond the resources of the Abbey Theatre. In fact, for Yeats, a play which was 'uncongenial to the whole spirit of the neo-Gaelic movement' must have made uncomfortable reading, and for us today, in the light of all that has happened in the intervening years, the issues raised by the play have lost none of their urgency.”

    “While he was a great dramatist, it is possible to argue that Shaw’s prefaces are better than his plays. Certainly they are masterful expositions of his ideas, and among the finest essays in English. If there is one defining virtue in Shaw, it is his ability to ask awkward questions. He was not someone who accepted the status quo; instead, he spent the whole of his very long life in search of something better, as wit, critic, curmudgeon, and revolutionary.”

    Bernard Shaw’s The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism. 1928

    Mary O’Sullivan, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Capitalism.
    Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Business History Conference.
    pdf download at's_Guide_to_Capitalism

    Mary O’Sullivan::

    “There is a received wisdom in other Anglophone countries that Americans do not get irony. I have never been quite convinced that is true, but in preparing an address to be delivered in a country with Donald Trump as its president, I did hesitate a bit before settling on my title. It may well be that some of you thought I was making immodest suggestions about my own intelligence in proposing “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Capitalism,” and there may even be an inkling of truth in that suspicion. Nevertheless, the title is primarily intended as an ironic nod to The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, published in 1928 by the redoubtable Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw.

    Mary O’Sullivan is a professor of Economic History and the director of the Department of History, Economics, and Society at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. O’Sullivan’s research focuses on the history of capitalism, with particular attention to enterprises, industries, and financial institutions, as well as the history of economic thought with regard to profit, finance, and capital. O’Sullivan was a fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin for 2016–2017; she served as the president of the Business History Conference in 2017–2018, and she is a research member of the European Corporate Governance Institute.

    Mary writes exceedingly well, in my humble opinion. There’s Something About Mary… :)

    Do keep your feet on the ground and stay cool, please.



    1. Ah, the wonderful George Bernard Shaw, on his masterpiece Pygmalion (My Fair Lady), he swore it would never be made into a musical in his lifetime, so naturally they waited until he was deceased. He also had a bit of a love/ hate relationship with Winston Churchill. He sent a telegram to Churchill saying 'come to the opening night of my play. Bring a friend - if you have one'. Churchill replied, 'can't make the opening night, but will come to the second night - if there is one'. The 'elite' in those days were so much more refined, and indeed witty, when insulting each other!

      I have to admit I hadn't thought to read the prefaces in the work of GBS, that was a habit I didn't begin until I went into higher education and deconstructing literary texts. Knowing about the life and background of the author, and the culture that existed at that time, helps give a greater understanding of the work.

      It would seem you have given me two books to read T, so I might have to cheat and go look at the Spark Notes and reviews. In my early days on social media, I used to describe myself as a Marxist/Feminist (old AOL profile). It was around 2000, I had just graduated and still had the mindset of a newly enlightened, radical student. I was a tad older than most of my peers, but suddenly, behind the twinsets and pearls, I was 'woke' to all the injustice in the world. I had stopped saying my nightly prayers, six months into my course. I had gone through the whole 'Neo' blue pill experience (or was it the red one?), everything I had ever believed in,had been blown asunder. How had I reached that age, pushing 40, knowing so little?

      I have little opportunity to discuss Marxism and Feminism these days T, a shame, because when I was teaching it to A-level literature students, I found many novel ways to get those concepts (Marxism, feminism, romanticism (most 'isms) into their heads! I could have spent hours describing the powdered faces and wigs of the effete 18th century gentlemen, who's dandy suits, kerchiefs and navel gazing made them leaders of the Romantic Movement, but it was much easier to show them an episode of Black Adder!


    2. Willing, or Court ordered, students are one thing T, but I fear most people would shy away. They are interested in only the surface problems, not the underlying causes. Ignorant leaders like Trump appeal to ignorant people, because he speaks the same basic, one, maybe two, syllable language. 'yeah, I'm thick too', he looked down on those who have tried to educate him', just as his followers have, they are anti education, and Trump has made it OK to say that.

