Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
 "The Yau Ma Tei Fruit Market scandal is one of Hong Kong’s biggest corruption cases ever." If you're a government official on the take (allegedly), here's a tip: don't brag about it on social media. Kicking back in upgraded ferry seats, sipping champagne, and posting selfies? Yeah, that's gonna raise eyebrows. Hence, the Hong Kong government's guy in Tianjin, got the boot pretty fast.
When I got to Hong Kong in 1980, you could still feel the hangover from all the corruption. Cops and civil servants hadn’t forgotten the day the ICAC stormed into Yaumati Police Station and hauled off pretty much everyone. To get why today’s anti-corruption culture matters so much, it’s worth looking back at one of those big cases. The Yau Ma Tei Fruit Market scandal is one of Hong Kong’s biggest corruption cases ever. Back in the 1970s, this market in West Kowloon, over by Reclamation Street, was the city’s biggest wholesale fruit market. It ran 24/7 in this crazy, packed area and was crawling with organised crime—especially heroin dealers and triads. A major syndicate run by guys like “沙塵標” (Ah Biu) and “阿熊” (Ah Hung) controlled the heroin trade starting in March 1975. They kept the money flowing by greasing the palms of cops, who’d tip them off whenever a raid was coming. That’s how they could deal openly on the streets. Bribes ranged from less than HK$100 to way bigger amounts. Money went to cops across different units. This whole corrupt setup involved hundreds of officers who either looked the other way or actively helped the drug trade. In August 1976, the Police Narcotics Bureau conducted raids across Kowloon and the New Territories. They nabbed the main guys in the heroin syndicate and found ledgers with all the bribe payments written down. Three top guys in the drug ring got convicted on drug charges but agreed to flip and testify for the ICAC. In exchange for a lighter sentence, they spilled everything about how they’d been systematically paying off cops to keep their operations running. The ICAC investigation became one of their first major corruption cases. Over 260 current and former public servants—mostly cops—got caught up in dealings with the drug syndicate. This case, along with others, helped turn Hong Kong around from the rampant graft of the 1960s and early 1970s to the super-low corruption levels we see today. The Yaumati Fruit Market scandal really drove home Hong Kong’s commitment to fighting corruption. Since then, the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) has been at the heart of how things work, keeping tight controls on what public officials can accept. Hong Kong’s rules are way stricter than most places, which is a big reason why corruption stays so low. An “advantage” under Section 2 of the POBO covers pretty much anything—gifts, loans, discounts, entertainment, jobs, services, you name it. For civil servants, the rules are tough: Section 3 says they can’t ask for or accept any advantage without getting the Chief Executive’s okay first. Section 4 also bans asking for or taking advantage as a bribe or payoff for any official action, or for playing favourites in official business. At the Police Training School and regularly throughout my career, they drilled these rules into us again and again. If I attended a school anti-crime seminar, they’d hand me a pen or a book as a thank-you. I’d write it down, tell my boss, and ask whether I could keep it or had to hand it in. The ICAC’s got broad powers to keep things clean. Even little perks, like free lunches, can get looked at if they might sway someone’s decisions. Hong Kong’s rules are way stricter than most countries’. In other places, laws mainly go after straight-up bribery, but the POBO also makes it a crime to accept advantages without permission, no matter what you intended—which is pretty different from looser systems elsewhere. When you look at global rankings, Hong Kong’s doing really well. The 2025 World Justice Project Rule of Law Absence of Corrution Index puts Hong Kong at 9th worldwide for “absence of corruption”—beating out a bunch of Western democracies, including the U.S. (26th) and the UK (11th). Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index consistently ranks Hong Kong among the top 20 cleanest territories, and they say it’s because of the city's zero-tolerance approach. These rules actually make a difference. The days of patients slipping orderlies cash for a bedpan are long gone. These days, the ICAC goes after even small stuff, like a civil servant getting discounts from a contractor. However, the Tai Po fire has revealed deep-seated corruption that must be eradicated. And for that to work, society should embrace the same determination that fueled the early efforts to combat the criminals. Some people say these strict rules might kill off friendly interactions, but they actually build trust. Hong Kong’s system ensures decisions are made on merit, not on who owes whom a favour, and that’s crucial for running things fairly in a small, packed city like this. For businesses dealing with government officials, the message is pretty clear: offering perks could land both sides in hot water under the POBO. In a time when people don’t trust institutions much anywhere, other countries might want to look to this model to achieve cleaner public services and fairer governance.
