Scandal

The #IAmSoldierX mutiny

3CEB157F-3BA8-4F59-BD71-44577670BA96.jpeg

In the last two weeks the #IAMSOLDIERX campaign against terrorism has caught on like a firestorm in the UK. Numerous squaddies have been placed under investigation by the MoD for taking a selfie with Tommy Robinson who just happened to be in the same highway service area. One has been discharged.

Now serving soldiers and veterans are posting 1,000s of their own pictures with the above hashtag to protest the MoD’s bending to political correctness. Around 200,000 have signed a petition on http://www.StandWithOurLads.com to show the MoD they are against limp wristed folding to complaints made by minority groups who just happen to abhor Robinson.

Putting any personal bias against Robinson to one side, we should ask ourselves why he has two best selling books (which point to a two tier police state) on Amazon UK? He is no saint and admits as much. Yet he questions the double standards. They are pretty blatant.

Ask why a bunch of squaddies wanted a selfie with him? Do we presume that the couple of dozen 17yos in the picture who joined the army to defend their country are alt-right by wanting a picture with a celebrity with a bad boy image? We’d be hard pressed to find any 17yo turn down an opportunity to get a selfie with the famous. A selfie with a David Beckham? He was red carded in a World Cup. Bad role model.

What if it was Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols? Would that infer squaddies were anarchists? Would they discharge troops for taking a selfie with Katie Price (aka Jordan) because a bunch of feminists complained that wanting a snap with a buxom former Page 3 girl was irrefutable grounds of inappropriate exploitation of women? Where do they draw a line?

How many times did we see UK armed forces appear on Top Gear? Jeremy Clarkson has said some pretty outrageous politically incorrect things in his time, even one which poked fun at terrorists. No repercussions…or is it Top Gear’s audience reach makes for such a great recruiting tool? The soldiers he promoted on the show loved the way he pushed their service.

Could it be the armed forces respect Robinson’s bravery (prison terms, death threats in/outside jail and kangaroo court trials) to call out gross injustices (e.g. grooming gangs) and government cover ups which turned a blind eye to 11-12yo girls being raped because they feared being thought of as racist?

CM read the entire 200 page Rotherham investigation. You can read the summarized  horror here. Robinson is not wrong in his fight over grooming gangs even if one questions his methods or dislikes his brutal delivery.

The BBC recently took up the exact same story which Robinson had spoken of for over a decade. He was pilloried for all that time as a far right wing racist for pointing out this black mark on the judiciary and constabulary. Only now does the mainstream media declare it safe ground after the event to report on it.

What of the 1000s of girls who have been permanently psychologically damaged because of political correctness? Are these girls a worthy sacrifice in defence of diversity? Labour MP Naz Shah tweeted that “these abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere should shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.”

The Rotherham Inquiry showed evidence that the police deemed many of these underage girls unworthy of protection. The councils had known about it for decades yet chose silence for the sake of inclusion. It is all documented. It should make your blood boil. Arresting fathers for trespassing while trying to rescue their daughters from rape dens. It is absurd.

The majority of the grooming gangs in the UK have been Pakistani Muslim men. It is a fact.

Does it mean all Pakistani Muslims should be held under suspicion of being associated? Not at all. One could argue that the very political correctness which tries to protect them from being tied to such abhorrent behaviour makes it worse. The authorities would be far better placed to work with the affected communities to publicly out the perpetrators and show a united front that such behaviour won’t be tolerated under any circumstances.

Winning hearts and minds comes from collective purpose, not smoke and mirrors. Otherwise it becomes easy (rightly or wrongly) for people to jump to conclusions that sweeping it under the carpet is less hassle for law makers. Which is what is happening.

Others grooming gangs have been of Eastern European extraction. There have been white child sex traffickers too. It doesn’t matter who have perpetrated these acts – they should equally be dealt with under the law of the land. These squaddies would likely hold all of them with the same contempt. It is more than likely Robinson’s beliefs resonate against the soft approach to dealing with serious widespread problems. Failure to do so will lead to vigilantism which we saw with the Guardian Angels in New York in the 1980s.