      Sadly, the UK has it's own equivalent, people who are actively hostile to being educated! With the rise of Trump and Johnson, how long before someone prepares a hit list of academics, just as Hitler did. It is not just apathy, it is open hostility. Every High Street is filled with fierce young women, emboldened by their Groucho Marx eyebrows and bright orange skin and star spangled talons, who would push Mary Wolstencraft into the nearest ditch!

    3. But you touched on Nationalism. Bless you for giving me so many subjects!

      As a child of the sixties, I was fortunate to grow up in a country that was still basking in the glow of winning WWII. The world still celebrated and respected the 'bulldog spirit', the British sense of justice and fair play, and we were all filled with a sense of belonging to one of the greatest countries in the world. I get the Nationalism, GB has much to proud of, we defeated the Nazis. We refused to capitulate to the demands of a fascist monster, we fought them on the beaches, and we fought them wherever they reared their ugly heads.

      Charlie Chaplin is one of my major influences (blimey, that sounds pompous), he fought them on the big screen, with custard pies and ridicule. I did a dissertation on Charlie Chaplin entitled 'The Clown Behind the Red Curtain', which I hope is still at Greenwich University somewhere. In a nutshell, CC was a fellow traveller for the Communist cause, his connections enabled him to save his vast fortune when Wall Street crashed. He was also a long time target of J.Edgar Hoover and the FBI.

      Charlie Chaplin was English (born in the same Clapham Street as myself :)), but he was not a patriot to England or the USA. Six millions Jews died in the name of Patriotism, he would reply when asked. 'Are you Jewish?', 'would it make any difference if it I was?' was another oft used answer - he wasn't btw. Extreme patriotism, nationalism - Trump's getting there, so too is Johnson, so let's just say it, becomes dark and sinister once it goes beyond 'I vow to thee my country'. I get love of country, I remember studying George Orwell's quintessential Britishness, there is so much that is good, which is why we are fortunate that people still want to come here. Remember, the day may come, when they won't.

      Maybe I'm not so into Nationalism because my blood line is most definitely not within the purebred pedigrees. A shame really, because I do find 'I vow to thee my country' very moving. My dad was Scottish, my mother Irish, and I was born in Clapham. Legally speaking, I can be Scottish, Irish or English, and coming up to having to renew my passport, English may not be my first option.

      But it is not the paperwork I am concerned about, so much as the Celtic blood that flows through my veins! I have arrived on this earth via Clapham, but I have always felt as though I have come from a long line of Celtic kilt wearers dancing around an open fire while swigging straight whiskey and singing a song about a fair lass they once met in the highlands. Scotland and Ireland were once linked geographically, I like to think they all once sat around the same camp fire singing 'Oh Danny Boy'.

      In the whole scheme of things, whereabouts you arrive in this world doesn't matter one iota. Hitler, best known as nutso leader of Germany, was actually born in Austria. Being excessively proud of the country of your birth, does, I suppose, give you a sense of belonging, a sense of being part of something bigger than yourself and your immediate family.

      From a psychological perspective, most adults grow out of their need to be part of gang, by their late teens. Their transference of love and loyalty to 'the gang' returns to themselves and their loved ones. They build 'new gangs', families and friends who share the same goals and values. They don't go it alone, they become part of a new community, one that aligns with the lives they have chosen. There is security, comfort and protection in being, forgive the bluntness, part of the herd.

    4. Nationalists prey on the 'herd' mentality. They need crowds, mobs. They want everyone speaking in unison. They alone stand up for everything 'the herd' values, the right to buy their King Edwards in pounds rather than kilos, the right to say 'Happy Christmas' and the right to live in the same street with the same neighbours (and their progeny) for evermore.

      It is this fear of foreigners that I just don't get T. My own experience of meeting foreigners, has always been enlightening and enriching, on so many levels. Being Irish and Scottish we lived in the same immigrant areas as others rejected by the 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish' signs. Growing up in a multicultural environment has been one of my greatest fortunes in life. I was as fascinated with other cultures as I am now, and it is an instant way to make new friends.

      But returning to the gang culture of nationalism, and I'm afraid that is the way I see it, it has historically been used to appeal to the worst traits of human nature. Instinctively, we are not programmed to fire spears at invaders, or lost travellers, to our shores, instinctively, we want to pick them up, rescue them, give them water and shelter. Unfortunately, we can so easily be persuaded by manipulative leaders to believe that those who come to us for help, are really coming here to conquer us and steal our land. It's an old ploy, goes right back to the Saxon days.

