The news today, 31 January 2006, is that all the Epstein files have been released (31st Jan 2026). The Times tells me that 3 million files have been released which Todd Blanche, the US Deputy Attorney General, said complies with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress passed in November mandating the release of all the files.
But The Times newspaper goes on to say that in all there are 6 million files. To quote, "At a press conference yesterday, Todd Blanche, the US Deputy Attorney General, said that more than 500 lawyers had worked to review more than 6 million pages before deciding what to release."
In other words they looked at 6 million files or sheets of paper containing data and decided according to this report to release half of them namely 3 million subject to earlier releases (see below). Either I'm missing something or the news media have got this wrong. It appears that the authorities are still withholding a vast number of Epstein files.
If the universe of material is roughly 6 million files or pages, and the latest tranche is about 3 million, then even after adding the earlier December releases which were only hundreds of thousands at most, you are still left with well over 2 million items not yet disclosed.
In addition, many of or most if not all of the files released have been redacted in some way sometimes totally so that all one sees as a sheet of paper which is entirely black.
To redact the entire page is a complete waste of time and also confuses me because it is the opposite to being transparent. If the entire page is redacted it is not information that's being released to the public is it?
Update
To move forward in time to 12th Feb 2026, Pam Bondi the US Attorney General is under increased pressure and attack for allegedly protecting the perpetrators of underage sex abuse; the mates and associates of Epstein. There is a massive Trump-led coverup going on here which will give this story legs and more legs. It will not go away until it is done.
There are many more...!
------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
A recent headline in The Times warns of “fears of bias” on the grounds that ChatGPT supposedly relies on a single news outlet, often cited as The Guardian. While eye-catching, this claim misunderstands both how large language models work and what the underlying research actually shows.
ChatGPT does not “rely” on any one newspaper in the way a human reader might rely on a favourite daily. It does not read the news each morning, subscribe to particular outlets, or assign internal weightings such as “58 per cent Guardian, 12 per cent BBC”. There is no editorial desk inside the model. Instead, ChatGPT is trained on a vast mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available text from many thousands of sources, including books, academic writing, news articles, and general reference material. The model does not have access to a list of its training sources, nor can it identify or favour specific publishers by design.
So where does the “Guardian dominance” claim come from? It originates from studies that analyse citations appearing in generated answers to a limited set of prompts. In other words, researchers ask the model questions, observe which publications are named in responses, and then infer bias from the frequency of those mentions. That is a very different thing from uncovering a built-in dependency.
Several factors explain why certain outlets appear more often in such studies. First, some publishers make their content more accessible for indexing and quotation, while others sit behind hard paywalls or restrict automated access. If a newspaper tightly limits how its material can be referenced or surfaced, it will naturally appear less often in AI outputs, regardless of its journalistic quality. This is an access issue, not an ideological one.
Second, when ChatGPT is asked to cite examples, it tends to reference outlets that are widely syndicated, heavily quoted elsewhere, and commonly used as secondary references across the web. The Guardian, like the BBC or Reuters, is frequently cited by other publications, blogs, and academic commentary. That secondary visibility increases the likelihood of it being named, even when the underlying information is widely shared.
Third, these studies typically involve small samples of questions. Changing the phrasing, topic, or timeframe can produce very different citation patterns. Extrapolating sweeping claims about “bias” from such narrow slices risks overstating the evidence.
Crucially, ChatGPT does not browse the news unless explicitly instructed to do so using live tools, and even then it does not default to a single outlet. When summarising current events, it aims to synthesise information from multiple reputable sources to provide balance and context.
The real conversation worth having is not about imagined loyalty to one newspaper, but about transparency, access, and how news organisations choose to engage with AI systems. Framing this as ideological bias oversimplifies a technical and structural issue.
In short, the claim that ChatGPT “relies on one news source” mistakes surface-level citation patterns for underlying dependence. It makes for a provocative headline, but it does not accurately describe how the system works, nor does it demonstrate the bias it implies.
---------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
This UK Labour government is as pointless and as misguided as the EV grant that they've introduced of £3,750 for brand-new electric vehicles.
It has to be a new vehicle. I'll tell you why it's a pointless grant and quite hopelessly misconceived. Take a EV that apparently holds value quite well: the Ford Puma GEN-E. Brand-new it costs £29,995 (as at today).
After the first year it'll be worth about £7000 less than that at about £23,000. So the purchaser loses about £7000 after 12 months, a point in the car's life at which the car is almost new. It's as good as new.
So if the buyer buys a nearly new i.e. one year old Ford Puma GEN-E car they will pay £23,000 for it and thereby save themselves £7000. But if they buy new one they will save themselves £3750 under the UK government grant.