There is a vigilante group in the UK operating since 2016 called Guardians of The North which lures online sexual predators and films them when making their scheduled encounter to engage in underage sex. 205 captured. 101 convictions. The videos are compelling. The excuses and denials are telling. We should applaud their dedication.

Why do they feel the need to operate? They claim the police are under budget and stretched so see a need to fill the void.

CM is not a vet and never served but the clear message from every person met that is or has been ‘behind the wire’ are all about the defence of freedom, be it speech, culture, religion or anything else. As long as laws are dispensed equally without fear or favour they’re content. If they see gross double standards or rigged application of justice they feel it betrays every reason they joined.

To have some young cadets face possible discharge for being in a photo is hardly a crime. Did the MoD teach these kids who they could and couldn’t take selfies with? There are rules and regulations over what is acceptable behaviour in the military. The photo doesn’t display them making Nazi salutes, holding offensive banners or anything remotely pushing hatred against any minority. .

F65A4BB0-C923-4B4F-9889-283FA6D37C30.jpeg

Does the MoD truly understand the morale of troops and veterans alike? There were 8 UK veteran suicides last week alone. There have been 42 this year alone in the UK. These Soldiers have also been posting pictures of the squalid conditions they live in, ones which prisoners would get immediate rectification were it discovered their basic amenities were in such disrepair. Many soldiers say morale in the UK forces is next to mix existent. This won’t help.

The whole saga is so sad. Who would have thought a bunch of squaddies would be slaughtered by selfie? Is this the way we treat our brave military souls? They deserve much better. The victims of sexual slavery deserve to have their story told to point out why diversity isn’t always as wonderful as the activists/apparatchiks would have us believe.

This movement seems to have momentum. How will the state react when so many that serve their country have had enough!?

The scariest part of the IPCC’s 2030 forecast isn’t actually the science

06503F53-DA2A-4426-8ECD-7F7794A84E6B.jpeg

Before we read into the validity about how we’re doomed before 2030 if we do not strictly adhere to the preachings of the UNIPCC’s latest gloomy climate bible, this is far more compelling

The Delinquent Teenager, written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.”

Other issues she uncovers go as far as to say that approximately 1/3rd of the sources for the IPCC come from magazines, press releases and unpublished scientific papers. It also tables corruption, scandals, and conflicts of interest. The Summary for Policy Makers (i.e. our leaders) is compiled by bureaucrats not scientists and often completed before the articles they actually summarise are made available.

She writes:

Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example. In 1992 Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author. Klein’s online biography tells us that, since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. On three of those occasions, beginning in 1997, he served as a coordinating lead author. This means that Klein was promoted to the IPCC’s most senior author role at age 28 – six years prior to the 2003 completion of his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts…

Or

Nor is he an isolated case. Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his Masters in 2001. How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Nor is it the only one. Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services. It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, b) lacked a Masters degree, and c) was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.

Or this

Sari Kovats, currently a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is an even more egregious example. She didn’t earn her PhD until 2010. Yet back in 1994 – 16 years prior to that event and three years before her first academic paper was published – Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. In total, Kovats has been an IPCC lead author twice and a contributing author once – all long before she’d completed her PhD.

One of CM’s favourite passages though is when one of the expert reviewers noticed “in a particular section of the report, the IPCC was basing its arguments on two research papers that hadn’t yet been published. In itself, this should ring alarm bells. Since the wider scientific community had been given no opportunity to scrutinize them, it was surely premature to consider.”

So we are expected to fork over billions of dollars to defend this junk science?The biggest battle the scientific community faces is the damage done by the fraudulent data manipulation. The scandals are too numerous to mention. If a fInancial industry pundit missed 98% of the time they’d be fired.

Maybe the trick is to make regulations that will lead to fines, jail sentences and stripping of credentials (such as the finance industry) should scientists be caught fiddling the books. Afterall isn’t inappropriately wasting taxpayers money through junk research just as bad as  torching investors’ hard earned cash via insider trading?

Were such laws passed we would soon see alarmism paint a far less hysterical position.  As it stands the UN shows once again why it needs defunding. Afterall they thought Robert Mugabe would make a good ambassador for WHO. With judgement like that who’d doubt their credibility?