      Bizarrely, those fighting to hang onto their land, very rarely have any land to speak of. A one bed Council flat in an inner city tower block, is unlikely to set off a Norman invasion. What these plebs are actually fighting to protect is the rights of the ancient aristocracy to hang onto their vast estates, and all the serfs who do the work for them.

      It is apparent by now, I think, that I am opposed to Nationalism, in the freaky, ott, superior, aryan kind of way, maybe because I would be have been put on the reject pile straight away. Ok, I was white, but with brown hair, brown eyes, freckles and some sort of inbred Paddy mischievousness that I have never been able to shake off. Definitely not a blonde, blue eyed, model citizen, Aryan.

      But, like Groucho Marx (another hero), I too have never wanted to part of any club that would have me. Words like 'club', 'group', 'commitment' frighten the bejesus out of me. I think it is the fear of being dependent on someone else, or God forbid, a group, of people, to protect me. Invitations to join groups of any kind, fill me with terror. I can explain it to myself psychologically, but I can't get past it, lol.

      But back to Nationalism. Evil, horrific, genocidal, crimes, are committed in the name of Nationalism. None of us, not the Queen, not the aristocracy, not any naked newborn, owns any part of the land they were born on. We are each here on this earth via accident of birth, or even the fates intervening, but we cannot take the vast country estate, gold plated toilets or one bedroomed flats with us into the next life. We leave this world naked and unbejewelled, just as we arrived.

    5. To Nationalists I would say, there are way better things to be fighting for. The country of which you are so proud, could be so much better. The 'Great' in Britain was put there by the movers, shakers, music makers and those determined immigrants who brought their talents to our shores. Britain became great because it was a land of scientists, philosophers, explorers, writers, progressive thinkers who dared to think of what England could be. Not by shutting the rest of the world out, but by inviting them in, welcoming their new ideas, their new technology, their forward thinking.

      But I have said too much, way too much, lol. Thank you T, you have me writing again, or trying to. Now I must go find something engrossing. 'A spooky' hopefully. My ideal. Something set in a haunted house, with snow, or scrub that, lightning and thunderstorms, all locked in (obviously) and all sorts of ghosts and beasties! I have a very low bar with spooky films, set formulas and 'B' movies and fine by me :)

    6. " Thank you T, you have me writing again, or trying to. Now I must go find something engrossing."

      FGS how many times have you said that Ros? How about finishing your Christmas Cracker joke book that you were concentrating on years ago?

      In other words - I will believe it when I see it but will not be holding my breath.

    7. Wow, your reply 23:34, brought tears to my eyes, quite literally. You made me cry. Does that make you make you feel good?

    8. @14:21

      YOU’re the girl with the diamond ring
      You know how to shake that thing
      All right now, hey, hey, hey, hey
      All right now, tell me what'd

      So keep your balance. No tears, no cry. "You know the day destroys the night, night divides the day; try to run, try to hide, break on through to the other side, break on through to the other side, break on through to the other side, yeah"

      Butler Bob

    9. Anonymous 12 Oct. at 23:34

      Just enjoy the ride.

      I agree with T's "What sets Rosalinda’s blog apart is that here you get to say your piece, amicably."

      All the best Rosalinda, from one of your loyal readers.

    10. Rosalinda dear

      I owe you an apology for not having made clear what I was getting at.

      I wanted to draw your attention to two related items.

      First. The quote from Shaw’s preface to his John Bull’s Other Island.

      Second. Mary O’Sullivan’s introductory remarks to her address:
      “There is a received wisdom in other Anglophone countries that Americans do not get irony. I have never been quite convinced that is true, but in preparing an address to be delivered in a country with Donald Trump as its presidentI did hesitate a bit before settling on my title. It may well be that some of you thought I was making immodest suggestions about my own intelligence in proposing “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Capitalism,” and there may even be an inkling of truth in that suspicion. Nevertheless, the title is primarily intended as an ironic nod to The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, published in 1928 by the redoubtable Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw.”