It's pretty obvious that the wise choice is to buy a one year old version of this car because you save about twice as much money then you would if you bought a new one.
Other cars will depreciate faster. Many electric vehicles depreciate very rapidly actually, more so than the car mentioned in this article. And therefore the losses will be greater. As soon as the car is driven out of the showroom the buyer loses around £10,000 on many high-end EVs. They're paying £10,000 for the pleasure of smelling a new car!
This government's EV grant scheme is hopeless. It is hopelessly misconceived and is just a PR exercise. Anybody with a bit of common sense will not go down the route of seeking that grant.
In practice, the smart money is almost always a nearly new cars. You might like the dealer perks and the brand-new experience and you might like the maximum warranty but nowadays many cars have very long warranties up to 7 years and therefore taking one year off is neither here nor there.
To be fair, the grant is not absolutely useless. It does reduce the entry price for new buyers and some people really like to be new-car buyers. But in real cash terms, it's benefit is offset by the rapid drop in value of all new cars.
--------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Humans and domestic cats live together in extraordinary intimacy, yet their relationship contains an often-overlooked structural tension. It is not about affection, training, or personality. It is about time itself.
Humans are a strongly diurnal species. Our biology expects daylight activity and consolidated sleep at night. Hormones, body temperature, alertness, and mood all follow this pattern. While modern life can bend these rhythms, it rarely does so without cost. Sleep fragmentation, in particular, erodes patience, emotional regulation, and cognitive resilience.
Cats operate on a different clock. Domestic cats are not truly nocturnal, nor are they continuously active. They are best described as crepuscular, with instinctive peaks of alertness and activity at dawn and dusk. These hours coincide with the natural activity patterns of their ancestral prey. Between these bursts, cats sleep lightly and frequently, often in short cycles that allow rapid reactivation.
This mismatch matters. Dawn and dusk are precisely the times when humans are biologically least inclined toward activity. Early morning is a low point for alertness and reaction time. Evening brings declining vision and physiological preparation for rest. What a cat experiences as opportunity, a human experiences as intrusion.
In a caregiving relationship, this divergence is magnified. The human controls food, warmth, safety, and stimulation. The cat therefore directs its biologically urgent behaviours toward the human, often at times when the human is least responsive. Vocalisation, pacing, scratching, and attention-seeking behaviours are not acts of defiance but attempts to close a feedback loop that evolution expects to function.
Over time, this can subtly undermine the relationship. Chronic sleep disturbance is not trivial. When irritation must be continually suppressed because the source is a loved animal, it often turns inward. The cat may be labelled “demanding” or “needy,” while the human frames themselves as a light sleeper or poor sleeper. What goes unnamed is the deeper issue: a chronic circadian misalignment embedded within an attachment bond.
This tension can be more pronounced in cats that experienced a feral or semi-feral early life. For these cats, dawn and dusk were not preferences but survival windows. Their nervous systems were shaped in environments where those hours carried heightened significance. When such cats later become socialised and domestic, the environment changes faster than the internal clock. Human routines, regular feeding, and artificial lighting can soften behaviour, but the crepuscular bias often remains sharper.
By contrast, cats raised entirely indoors from kittenhood tend to show more blurred rhythms. Their activity peaks are flatter, spread across the day by predictability and boredom rather than etched sharply into twilight.
None of this implies incompatibility or failure. Most human-cat relationships find workable compromises through routine, enrichment, feeding schedules, and acceptance. But recognising the biological roots of the tension matters. It reframes the problem not as stubbornness, bad behaviour, or personal inadequacy, but as two evolved chronologies sharing a living space.
The affection remains real. So does the friction. Understanding both allows the relationship to be managed with greater patience, realism, and compassion, for human and cat alike.
It sounds very provocative but skirts worn by school girls can be a barrier to academic excellence. I might have said that the wrong way but the fact is that skirts are impractical and it has been found that freedom to engage in physical activities enhances the learning process. Clearly the classic schoolgirl uniform is a barrier to physical activities without wishing to put too fine a point on it.
And I'm told in The Times that primary schools that have ditched traditional uniforms both in respect of boys and girls but mainly girls as mentioned above, are reporting improvements in academic attainment, well-being and attendance.
This has prompted calls for a rethink about school uniforms. It is stated that a much better uniform would be one which is entirely practical and is in effect a sports uniform designed for activity; in short 'activewear'.
This is been found by Dame Dorothy primary school in Sunderland where the children wear an "always active" uniform. It was introduced two years ago with support from the Youth Sport Trust.