Musk flips the ‘bird’ at the SEC

E1CA948E-BE24-4AD1-8F39-139CB3CD4BBB.jpeg

Tesla shareholders must wish Elon Musk would be as silent as his products. It seems the Tesla CEO has learnt nothing from his $20mn fine. Given that Tesla is still under investigation for other reporting  matters, it seems unprofessional to bait the SEC when shareholders want to see stability at the helm. Musk tweeted,

Just want to that the Shortseller Enrichment Commission is doing incredible work. And the name change is so on point!,”

Just further evidence this CEO has no wish to listen to his board or interact with them in a way that promotes best practice corporate governance. It’s still a one man band. The irony of the tweet is that the SEC’s leniency allowed him to stay at the top causing a 17% jump on the settlement.

Even worse Paragraph 13 of his settlement with the SEC requires him to seek board oversight of any public communications although has yet to be officially signed off by a judge.

In a twist or irony one shareholder tweeted back that he wasn’t just attacking the stock shorters  but the long only owners as well.

Tesla shares closed down 4.4% and indicated at $273 in the after market, a fitter 3% fall. At the start of the SEC decision last week the shares had traded as low as $267. In a sense Musk has been the Shortsellers Enrichment CEO not the SEC.

Musk’s $20mn fine covered if Tesla shares jump 59 cents

912E7DD7-5679-47F8-875A-EB491C99A93D.jpeg

$20mn sounds like a lot. It is a lot. The SEC has struck a deal with Tesla’s Elon Musk which demands he steps down as chairman and hires two independent directors. Musk owns 33.7mn shares. Technically he would only require a 59c share price rise to cover his fine. Make it a dollar to cover taxes and transaction costs plus legal fees. In any event the fine is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

To be honest, Tesla disciples will breathe a sigh of relief that their king still remains in the company and more importantly as the figure head. The question remains is whether a new chairman (from outside?) will see to it that the company is not just a one man band which has been painfully obvious with so many senior level defections. Too often the board has seemed to be an onerous burden for Musk in that his intergalactic brilliance shouldn’t require checks and balances.

Will a new chairman demand a thorough audit into business practices to date? It is likely that the SEC will expect a new chairman to lift the standards of the board to make sure that shareholders interests are properly decided with all directors heard. An independent audit should be viewed as the bare minimum. What would that unearth?

Tesla shares should bounce on this news and in aftermarket trading it is up. The question is how a new structure changes dynamics which reveal the short cuts and internal processes which have created so many reporting inconsistencies.

A new low

823FD4F7-3CEE-4824-BC1B-2FCD6CA6E400.jpeg

Today was a dark day for America. Despite both Ford & Kavanaugh putting forward seemingly credible cases, they were washed aside for the most sickening display of partisan politics. One could almost picture fiendish crowds awaiting the direction of the Roman Emperor’s thumb. How sad that the two people with the most to lose were treated as punching bags by despicable senators. Social media forums were nothing more than ferals chanting obscenities in a colosseum. Sick, sick, sick! No dignity on display.

The questions lobbed by both Democrats & Republicans for the main part were a clear display of making one’s mind up beforehand. What a farce. It was blood sport. It had little to do with seeking the “truth” rather trying to use reprehensible tactics to confirm or deny Kavanaugh. Ford & Kavanaugh may as well have been road kill. Neither side cared for the testimony of those that opposed their preformed views.

Sexual assault is a heinous crime. Period. True victims of it can suppress traumatic memories for decades. The statute of limitations may well be a convenient out clause for perpetrators in law, but sufferers shouldn’t need a deadline to reveal those inner demons. How many people have chosen to take their own life because they can’t deal with the shame?

Some basic questions.

Why would anyone be in the least bit surprised for Kavanaugh to fight his corner after being smeared with such serious defamatory accusations? Even if he is proven not guilty of those crimes his reputation has taken untold hits. If he is found to be guilty then he ought to be punished to the full extent of the law. However was his testimony any less believable? He asked for an investigation immediately after the news broke on Ford’s claim. Yet here were senators grilling him to demand one. Do they listen?