0 Comments
 "How sharper than a serpent's tooth, it is to have a thankless child." Ah, the Beckhams—soccer royalty, fashion overlords, and a picture-perfect family life curated and played out in Hello magazine. What could go wrong?
Now, this is not my usual territory, commenting on the antics of celebs. Nevertheless, there are salient lessons here about our internet and social media world and the pursuit of fame. That fake world can’t stop reality from crashing in After all, David, golden balls, the tattooed knight in shining cleats; Victoria, the eternally unsmiling Spice Girl who somehow turned pouting into a billion-dollar empire; and their brood of Instagram-ready offspring, who were supposed to be the epitome of perfect parenting. Yet, when you make a deal with the social media Devil, he can call in the favour with terrible consequences. So, no surprise that on Monday, eldest son Brooklyn Peltz Beckham (26) aired the family’s dirty laundry in an Instagram manifesto, calling his folks control freaks who couldn’t even let him have a wedding without turning it into a Beckham-branded circus. Because nothing says “family bonding” like public accusations of sabotage and humiliation. Why did it all go so wrong? Well, perhaps selling your kids' photographs to generate brand PR and some cash wasn’t a good start. A childhood spent as a prop in Mum and Dad’s headline-grabbing ventures may have left some scars. Still, Brooklyn goes on to cite several claims. Let me try to break this down. The Wedding That Launched a Thousand Eye-Rolls (April 2022) Brooklyn and Nicola Peltz’s Palm Beach nuptials, which should’ve been a fairy tale, apparently turned into a passive-aggressive fashion war. Nicola ditched a Victoria Beckham gown for Valentino—gasp! She said it was a timing issue, but Brooklyn’s 2026 rant suggests Victoria pulled a last-minute “oops, can’t make it” on the dress, leaving everyone scrambling. Then, the real gems: Family members allegedly whispering that Nicola’s “not blood” and “not family” the night before—because who needs welcoming vibes when you can go full soap opera? And the cherry on top? At the reception, Brooklyn is called up for the first dance with his bride, but wait—there’s Victoria, hijacking the moment and allegedly grinding on her son. Brooklyn says he was “humiliated,” Nicola was in tears, and they had to renew vows in 2025 just to scrub the memory—with zero Beckhams on the guest list, naturally. How utterly heartwarming. The Endless Campaign to “Respect” Nicola (Or Not) Brooklyn’s big gripe? His parents have been “consistently disrespecting” Nicola since day one, trying to tank their relationship as if it were a personal mission. Pressuring him to ditch the “Beckham” name for his kids? Check. Inviting ex-girlfriends to family events to stir the pot? Double check. Ignoring Nicola’s charity work during the LA wildfires because, why bother? And don’t forget the alleged press leaks to spin the narrative in their favour—because controlling the tabloids is just what loving parents do, right? Brooklyn swears he’s not the puppet everyone thinks he is; no, he’s “standing up for himself for the first time.” Sure, kid—after years of silence, this is totally not a mid-twenties rebellion fuelled by his billionaire in-laws. How original. The Art of the Snub: Absences and Instagram Wars If actions speak louder than words, the Beckhams are screaming. Brooklyn and Nicola ghosted David’s 50th bash in 2025, Victoria’s 50th the year before, and even David’s knighthood ceremony. Next came a full-on social media purge: Brooklyn blocking his parents pre-Christmas 2025, Cruz admitting it’s mutual, and the brothers (Romeo and Cruz) unfollowing each other like it’s a middle-school spat. By January 2026, Brooklyn’s firing off cease-and-desist letters via lawyers, all in the name of “mental health.” Because therapy is excellent, but nothing beats a public family implosion for real healing. The Instagram Bomb Drop Cue January 19: Brooklyn’s epic post declaring he’s done with the “manipulation” and wants no reconciliation. “I’m not being controlled, I’m standing up!” he insists, while prioritising “peace, privacy, and happiness”—from his very public platform, of course. David’s response? A vague CNBC chat about kids “making mistakes” and social media pitfalls. The rest of the family? Silence. Why Now? Because Timing Is Everything in Showbiz Why blow it up in 2026? Maybe Brooklyn’s floundering career (chef? Photographer? Whatever’s next) clashed with the Beckham brand machine. Or perhaps spending time with Nicola’s mega-rich Peltz clan showed him what “independence” looks like. This whole mess reeks of fame’s uglier side: in-law jealousy, wedding pettiness, and the delusion that a perfect public image equals a happy home. So, will the Beckhams kiss and make up, or is this the dramatic end of their dynasty? Honestly, who gives a shit—pass the popcorn. In a world of real problems, watching celebs feud over designer dresses is the guilty pleasure we didn’t know we needed. And the Beckhams are a helpful distraction from the antics of Orange Baby Man.  "Trump has confirmed that his ‘morality’ sets the constraints on the U.S." If Donald Trump has contributed anything of significance, it is his willingness to articulate the underlying principle of geopolitics openly: ‘might is right’. In doing so, he has acknowledged what many have long suspected—the rules-based international order (RBIO) is a charade.