The uniform consists of practical weather-appropriate sportswear which is worn throughout the day.
The changing uniform reflected the school's long-standing commitment of physical activity and pupil health.
The head teacher, Iain Williamson said: "We have the children running outside every day during curriculum time, we have lots of activities on offer in the yard. So the question was, are they dressed and equipped to run safely and to be comfortable outside in the colder weather, and to take part and make use of all the apparatus? We encourage pupils to be active throughout the day, and the uniform was the final piece of the jigsaw."
Evidence demonstrates that traditional uniforms can restrict children's movement particular for girls.
A Cambridge University study published in 2025 analysed data from more than 1 million pupils across 135 countries. It found that in places where formal school uniforms are widely required fewer children met the World Health Organisation's recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity.
Traditional uniforms curb activity levels. It said that the female students feel less confident doing things such as riding a bike or doing cartwheels when wearing a skirt or dress.
When girls join activities at playtime attendance levels improve. It is said that prioritising well-being through movement could improve behaviour attendance and academic achievement.
Personally, I have always thought that schoolgirls should not be wearing short skirts. It is basically sexualising them. And they do this willingly. It seems that they want to be sexualised which must detract from academic excellence. It must detract from studying and focusing on studying. Uniforms must be entirely practical so that the student's minds can be entirely focused on the work at hand.
There has been some discussion on the Internet as to whether banning school skirts are a matter of human rights! Although I have not read the article by Dr. Helen Wright because I don't want to waste my time, she is questioning whether this is a breach of human rights. I find that absolutely ridiculous.
This is a question of practicalities, pragmatism and ensuring that students work at an optimal level, achieve what they can achieve and not be distracted by self-imposed sexualisation.
When I go and buy the paper in the morning at my local garage, I noticed a lot of girl students wear incredibly short skirts, barely covering their bottom; and even during the coldest winter day! It seems as though these girls are so addicted to the sexual turn on of wearing short skirts that they can't stop it.
That means that their focus is not on academic work. It is not truly on improving their chances of getting good grades in exams and thereafter progressing successfully throughout their life if they have aspirations of a career.
I am all for a complete ban on skirts. That's not because I am some archaic asexual nutcase. I want what's best these females. It could be argued that short skirts are as bad for academic excellence as an addiction to social media on smart phones!
----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Although environmentally speaking it is very easy to justify the installation of a heat pump in your home, they cannot be justified on a purely financial basis because heat pumps cost more to operate than gas boilers mainly because they run on electricity and electricity is four times more expensive than gas at present in the UK. I guess things can change but I am writing about the metrics at this moment.
And this information comes from a survey carried out by the Green Britain Foundation in which 1000 heat pump owners were questioned.
You may know that heat pumps work like a reverse refrigerator by moving warmth from the outside air to the inside. They produce about 3 to 4 times the energy they use making them much more efficient than a traditional gas boiler.
I mention the running costs briefly above. There is also the installation costs. Even with the £7500 upfront subsidy, the installation of a heat pump will be £3000 more expensive than the installation of a gas boiler at about £3000. You have to recoup that extra £3000 over the forthcoming years after installation which you are not going to do.
Another point is that the claims the manufacturers make can be misleading because some data suggest that about 90% of heat pumps' actual performance is below the manufacturers' claims.
The survey mentioned above found that two thirds of respondents said their homes are more expensive to heat with heat pumps than they were with gas boilers, their previous system.
Only 15% of respondents reported that their homes are less expensive to heat. The remaining 19% reported no difference or that they were unsure.
It seems that heat pumps are far more common with richer people than poorer people. This probably indicates or confirms that the main reason for installing them is to protect the environment and the money aspect which I am mentioning here is somewhat irrelevant or less relevant for these people.
I think, however, that the financial aspects are very important because it's hard to ask the average person to pay £3000 more to install a heat pump rather than a gas boiler and then find out it's more expensive to run than a gas boiler.
And the installation is quite substantial. There is much more in terms of equipment when installing a heat pump compared to a boiler. There's more disruption and the equipment occupies more space. You will need to have that space around your house. There are strict rules about how close the pump can be to one's neighbour. It is far more technical than a gas boiler it seems to me.
Dale Vince, the person who set up the Green Britain Foundation says that customers are being mis-sold heat pumps. He added that: "It's a myth, but is such a frustrating one, that heat pump save you money. The reality for people on the ground is a disappointment."
The government argues otherwise. They say that a survey conducted by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said that 89% of property owners were satisfied with their heat pumps after a winter of use. The report said that property owners had mixed experiences with their total energy bills after installing a heat pump but "most commonly they reported that their bills had decreased."