Ford too. She would be risking a great amount to go in front of a Senate Committee and lie. It is a punishable offence. Would she really seek to go into a viper pit and take the trouble to invite unsolicited attacks on her? Yet why is no one prepared to corroborate her evidence? Afraid of the repercussions?

However it struck me, as a victim of sexual assault myself at age 13, as to why Ford needed to read her story from a scripted page. I can unequivocally state every detail of what happened to me without notes. I could explain it repeatedly over and over again. Even years or decades apart, nothing would change. The face of the man that did it almost 35 years ago. Where. What time. What happened. The lot. I only came out with it several years ago but such would be the emotional pain that she shouldn’t have needed notes. Not accusing Ford of lying, just something that appeared strange to me. Real victims require no preparation. It’s burned in the memory. Was alcohol a factor? People may deal with trauma in different ways. That was the only thing that put a question mark against authenticity.

Why did Democrats not raise the other allegations against Kavanaugh with respect to indecent exposure and rape gangs until it was raised by their opposite numbers? Why did they drag Renate’s name through this hearing? A person not even party to the whole sordid affair gets her name blasted in front of millions. And discussing flatulence – could the question be so irrelevant?

The stink (no pun intended) of all of this is the timing of many allegations. As CM had written earlier, Feinstein seemed to pull this joker out of the pack to cause maximum damage to Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Had she been a true fighter for the rights of supposed rape victims, why wouldn’t she seek to immediately take it in closed session to protect confidentiality of Ford and do the right thing. No, the letter was leaked to the press and all of a sudden Ford was thrust into the boiling cauldron. There was plenty of time to act.

Yet Grassley and other senators rattling off the words of former Senator Joe Biden and his claim of the irrelevance of FBI investigations was a futile attempt to confirm their man. Once again, it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh or Ford. To be honest one had to feel for Kavanaugh at times in that he was not after platitudes from Republicans. He wants his name cleared and undoubtedly wants his reputation restored. I defy anyone accused of such horrible things not to feel upset.

CM, like most are none the wiser on guilt. So many had made up their minds well beforehand. The only thing absolutely for certain was the unbecoming behaviour of that rabble. It was utterly disgusting. Neither side could claim any victory, let alone Phyrric.

The only thing anyone should be praying for is to never witness something so appalling again. Justice should be served through the correct procedures. Yet politicians only proved today that they are utterly self serving and more evident was the wake up call for all Americans about those who supposedly represent them.

Yale Law School students fail their most important test

A3ACD964-7108-4787-8473-5EC3B95F9D72.jpeg

Yale Law School is supposed to be one of the most prestigious places one can graduate. However the multitude of students who staged a sit down protest over Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct just failed one of the most important tests in the very subject they wish to practice – the presumption of innocence.

Despite holding next to no credible evidence to base their judgement at this stage nor have any witnesses come forward, these students have shown blind prejudice. It may well turn out that Kavanaugh is found guilty of the allegations. However he like they are equal under the law until proven guilty.

Nonetheless it seems these students have no compunction. They are clearly so poisoned with partisan politics that they are willing to convict a potentially innocent man of a crime he may not have committed. These students are the very same future justices they vehemently protest in the man they attack.

Or could it be they are guilty of being irrational teenagers/millennials at university who think social justice allows for a kangaroo court? So devoid of understanding how the real world works. Either way, their protest shows how brainwashed and lacking in the ability to think for themselves to stage a protest based on such flimsy evidence which has conveniently rolled out to stall his confirmation hearing.

Maybe they’d dazzle their professors by stating their concerns in “law” in what they’d be looking for to ensure “both” sides of the story we’re heard? Or at the very least how they’d represent either side based on the evidence to date? Alas, no. Best just jump on the despicable Democrats band wagon and wish Kavanaugh gets smeared so he isn’t confirmed as a SCJ (the real aim).

While in no way justifying sexual harassment/assault on any level, looking back over CM’s university days three decades ago should witnessing the Forestry students conduct drinking games while sitting stark naked in the refectory and drinking their own vomit from an old Adidas Rome sneaker or even worse “animal acts”  to get back in the game worthy of a full police investigation? Or do we put it down to kids being stupid as many get their first grips with alcohol? No one in CM’s year of students (male or female) who saw it ever made a big deal of it then or now. We most likely laughed at the cringeworthy nature of it all.