      She continues:
      “From the 497 pages of guidance that Bernard Shaw’s book offered to the intelligent woman, one piece of advice strikes me as especially useful – to approach questions that might seem closed as if they were really open - and it has guided me in preparing my remarks. But my address is inspired too by a riposte to Bernard Shaw’s book, written by Lilian Le Mesurier, who objected to the assumptions he seemed to make about female intelligence. Her advice to the man himself was to go back to what he was good at, which was writing plays, and her advice for intelligent women, at least as I see it, was to guide themselves on socialism and capitalism.” :):)

      She goes on to tell of her childhood in Ireland. I found it very touching and thought it would be of interest to you. In my opinion, Mary’s address is a superior example of a no-nonsense presentation by an academic, a Woman, of a feminist persuasion.

      The address is an easy read. Have a go and see what you think. You won’t regret it, I’m sure :)



    11. Rosalinda dear

      It seems you might’ve overreacted. That I understand. Perhaps you were in a state of heightened sensitivity at the time. I hope you would agree that in different circumstances you would’ve simply ignored it or laughed it off.

      Today is another day.


      T ()

      And thank you for your comment, @22:09

    12. Thank you very much for your recommendations T, I am toying with the idea of writing a blog on 'feminism now', and I really should begin with the academics. Though more likely I will begin with the self proclaimed feminists, those women who use the fact that they are female to get an advantage. I'm talking Ivanka Trump, so called female entrepreneurs and must get a panic room, Jess Phillips, here.

      But I am interested in all things George Bernard Shaw T, so I will certainly check out the works you refer to :)

    13. You are right T, bless you, I think I probably was highly sensitive when I read it, for whatever reason, I can't remember now. But it was written in spite, it was intended to hurt. I don't usually publish comments that intended to hurt, because, why should I put myself through that and why give such a nasty person a platform. On this occasion, I thought no, I am going to shame you, I am going to ask you publicly, if you got the pleasure you expected by making me cry.

      Tis true, the sender of said cruel missive, didn't know whether, for once the dagger would get through, mostly I spam them. Lucky creature, don't know if it is male or female, caught me when my defences were down. Harmony was swiftly restored with a couple of episodes of Seinfeld :)

    14. @ Rosalinda Hutton14 October 2019 at 20:28

      My post 12 October 2019 at 23:34 was not written in spite, nor was it intended to hurt. It was written to point out that you have said before that you are going to write things - and have failed to do so. I provided an example.

      I do not feel shamed and did not get pleasure from making you cry - that was not my intention.

      You may consider me to be a nasty person but all I did was point out the truth - isn't the purpose of this blog to point out the truth to your avid readers?


    15. Anonymous 13 October 2019 at 22:09


      Thanks for the link. Have just now listened to the song. Good indeed.


    16. Anonymous 14 October 2019 at 22:59

      Hi, Dave

      It’s good of you to explain. Thank you.


    17. Rosalinda Hutton 14 October 2019 at 20:28




      Butler Bob

    19. 'The police believe that fugitive Ridouan Taghi is part of a "super cartel" that controls around a third of the cocaine trade in Europe, AD reports based on police documents in its possession. Other members of this "super cartel" include leaders from the Italian, Irish and Bosnian mafias, the newspaper writes.'

    20. @10:06


      Revealed: rightwing push to ban criticism of Israel on US campuses


    21. How the Trump Admin Used a Secret Livestream to Spy on Julian Assange


    22. "Israel and high-profile Jewish players also have continued to turn up like bad pennies in the Epstein case, but no one seems to be interested in pursuing that angle. Epstein clearly had contact with former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak and Epstein patrol Les Wexner also had close ties to the Jewish state and its government."

  5. That's right, Sacoolas is not a diplomat. However, he is a spy.

    1. Indeed, Jane. Thank you. at 5:47

      “We are crystal clear that she does not have the benefit of diplomatic immunity. There is no doubt in our mind.” at 1:05

      “ITV News now understands that the Foreign Office has confirmed to them [the boy’s family] that Mrs S…… is not covered by diplomatic immunity.”


    2. Hello T and Jane
      I've just read about Mrs Sacoolas, makes me so sad.

      Anne Sacoolas attempt to hide behind her husband’s non-existent ”diplomatic immunity” and her sneaking away from the scene of the accident is an illuminating example of how a narcissistic and selfish person behaves, who completely ignores the likely suffering of her victim before he died, just as she seems to ignore his parents distress and grieving. Instead she uses all available means for the purpose of escaping justice.