As mentioned that comes from the government and personally I don't trust this government particularly as they want to promote heat pumps.
I have been thinking about installing a heat pump but having read The Times' article which I used to write this article, I have decided against installing a heat pump. This is particularly so because my current boiler is functioning okay and I don't plan to live in my house that much longer and you have to live in your house in which a new heat pump has been installed for many years in order to recover the initial outlay namely the extra £3000 mentioned above. That must be factored in to the overall finances.
------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Here is a tough-talking article about domestic feline obesity in the modern age. 70 years ago cat obesity was rare. 70 years ago we might say the same about human obesity. Both ate less, ate more pure foods and exercise more indirectly. Here goes...
Let’s stop pretending your cat “just got a little chunky.” Let’s stop hiding behind cute internet slang like “chonker” and “floof.” Your cat isn’t adorable. Your cat is obese. And the reason is brutally simple:
You made it that way.
Not fate.
Not genetics.
Not “he’s just hungry.”
You.
Cats Were Built for Violence, Not Your Sofa
A cat is a precision‑engineered predator — a creature designed to stalk, sprint, leap, and kill. Their metabolism expects:
protein
fat
movement
unpredictability
Now look at the life you’ve given them.
They live in a climate‑controlled box.
They eat industrial pellets that crunch like cereal.
They sleep 20 hours a day because there’s nothing else to do.
Their biggest thrill is when the Amazon driver knocks.
You’ve taken a biological weapon and turned it into a throw pillow.
Obesity Isn’t an Accident — It’s the Environment You Built
A cat doesn’t choose its food.
A cat doesn’t portion its meals.
A cat doesn’t decide to free‑feed on kibble all day.
A cat doesn’t design a home with zero stimulation.
You do all of that.
So when your cat becomes obese, the cause isn’t mysterious. It’s not tragic. It’s not “one of those things.” It’s the direct result of the conditions you created.
You didn’t mean to.
You didn’t want to.
But you did.
The Dark Mirror: Owners Pass Their Habits to Their Pets
Here’s the part people hate the most.
Cats often become obese for the same reason their owners do:
too much processed food
too little movement
boredom mistaken for hunger
emotional eating disguised as “treats”
a warped sense of what a healthy body looks like
If overeating is normal in your home, overfeeding the cat feels normal too.
If you snack when you’re bored, you’ll feed the cat when it meows.
If you avoid exercise, you won’t create an active environment for your pet.
Your cat becomes a reflection of your lifestyle — a living, breathing mirror of your habits.
The Pet Food Industry Is Happy to Help You Kill Your Cat Slowly
Pet food companies know exactly what they’re doing.
They sell calorie‑dense kibble because it’s cheap to produce and addictive to cats.
They market treats as “love.”
They print portion sizes that are laughably generous.
They rely on the fact that most owners can’t tell the difference between “healthy” and “on the brink of diabetes.”
A lean cat looks “too skinny” to many people now. That’s how far the baseline has shifted.
The Excuses Are Pathetic
“He’s fluffy.”
“She’s a big girl.”
“He hardly eats anything.”
“She cries if I don’t feed her.”
These aren’t explanations. They’re denial.
Cats beg because begging works.
Cats overeat because the food is there.
Cats gain weight because the calories exceed the output.
It’s not complicated. It’s just uncomfortable.
The Slow Death You Don’t Want to Think About
Obesity isn’t cute. It’s not harmless. It’s not a personality trait.
It’s:
joint pain
chronic inflammation
diabetes
heart strain
reduced mobility
shortened lifespan
Your cat isn’t “living its best life.”
It’s slowly dying in a body that can’t support itself — a body shaped by your choices.
The Brutal Bottom Line
If your cat is obese, it’s because the environment you created made obesity inevitable. Not because you’re cruel. Not because you don’t care. But because you control every variable that determines your cat’s health.
Your cat can’t fix this.
Your cat can’t change its environment.
Your cat can’t say no to the bowl you keep filling.
You are the architect of its world — and its weight.
---------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
There was a time during the Covid pandemic and I guess shortly afterwards when the French Bulldog was the most popular breed in the UK but owners of this dog breed learnt to their cost that the French Bulldog is perhaps the most unhealthy dog breed of all with, as I recall, an average lifespan of about seven years, which falls far short of the general average which must be somewhere around 13 years for dogs and perhaps about 18 years for cats nowadays.
So the French Bulldog is, today, in 2026, the third most popular breed having slipped from first place and that lofty position has been taken by the miniature dachshund.
