Itz not the ‘Kutz’: Its people not doing their jobs correctly

Baroness Shami Chakrabati (title awarded for services ((in every sense of the word)) to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party) was being asked on BBC Today about the standards for police and the Crown Prosecution Service. As I normally give her a rather grudging respect, precisely because she is a lawyer, and rather a good one as well; I was expecting a straight answer to a straight question, which was whether the three rape cases whose prosecutions fell apart after late disclosure of evidence to the defence team was a ‘one-off’; or whether they were just the tip of a wider, national problem. Her reply, which should have been either the police were at fault in not doing their jobs correctly in the three cases under review; or there was a wider problem, which had to be addressed: was in fact a long, drawn-out splurge about ‘THE KUTZ’, as well as ‘OSSTERITY, LIKE’, and the awful way that the Police, as well as the C.P.S. are struggling with an overload of work because they aren’t getting enough money, and not enough people to do the work: and how awful the Tories are!’


Well, I’m sorry, Dame Shazzam, but you lost my attention after the first syllables of ‘THE KUTZ’; which is a pity, because you had some pretty good points when you were still an honest individual, working for Liberty, ; instead of a shameless shill for Corbyn’s Commies and Lefty radicals.


Shame about that; pet!

The 11 min. 17 secs. record of 32 completely-avoidable deaths.

I have written before on this blogsite of the sinking of the El Faro, the Jacksonville-Puerto Rico veteran vessel, and her sinking, purely and solely at the hand of her Captain.

Before I travel further into the whys and wherefores of those tragic seafaring deaths, a word about the role of Captain. In the mercantile laws of every seagoing nation, from time immemorial, The Captain, the Master is the Person in Authority, His word is Law, he can abuse a crew, he can do anything he pleases when in International waters to further the passage of his ship: on every seagoing vessel whose command is licensed by the Law, He makes the decisions, and no-one can lawfully go against them.

In the video which I post at the base of this essay, the off-screen commentator; voice deliberately monotone and level; is armed with electronic evidence of the Master’s decisions, target courses, and times when certain commands were issued; or not, as the case may be: the foolhardy manner in which he chose to take on a HURRICANE;  because he knew better; he knew that ALL maritime advice was contrary to the route he took, to the decisions to proceed on a course which took him right into the path of a Cat. 3 HURRICANE; with 110 m.p.h. winds, and waves piling thirty-forty-fifty feet high at peak. He knew better than literally thousands of Master Mariners who would have turned back, and doubled up his mooring ropes and arranged for more lines out, back in Jacksonville, rather than attempt to keep to Tote Maritime’s timetable. He didn’t murder the crew, there was no planning, no sense or need; but there was plenty of evidence that he received some weather advisories on time, some later, at least one which sat on his computer for five hours before downloading and copying to the bridge. He did not murder those crew members, but he was guilty of 32 counts of manslaughter, and one count of suicide (his own)!

I have sailed on the outskirts of an Atlantic hurricane, and have also witnessed the truly awe-inspiring aftermath of a typhoon off Taiwan, where the peaks between rollers must have measured half-a-mile: I have seen a tiny sample of truly gigantic storms, but our Deck Officers and Captains had every possibility laid out, with the then technology before satellite forecasting became generally available in the 1970’s. They laid all possibilities out, all possible routes were discussed, and it was always a meeting of minds which agreed a route towards bypassing a storm.

I have seen the future: and I worry!

I drove out early, bypassing the morning rush-hour queues with a well-travelled shortcut; pausing only to marvel at the ‘Canaletto’-like array of sunlit clouds as the sun arose. It was truly beautiful; amazing beyond words: and it is only at times like that that I wish that I was blessed with the spirit of poetry imbued within my veins, heart and mind. A couple of drivers actually pulled into a side space, so that they might photograph that amazing sight; I had to push on for an appointment, but was reluctant to do so. I have a selection of sunsets stored on my computer, but as for sunrises? Too damn early for the sheer admiration of Nature’s beauty.

I visited my son this morning, after a small check session with the GP surgery. On the couch sat, and then lay, my TWO-year-old Grandson, totally ensconced and entranced by the videos and games he was watching on his Dad’s iPad; but not only watching them; but navigating from one screen to the next; making his mind up as to whether he would stay and watch, or move on to the next. Completely in control of his tiny environment, he knew which pattern to swipe; he had learned to push past the screens which bored him, and settled on some mind-bending story of race cars.

The truly amazing thing for this 77-year-old Grandad is the manner in which he accessed the screen’s controls as though he was a ten-year veteran. The ‘worry’ in my headline? That he, and hundreds of thousand like him, will be denied the honest chance to discover things for themselves, to poke around in a muddy pond, to build a castle in the sand before the tide comes back in, and learning about majestic things, such as tides, and the power of the sea and of the moon, and gravity, all at the same time. As I said, I admire the advances in digital technology; but: a tad too soon for a magical two-year-old grandson to have access to all of this at his fingertips? I honestly do not know!

If Isaac understood, why don’t we?

If a body,  or indeed a railway train is travelling at speed, there are only two forces acting upon it; the engine’s torque, diverted through gears to the driving wheels providing the forwards motion, and inertia, which is the force attempting to keep that same railcar stationary. If a third force is then introduced, attempting to turn the railcars’ forward motion to one side, there is a set set of mathematical calculations which determines how much the railcar can turn without being overtaken by the first force, which is the momentum provided by the engine. If the momentum exceeds the mathematical certainty of the turning, or centripetal force, the rail car will come off the rails, and crash, owing to the force acting upon the railcar.


See the Wimbledon crash, where the driver fell asleep at the controls, and the speed of the railcar or tram was too great to let the railcar take the bend safely; or one of many possibilities why the Amtrak train failed, which is where the railcars’ speed was said to be possibly at least twice the set speed for the rails curving into the bend at that point.