      There could be completely innocent explanations as to why she happened to be driving in the wrong lane. On the other hand, there cannot be any excuse whatsoever for what she did after the accident, which, in a moral sense, has made her a callous criminal. She may be traumatized of course. Perhaps we should call it ”The McCann Syndrome”

    3. @ Björn14 October 2019 at 18:20
      "There could be completely innocent explanations as to why she happened to be driving in the wrong lane. On the other hand, there cannot be any excuse whatsoever for what she did after the accident, which, in a moral sense, has made her a callous criminal. She may be traumatized of course. Perhaps we should call it ”The McCann Syndrome”"
      Can you explain what ”The McCann Syndrome” means?

    4. Hello Anonymous14 October 2019 at 23:55 and thanks for comment
      "Can you explain what ”The McCann Syndrome” means?"
      Yes I can, it means: Taking no moral or legal responsibility for one's actions.

    5. @ Björn16 October 2019 at 15:47

      You obviously have no respect for Ros's wishes that she wants to move on from the McCann case and put it behind her.

    6. Hello anon17 October 2019 at 23:13
      "You obviously have no respect for Ros's wishes that she wants to move on from the McCann case and put it behind her"

      I did not discuss the McCann case. I just introduced a new syndrome and defined it.

    7. Anonymous 17 October 2019 at 23:13

      Thank you for your comment.

      With respect, you may be right, but Rosalinda might have changed her mind somewhat.

      Perhaps Rosalinda will be so kind as to tell us what her current thinking is.


    8. “This fake “diplomatic immunity” needs to be challenged in court, but I am not sure anyone except Harry Dunn’s family has the locus to do this. Their son was killed by the wife of a spy and to avoid political embarrassment about his activities, the government has falsely connived at a status of diplomatic immunity and then pretended to be trying to get Mrs Sacoolas back. That is an awful lot to take in for people in a terrible state of grief. After losing a son, the cognitive dissonance involved in uncovering state secrets, and learning that the state is malevolent and senior ministerial office holders are liars, is a huge hurdle to surmount. The Dunn family have first to summon the will to fight it, and then to avoid the attempts to hug them in the suffocating embrace of an establishment lawyer – believe me the powers that be will be covertly thrusting one at them – who will advise them they are most likely to make progress if they rock no boats.

      The only people I know of who effectively enjoy secret diplomatic immunity are spies from CIA/NSA like Jonathon Sacoolas or from Mossad like Shai Masot. There are not any other categories of pretend diplomats having immunity, and the elaborate charade to pretend that there are is a nonsense. It must not distract from the fact that the claim that the government can grant US and Israeli intelligence agencies diplomatic immunity at will is a lie. The government is acting illegally here. There is no legislation that covers Raab in allowing Mrs Sacoolas to kill – albeit accidentally – with impunity.

      I pray both the government and Mrs Sacoolas will be brought to account. I hope Mr and Mrs Dunn find what peace they can with their loss, and are able to remember with due warmth the eighteen wonderful years that I am sure they had with their son.”

      I also hope’ as does Mr Murray, that Mr and Mrs Dunn find what peace they can with their loss, and are able to remember with due warmth the eighteen wonderful years that I am sure they had with their son.

      I’m very, very sad.



    9. I have lost interest in the Madeleine case, it would be true to say, but it is not a forbidden topic. I happen to think most people would understand the 'McCann Syndrome' reference quite easily. Gerry and Kate have not quite got off scot free, they have become almost an urban legend for child neglect, and offloading responsibility. In many people's eyes they will never be cleared, and I guess they will just have to live with it.

      I think all hope I had that Operation Grange would clear this matter up once and for all, is gone. As Goncalo Amaral once said, it will only be solved when the political will is there. I am not so bothered that the parents will never be charged, in all sorts of ways, they have suffered so much more than if they had, for example, just 'fessed up' to an accident. I doubt any one of us would want to be in their shoes.

      I personally, could not live one day without the freedom to be myself. That is the freedom to say, do and write whatever I want. If you are trying to deceive people, you do not have that freedom. For my sins, I spent my formative years in a convent where lying was essential in order to survive, not just to protect yourself, but to protect your friends. I remember lying in my bed, trembling in fear that my 'lies' would be found out. It scarred me mentally, I never wanted to feel like that again.