I often visit Richmond Park to walk and the most common dog that I see is, unsurprisingly, thr dachshund both the standard version and the miniature version and some wirehaired versions.
It was apparent to me without reading this Times article that the dachshund in the UK is the most popular breed. And as mentioned it is the miniature version of the dachshund which is the popular one.
Popularity as usual has been driven in part by celebrity culture with celebrities showing off their dachshunds. Perhaps the best known celebrity to live with a dachshund is the singer Adele who named her dog after Louis Armstrong.
The rise in the miniature dachshund has been swift because in 2018 the breed was the 16th most popular offered for sale. In second place today is the Cocker Spaniel.
Prices are beginning to rise again with 2025 being a turning point in prices and therefore popularity. The average puppy price reached £989 in December 2025 which is up 23% year-on-year. Demand has recovered to above pre-pandemic levels.
The reason for the early domestication of dogs is because they were used as utilitarian animals whereas cats are much less able to be utilitarian.
Pedigree dogs account for 65% of puppies sold which by the way is down from 82% 10 years ago. Perhaps nowadays there are more people adopting rescue dogs which are mixed breed dogs. This would indicates a greater concern nowadays for dog welfare than in the past.
The survey also concluded that cats are gaining ground in popularity with kitten adverts rising 8% in 2025 which represents a second consecutive year of growth. As mentioned in the title, British Shorthair cats are the most popular breed. They have a dense coat and they are known to be very good full-time indoor cats with a placid temperament. I suspect that a lot of these cats are full-time indoor cats because of modern work practices and with people being more aware that there are natural dangers outside for free-roaming cats particularly road traffic.
The British shorthair represents about 20% of sales by the way.
The Cavalier King Charles spaniel is the most expensive dog with an average price of £1441. The average price of a miniature dachshund in the UK, in December 2025 was £1016. Note: I can remember dog prices being a lot higher during the Covid pandemic because of rapidly increased demand and a lack of supply.
Prices for the miniature dachshund have risen £33 over the period 2024 (December) to 2025.
People who are interested in animal welfare will be pleased that the French Bulldog has lost its some of its popularity. Animal rights activist would argue that the French Bulldog should not be bred at all because it is inherently unhealthy due to its extreme breeding with an extremely round head with a very flat face described as brachycephalic by experts. The reason why breeders do this is to make the dog look more like a baby child which triggers a desire to buy the animal.
A lot of people nowadays appear to be buying dogs as a precursor to having a baby. They are testing themselves to see whether they can cope and whether they enjoy the experience.
Accordingly, it is arguable that they are treating their dogs as little babies which is to anthropomorphise them, which in itself, is not entirely advisable although quite cute. That's because one should treat dogs as dogs in order to ensure that they are even the best chance to behave naturally.
------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
I clearly remember Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Police Commissioner, promising to root out rogue police officers when he got the top job (2022). And yet The Times reports, today 23rd January 2026, that the number of criminal charges against police officers in England and Wales has risen by an astonishing 42 per cent in the past year according to Home Office figures.
Officers faced 323 charges, including 85 for sexual assault in the year to March 2025 up from 227 in 2023-24 and 160 in 2022-23. Data showed 1,687 officers were referred to misconduct cases.
Ah, misconduct cases! I am embroiled in one of my making at the moment. I was pushed over aggressively while photographing a protest in London which resulted in the breakage of the neck of my left femur - a very serious injury resulting in the death of 30% of sufferers in the first year believe it or not. The officer committed a crime against me (GBH or assault occasioning actual bodily harm) but on my formal complaint the Directorate of Police Standards (DPS) said that his behaviour was perfectly acceptable!
Only they refuse to show me the body worn camera that was worn by the officer who assaulted me (PC Lockett). I am making an application for Judicial Review and have complained to the ICO. Plus I am making a further complaint!
The point is that the police are far too often dishonest. Even the Directorate of Police Standards are not infrequently dishonest!! So much for maintaining standards.
From my perspective the Met Police are systemically dishonest and cannot be trusted. The public no longer trust the Met Police. Yes, the police say there are many honest and committed officers but my personal experience tells me otherwise. I say again in my case the DPS are cynically lying over Lockett's behaviour when he violently pushed me over causing a grave, life-changing injury.
If the organisation charged with upholding standards are inherently dishonest as appears to be the case how can we trust and respect the Metropolitan Police?
Here is a paragraph or two on the promise to root out rogue officers:
Mark Rowley and the Promise to Remove Rogue Police Officers
Since becoming Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in September 2022, Sir Mark Rowley has repeatedly promised to rid the force of so-called “rogue” officers and restore public trust after a series of damaging scandals. His message has been clear and consistent: officers who are racist, misogynistic, corrupt, or otherwise unfit to serve should not be wearing the uniform.