Yet this is the future. Shame on the Yale Law Faculty for not teaching these kids the most important values of fair trials. Perhaps evidence of how the professors could be more radical than the students. True colours?

Kavanaugh may yet be found guilty but at the very least let him and Christine Blasey Ford set out their evidence.

Finally, will  these same students protest if Ford is outed as lying? Of course not!

Feinstein’s timing truly defending the rights of a sexual assault victim?

FFC44C27-733C-40EB-B3C9-D45A89939278.jpeg

There is absolutely nothing right about sexual harassment of any kind. CM wrote extensively here on the subject last year. CM also warned of the dangers of #MeToo turning into baseless witch hunts that could permanently stain the character of otherwise innocent people. CM contends that false claims should be equally punishable under the law to prevent false claims getting air.

Whether Supreme Court Justice-in waiting Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of harassment 36 years ago is nothing more than an allegation at this stage. All claims should be heard under the legal framework. However studying the timeline of events, there is a touch of convenience in Senator Diane Feinstein’s use of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation letter.

Kavanaugh’s announcement as SC nominee was made mid July, 2018. Ford documented her supposed harassment encounter in a letter to Feinstein two weeks later, dated July 30th. Yet it would appear Feinstein sat on this nugget til September in order to maximize its utility to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation if all other political stunts failed. With any luck she can drag an FBI investigation into the mid-terms (i.e. the real goal).

If Feinstein truly wanted to defend the rights of a supposed sexual harassment victim, surely she should have acted immediately? No doubt she would need a bit of time to discuss with lawyers to understand if this constituted substantial evidence but sexual harassment is a serious claim and crime. Surely the united forces within the Democratic Party could summon the resources to expedite the allegation and use its validity to block.

As the party of supposed social values, what better way to derail the candidate than to release a real claim ASAP after legal checks and balances, including meeting the openly Trump hating Democratic professor were completed. Provided the evidence was incontrovertible it would sell itself. Could it be that the evidence is so sketchy that Feinstein knew it only served as a stalling tactic, hence delaying it by 6 weeks? This says more about the moral compass of the Democrats than Ford.

It seems that Ford does not want to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee until the FBI investigation. Yet the FBI will investigate what? The crime scene is 36 years old. Her recollection is vague at best. Interviewing people who were likely underage kids who were drunk at a party

Alas, as all of the stunts from Democrats, including Cory Booker admitting he may lose his position for leaking certain documents which turned out to support Kavanaugh not being racist, they pull out claims of sexual misconduct, in the hope it drags the confirmation beyond the Novemeber elections whereby a potential blue wave will potentially allow them to block Trump’s choice. Tactically a shrewd move, but utterly disgusting to true victims if proved untrue.

There is no reason to fault the Democrats wish to block a Republican choice for a vacant SCJ seat (which by the way was on the 2016 ballot given the subject was raised in the presidential debates because it was the first time since Eisenhower that an SCJ seat was empty at election time) on the basis of supposed conflicts in convictions and beliefs. No doubt the Republicans would do likewise. Yet citizens were given the chance to vote on a SC judge with their presidential choice. The names were all out there.

Unfortunately, to use a sexual assault allegation based on sketchy information given by the accuser who admits she doesn’t remember much 36 years ago is utterly reprehensible if the claims turn out to be false. There will be no surprise if the Dems get their goal achieved that Ford will quietly withdraw her claims.

Let’s be perfectly clear. If Kavanaugh is guilty of such a serious crime then he is unfit to serve on a SC bench. Should Ford’s claim turn out to be completely baseless then the Dems will reveal themselves as morally bankrupt to use such a tactic to besmirch someone’s reputation. The timing of the letter is convenient to say the least.

Is this the way forward? Everything that doesn’t stand on its merits or via democratic process will somehow be stopped by claims of sexual impropriety?

In this battle the only thing everyone should be united behind is that “justice” is properly served for the right reasons. Certainly not to dish up political character assassinations for convenience.

True victims tend to bottle trauma for substantial periods, usually decades. Yet rarely would they openly come out on a whim and chuck around claims which don’t help their own healing process.