      My honesty has got me into trouble my entire life, see my McCann blogs, lol, but of course, it far precedes the Madeleine case. Not that I am ever blunt or coarse, heaven forbid, but I would rather be alone and ostracised than join a herd. But forgive me, I have gone back to my favourite subject, me, ha ha, but only to accentuate how imprisoning it can be having skeletons in the cupboard. I am of course speaking metaphorically and generically here should Carter Ruck still be looking in.

      I did however take a quick peek at 'latest Madeleine news' as I saw the subject revived, and there isn't any.

      - this turned into a blog :)

    10. Hi Mr T 18 October 2019 at 15:02
      Thanks T, crystal clear logic and understandable reasoning regarding the Sacoolas case. Excellent imo.

      Hi Rosalinda 19 October 2019 at 00:19
      Thanks for your clarification with regards to the McCann case.

  6. Hi Rosalinda
    just a Swedish perspective on nationalism, if someone is interested

    When I reflect on the concept of nationalism Rosalinda, all our political reforms in the 60s, which made many people become lost and estranged from their own traditions, inevitably come to my mind.

    The Anglo-Saxon culture then came as a saviour and we imagined, that we could understand it. Few people outside our own Swedish society could understood ours, not even our ”sinful lives” mediated by Ingmar Bergman in his films. So we did our best pretending to be internationalists as opposite to nationalists, hoping for recognition in the “real” world.

    I believe we did so subconsciously because we felt that we’d lost much of our own culture. I, myself have lived in an “era” when there was only a minority in our country, who thought it was worth celebrating our Swedish National Day, when the Swedish flag had almost become a symbol of racism, when Christianity had become a joke and the ruling party had almost managed to conceal its real agenda, which was to create a utopian society, where there would be no need for neither religion nor monarchy, let alone traditions reminding us of our past.

    Our great nation was to be governed by one omniscient and dominant political party telling us how to live our lives. History teaching got low priority and an entire generation became disinterested in our nation’s history. However, as we learned more about other cultures we eventually realised that we were about to lose our own, so in recent years much has been done, not by politicians, but by others, to reclaim our right and duty to learn about our own history and be proud of it, as you in the UK have always been, but, as I’ve said, it has not always been so obvious for us.

    Nationalism as a cultural unifying force within any society is by no means unhealthy, but I admit that it’s a very complex issue to discuss and as soon as it becomes used in political rhetoric, one should really be on guard. We must never forget that totalitarian states, like the Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the DDR, did not come about by virtue of their music, art, literature and philosophy, but because the ruling parties took the right to define what nationalism was supposed to represent and how it should be applied to their political agenda.

  7. Bjorn 13 October 2019 at 21:06

    Informative comment, Björn. Many thanks.

    Good wishes.


  8. @ Rosalinda Hutton11 October 2019 at 23:45

    "To Nationalists I would say, there are way better things to be fighting for. The country of which you are so proud, could be so much better. The 'Great' in Britain was put there by the movers, shakers, music makers and those determined immigrants who brought their talents to our shores. Britain became great because it was a land of scientists, philosophers, explorers, writers, progressive thinkers who dared to think of what England could be. Not by shutting the rest of the world out, but by inviting them in, welcoming their new ideas, their new technology, their forward thinking."


    Whilst I would like to agree with you - the word "Great" is not used for the reasons you state. Great is only used in this context to describe landmass/area and not achievement:

    "Great Britain (sometimes just referred to as ‘Britain’)

    Great Britain is not a country; it’s a landmass. It is known as ‘Great’ because it is the largest island in the British Isles, and houses the countries of England, Scotland and Wales within its shores.

    The name Britain derives from the Roman word Britannia, but there are two conflicting arguments about why the ‘Great’ was stuck on the front of it. The first is that it is used to distinguish Britain from its similar sounding, but much smaller French neighbour, Brittany. The second reason is due to the ego of a certain King James I, who wanted to make it abundantly clear that he wasn’t just the king of the old Roman Britain (which only included England and some of Wales), but of the entire island; thus he referred to himself as King of Great Britain.""

    There are even earlier references to Britain being called Great here:

    1. Anonymous 14 October 2019 at 22:07

      You are right. Many thanks.