Rowley has spoken publicly about a minority of officers whose behaviour undermines the legitimacy of the entire service. In interviews and speeches, he has pledged a tougher approach to misconduct, faster disciplinary processes, and a cultural reset within Britain’s largest police force. He has described the removal of unfit officers as essential to rebuilding confidence, particularly among communities who feel failed or mistreated by policing.
However, turning that promise into action has proved more complicated than rhetoric alone suggests. A significant obstacle emerged when a High Court ruling confirmed that the Metropolitan Police could not dismiss officers solely by withdrawing their vetting clearance. This decision blocked a route Rowley hoped would allow the force to remove officers who failed integrity checks but had not yet been dismissed through formal misconduct proceedings.
Rowley responded forcefully, criticising the legal framework as unworkable and calling for urgent reform. He argued that it was “absurd” for officers who failed basic vetting standards to remain in post due to procedural constraints. His stance added pressure on the government to amend police regulations.
In response, ministers announced changes to vetting rules, making failure of vetting a clear basis for dismissal. Rowley welcomed these reforms, describing them as closing a serious loophole and giving police leaders the tools they need to act decisively.
In summary, Sir Mark Rowley has undeniably promised to remove rogue officers and has pushed hard for the authority to do so. While legal barriers initially limited his ability to deliver, recent regulatory changes mean that his pledge can now be tested not by words, but by results.
-----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Sorry but Trump is an idiot. There are many signs, the latest of which is his letter to the Norwegian president, Jonas Gahr Stoere, that he has given up on peace missions and now will concentrate on American interests which at this juncture means invading Greenland!! 😱😢 He's mad and some (many) American politicians think that he is losing his mind.
Trump is acting like an emotionally hurt 10-year-old child who petulantly demands something.
Here is the letter - the 'moanings of a petulant child' as described by a news reporter on Sky News.
Dear Jonas:
Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.
Thank you!
President DJT
Stoere said he had repeatedly told Trump that the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awards the peace prize, was independent and that Norway's government had no control over it. As if he needed to be told that! He did and he did not listen. Trump is known to be a poor listener because he likes to deliver monologues to all and sundry.
-------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
It pays to read The Times letters to the editor. This is something I've learned over the years because a lot of really clever and sensible people write to The Times. A lot of their letters don't get published but the ones that get through the vetting procedure are often very good and in this instance we have three interesting and I would argue good suggestions for how Europe can respond to Donald Trump's Greenland tariffs namely a 10% uplift to the tariff currently applied to the UK and Europe on first February and a further 25% uplift in June if European countries don't comply with his request to own Greenland.
The first suggestion comes from Professor Costas Milas of the University of Liverpool. He suggests that European countries should withdraw their national football teams from this summer's FIFA World Cup which is being held mainly in the United States. It's believed that it will bring $9.6 billion to the US economy and it would be an enormous embarrassment to Trump and the American government if this upcoming World Cup was so catastrophically damaged by mass withdrawal of European teams. That may force Trump's hand. He may become more reasonable. At the moment Trump is being highly unreasonable and his demands are simply untenable. No European country would agree to allow him to simply move into Greenland and own the island to plunder minerals which I believe is his main purpose and for personal financial gain as well I would argue.
The second suggestion comes from Colin Kennedy from Suffolk in the UK. He argues that "Europe should respond graciously and politely to the US president by stating that the leases on all US military facilities in Europe will attract a similar tariff to the one he is imposing from February 1. If payment is not forthcoming then the US should be asked to vacate all such facilities without exception.
The last suggestion would certainly hurt Trump personally. He is very fond of Scotland. We know he is addicted to golf notwithstanding the fact that he cheats and lies about his accomplishments on the golf course. That's his style. His lying is transparent when it comes to golf and his golf swing isn't that great either.
This last suggestion is very personal which I think is appropriate because he often makes things very personal. When he talks about world leaders he discusses whether they are a nice person or not. He speaks of their character. I think this is inappropriate because discussions between world leaders are about achievements not about personal characteristics. It's about doing business pragmatically and sensibly. It's inappropriate to talk about the person's character and whether you like them or not.
At the end of the day, Trump respects strong characters (look at how he talks about Vladimir Putin for instance) and is therefore more likely to listen to them and come to an agreement with strong characters.
Europeans have been heavily criticised by J.D. Vance for being weak and instigating sloppy policies. Let's see Europeans including the UK stop being weak. Let's see them beat Donald Trump at his own game.