And conscience is good!

Seems as though the only thing which makes those pesky liberals back down is the threat of legal action. The previous guidance of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, released in April, said that anyone who wanted to obtain a diploma to work in the sexual health field must “prescribe all forms of contraception”. They were challenged by many medical practitioners, as well as Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) who warned of legal action. FSRH Chief Executive Jane Hatfield said that after consulting the group’s members, it found a “wide spectrum of views”; as if they couldn’t have found this out by prior consultation, instead of attempting to ram an abortionists’ wet dream into the guidelines by stealth.

Chief Executive of CMF Dr Peter Saunders said that while the guidelines could be better, it was “a big improvement” on the previous wording.

He said: “Whatever the reason, the climb-down is most welcome and will enable many more doctors and nurses to obtain diplomas in sexual and reproductive health. That can only be good for patient care.” He remarked that the move mimicked a similar ‘change of heart’ by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) in June.

Early draft guidance by the GPhC could have forced Christians to provide access to abortifacient or hormone-blocking drugs, but, again after threats of Legal Action, the new guidance recognises pharmacists’ right “to practise in line with their religion, personal values or beliefs”.

The larger question remains: why do these characters insist on attempting to push their views, their values; onto an ever-increasingly resistant body of people whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to those oh-so-liberal-and-yet-allegedly-caring bunch of butchers at the top of the trees?

Je ne suis pas ‘Charlie’!

It is an accepted fact of Western Life that we all exist under a definite level of Censorship. No Western publication, in fact no world-wide Publication, will print or publish anything which is contrary or condemnatory to Islamic thought, Teaching or Beliefs. Why? Because the truth, which we all accept that if a Muslim tenet, or belief, or one of their prophets is ridiculed, even if true; will turn the killers loose upon the Publishers, the Printers or those allied to the first two groups. Charlie Hebdo printed a lampoon of Mohammed and his twisted theories, and, as a direct result of that publication; twelve died and eleven injured, by machine gun and automatic pistol fire. The world united, and all the usual bullshit erupted of ‘Solidarity’ and ‘We shall not be divided’; along with all the other liberal crap spouted by virtue-signalling idiots. They marched arm-in-arm down the Champs Elysee, and everyone felt really good about the response: and the Censorship grew ever tighter!

But we now see the first co-ordinated Censorship of an American professor with Right-Wing views, who had the extreme audacity to publish an essay entitled The Case for Colonialism, published in academic journal Third World Quarterly. Immediately, the battalions of the Left rose up and demanded that not only should the article be withdrawn, the professor should be summarily fired from his University post, and eviscerated publicly for the terrible crime of offending decent people who suffered for decades under Colonial Rule. The avalanche of criticism succeeded, the article can no longer be seen online, the professor has been muted, and all can now relax: or can we?

The publisher writes:-

This Viewpoint essay has been withdrawn at the request of the academic journal editor, and in agreement with the author of the essay. Following a number of complaints, Taylor & Francis conducted a thorough investigation into the peer review process on this article. Whilst this clearly demonstrated the essay had undergone double-blind peer review, in line with the journal’s editorial policy, the journal editor has subsequently received serious and credible threats of personal violence. These threats are linked to the publication of this essay. As the publisher, we must take this seriously. Taylor & Francis has a strong and supportive duty of care to all our academic editorial teams, and this is why we are withdrawing this essay.

The essay has been deleted. I cannot locate it at all: it seems to have also been obliterated from web-cache streams, which is most instructive, as it is usually extremely difficult to scrub everything from Web-based memory, but, there again, if the Publisher has received real threats, one can but understand that the ‘Charlie’ scenario could be easily played out again, only in America, where semi-automatics are easily available to all who qualify


Muslim ferocity: or Left-wing fury; they are both the same, and we give in, because we as a Society, will not stand up for what is right, under the Law!


And where Bermuda leads: hopefully others may follow.

We are informed in the Catholic Herald that the first chink in the ‘Homosexual Marriage’ farrago has occurred in Bermuda. Seems as if the People, when asked, definitely said ‘Thus far; and no Further’ to the ‘same-sex’ battalions in that definitely-conservative (in the truest possible sense of the term) British Overseas Territory.

They had a Referendum, asking the question if the Islanders wanted to legalise Homosexual Marriage, and the Island stated “No”; but the vote was queried because only 47% of voters went to the polls.

A homosexual Bermudian and his Canadian “partner” went to the High Court, and a single judge overruled the Parliament, and stated that the pair could ‘marry’. Loud scenes of jubilation’ no doubt.

A subsequent election led to a change of government, and last week the House of Assembly passed a measure restoring the traditional definition of marriage. Domestic partnerships, a form of civil partnership, will now be available to same-sex couples instead of marriage. This is significant and encouraging news. Same-sex marriage is not irreversible. Determined public pressure can influence politicians to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

Unfortunately for we Brits, we have a Education Secretary with her own homosexual agenda, a weak Prime Minister who couldn’t stand against a 2 m.p.h. Breeze; a polyglot mob of homosexual clowns in Westminster; and a dearth of politicians who would act in concert against the ‘PinkMob’. So, in the meantime, congratulate Bermuda for seeing a return to traditional values, where Marriage has regained the lustre shed with the judgement of one man!

And the best bit? The first ‘Homosexual Marriage’ cruises were scheduled for January. A change to the law in Bermuda could be a major spanner in the works for cruise liners based in Bermuda. Bermuda-based cruise line P&O Cruises has already begun taking bookings for same-sex weddings at sea, with ceremonies beginning in January 2018.

As the company’s fleet is primarily registered in Bermuda, it was able to offer legally-recognised homosexual unions at sea under Bermudan law. No longer. Good news!