-----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
The headline in The Sunday Times today is that Sir Keir Starmer, the UK's Prime Minister, is angry after Trump imposed more tariffs against the UK: 10% (on all goods?) to climb to 25% in June unless Starmer agrees to support Trump in his desire to own the world's largest island: Greenland.
You might remember the time when Starmer arrived at the White House Oval Office and presented to Trump King Charles's handwritten letter inviting the president to the UK for a state visit (his second). The intention of that special gift was to encourage Donald Trump to go easy on the UK regarding tariffs because at that time the President was setting up tariffs for pretty well every country on the planet because he regards himself as the tariff king. Note: Trump may be constitutionally unable to impose tariffs by executive order - more on that to come in the news media I suspect.
I remember Starmer acting like a poodle to the president in a very obsequious manner as mentioned. It was nauseating to see. But Starmer was naïve. You don't behave like that towards a bully with an ego as big as a house.
You have got to stand up to him and thereby gain his respect. And if in standing up you suffer tariffs then so be it. You have to stand up and be independent-minded and have dignity and self-respect. You can't kowtow and become a poodle on a lead to American's current president. Because you'll be jerked around as we are seeing at present.
And the latest development proves my point. Trump has simply ditched the concept of being friends with Starmer and imposed fresh tariffs which will hurt the UK economically.
He's also imposed the same tariff barriers on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. But I don't recall the Prime Ministers of those countries going to the White House and begging more or less, cap in hand on bended knee, for lower tariffs. At least they maintained their dignity.
Starmer, for me, is an idiot. He is a week idiot actually. He's not a leader. He needs to show leadership and strength. He cannot regard the USA president as a friend. The special relationship between the UK and the USA which has been so lauded over decades, no longer exists at this moment.
We have to deal with the USA as a potential partner and negotiate from a position of strength.
President Trump blindsided his NATO allies yesterday when he announced these tariffs. And he announced them on his True Social website. Of course, the European leaders are also annoyed or perhaps furious as well and they must be. But they don't have egg on their faces and look stupid.
Donald Trump has embarked on a ridiculous escapade of trying to own Greenland - it has logic but it is still absurd. Trump should be entering into partnerships with the Greenlanders, Denmark and Europeans to defend the territory and in respect of mining for minerals.
He is trying to bully the world into allowing him to OWN it, in its entirety. He can't take it militarily because it is simply impossible because the island is owned by Denmark and the Greenlanders and Denmark is a NATO ally.
It said that he wants to buy it at a price of around $700 billion. That was a valuation made by academics and former US officials. It is a gross undervaluation in my view.
After the Second World WarPresident Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold to buy the island which equates to about $1.7 billion today.
I would say today, bearing in mind its critical strategic position and its mineral wealth, that its value is 10 times the $700 billion quoted i.e. $7 trillion. I'm thinking long-term as the ice is melting and Greenland will become more and more valuable going forward.
It may be an island which is critical actually to the survival of humanity if global warming precedes as it is. It may become a place where the climate is amenably pleasant in a hundred years time. There could be mass migration from the south of the planet to Greenland! And if America owns it you can imagine the wealth that they could generate under those circumstances.
I also believe that Trump, personally, wants to own Greenland because he wants to make money for himself out of the mineral deposits on the island in terms of rare earth et cetera. He has accrued quite a lot of personal wealth during his term as president. He sees the office as an opportunity to increase his wealth which is probably unconstitutional but does he care? Not at all.
Update (Politico.eu): "McLarty Associates, an international strategic advisory firm based in Washington has said that "Resisting a new attempt at humiliation and vassalization is the only way Europe can finally assert itself as a geopolitical actor." No more acting like a poodle please.
---------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Men over 75 are more likely to suffer from constipation. There are many potential reasons which are listed below. I am pretty fit but recognise the fact that I need to ensure that I don't end up constipated. It is something that one wants to avoid. Here is how I do it.
I am as active as possible by e.g. walking in my local park for one hour per day. Good for mental health too. Regular walking helps prevent constipation by stimulating bowel movement and improving gut motility
I drink two glasses of water per day to hydrate with difficulty! Alternative: eat 20 grapes - plenty of water in them and low calories. The experts want us to drink more than that but I can't. Laxido is a substitute treatment but I prefer entirely natural methods.
I eat 1.5 slices (!) of multi-seed wholemeal bread for breakfast with marmalade (Sainsbury's bread). The marmalade is irrelevant. The bread is useful fibre. Why 1.5 slices? Answer: to keep my weight down to the point where my waist is half my height when measured. This promotes good health.
Key: I drink a half tumbler of orange juice or other soft, healthy drink with 2 heaped spoonful's of milled Chia seeds daily. These seeds have among the highest level of fibre of all foods I am told. Fibre is essential to good bowel movement. I mix the seeds into the drink. It is not wonderful! But it is palatable and bloody marvellous at ensuring great bowel movements. Alternative: Psyllium husk has the highest fibre content of commonly consumed human foods, at roughly 70–80 percent fibre by weight. Psyllium husks are sold mainly as whole husks, powder (finely ground husk), granules, capsules, and ready-mixed sachets for stirring into water. But psyllium husk is harder to find at supermarkets. Chia can be bought at Sainsbury's in the UK.
Men over the age of 75 are more likely to experience constipation
Men over the age of 75 are more likely to experience constipation, and the reasons are layered rather than mysterious. Ageing changes the body’s rhythms. The digestive tract slows, intestinal muscles lose some of their spring, and the coordinated wave that moves stool along becomes less efficient. What once happened without thought can begin to stall.
Lifestyle factors quietly add weight to the problem. Older men often move less, whether due to joint pain, balance issues, or general fatigue. Physical movement acts like a gentle internal nudge to the bowels, and when that nudge fades, so can regularity. Diet also shifts with age. Appetite may decline, meals become smaller, and fibre intake often drops just when it is needed most.
Medications are another key player. Drugs commonly prescribed in later life, such as opioids, anticholinergics, antidepressants, and some blood pressure medicines, can slow bowel activity. Dehydration is also more common in older men, partly due to a reduced sense of thirst, and dry stools are harder to pass.
Finally, conditions more prevalent after 75, including diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and prostate enlargement, can interfere with normal bowel function. Constipation in older men is therefore not a single problem, but the result of many small changes accumulating over time, turning a minor inconvenience into a persistent companion.
Note: I live with a cat! Cats want their caregiver to be healthy and functioning satisfactorily even if they don't know it!
Note: the suggestions on this page to avoid constipation are made on the premise that the person has no underlying illness that causes constipation.
-------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
The Times tells us that the UK is the hybrid work capital of Europe. This is despite efforts by business owners to get employees back into the office because they believe that it is more productive when employees work from the office perhaps because they are able to communicate more fluidly with other employees and improve efficiencies.
I am not suggesting that this particular man is lazy!!
And the Times also reports that Mondays and Fridays remain the quietest days in offices. Surprise, surprise. 😃🙄
Being somewhat cynical, I take that to mean that hybrid workers simply see an opportunity to extend the weekend from 2 days to 4 and in effect have a three day working week which might explain why productivity in the UK is in a dire state and perhaps the lowest in Europe.
The UK has a productivity problem and although many experts have suggested various reasons for this such as a lack of investment (which is, by the way, also a major problem in the UK because businesses are under investing) I would like to suggest that the country has become lazy and flabby. There is a distinct lack of work ethic in my view.
I believe that the Covid pandemic in effect turned people off from the work ethic. In the UK they were given 80% of their salary for 18 months. To stay at home. Go to the park and do nothing while raking in 80% of their salary.
I think this has engendered a lazy attitude to work. It has reset the minds of many employees into believing that they needn't work to obtain a salary. And if they have to work as they do they will do as little as possible.
It is politically incorrect to state that hybrid working fosters laziness. But I think it's common sense that it does. Sitting at home with the kids trying to work on the computer when you're bound to be distracted if you have children, for example.
Or if you haven't got children then you might be working alone and it takes a lot of self-discipline to work productively at home alone. The employers know, as mentioned, that it is better to have employees working from the office. Employees resist this now (and employers simply can't get them back into the office) and insist on hybrid working from day one.
And because in the UK there appears to be a skills shortage or a lack of really good high quality employees, employees tend to bend over backwards provide extra facilities in order to capture the employee.
Employers are giving employees the option to work in the hybrid style. I sense that there is a laziness in this country not only because of the extended weekend MO as mentioned, but because there is very large number of young men and women who're quite capable of working but refuse to work and have signed off sick with anxiety
It is also politically incorrect to say that these people are gaming the system. But it is true that they are. Obviously not all of them are gaming the system but hundreds of thousands are and this woke government simply will not address that sensitive point.
They're loathe to accuse these young people who should be working of being lazy and workshy. They want to try and encourage them back to work but personally, without seeming to be too right wing, I would kick their backsides to drive them back to work because that's what they need.
Their benefits need to be stopped and they need then to be forced back to work but perhaps they have generally lost their confidence and therefore the government will have to boost their confidence before they can participate in mainstream employed life.
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