One might choose to disregard the rhetoric from Trump and his administration and instead examine the new U.S. National Security Strategy, which I have previously analysed. Meanwhile, allied states such as the United Kingdom remain largely silent, constrained by their limited influence and perhaps embarrassed by their complicity in this hypocrisy. Let's be honest, the RBIO functions as a rhetorical device, providing a protective justification for Western military interventions, which are often framed as being in the interests of humanity. Moreover, Trump has confirmed that his ‘morality’ sets the constraints on the U.S.; I’m sure we are all comfortable with that. Yes? And with that, he implicitly acknowledges that the RBIO was never designed to regulate the actions of the U.S. and its Western allies; rather, it is intended to control less powerful states. Consequently, when dominant powers engage in military action, it is labelled a 'policing action,' whereas similar actions by others are classified as war crimes. Following World War II, the victorious powers, led by the U.S. and its Western allies, established the RBIO primarily to advance their own interests. This framework, ostensibly designed to prevent chaos and aggression, encompasses institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as various treaties that claim to promote peace, human rights, and economic stability. As the RBIO evolved into what is now termed the 'liberal international order,' economic institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) assumed prominent roles, alongside legal frameworks such as the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998. Fundamentally, the RBIO purports to create a global system in which nations adhere to shared norms and violations are addressed through accountability. However, even a cursory analysis reveals a significant asymmetry: Western powers designed this system to enforce rules globally, yet they apply those rules selectively, holding adversaries accountable while exempting themselves and their allies from equivalent scrutiny. This double standard not only undermines the principles the RBIO claims to uphold but also effectively nullifies them. As a result, many states are increasingly unwilling to maintain the pretence of adherence. Western nations, including the United States, Britain, and France—all permanent members of the Security Council with veto power—positioned themselves as the architects and guardians of this system. The stated objective was to replace 'might is right' with rule-based diplomacy, a goal that is noble in theory but ineffective in practice. Even before Trump threw this system into disarray, it was fundamentally structured to favour these powers. The veto mechanism allows them to block any resolution that targets them or their allies, thereby institutionalising impunity and hypocrisy. This selective enforcement is overt. Western states often impose sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military threats on other countries. However, when Western interests are at stake, adherence to these rules often disappears. For example, the U.S. has promoted the RBIO while refusing to ratify key treaties, such as the Rome Statute, thereby ensuring that its military actions remain outside the ICC's jurisdiction. This approach enables Western states to advocate for human rights and sovereignty while disregarding these principles when convenient. Endless examples could be given on this subject, but I will be content to cite the following. In the 1960s, Laos—one of the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries—was subjected to a covert bombing campaign. The total tonnage of bombs dropped on tiny Laos matched that used in World War II. Between 1964 and 1973, the U.S. dropped an estimated 270 million cluster bombs on Laos, averaging 33 bombs per inhabitant. Approximately 200,000 Laotians were killed—about 10 per cent of the population—while 400,000 were injured and 750,000 displaced. These actions were justified as support for the U.S. war in Vietnam, despite Laos not being a party to that conflict. And anyway, the U.S. lost that war because it had never defeated an enemy who wore flip-flops. Consider the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which was presented as a preemptive strike against weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and a mission of liberation. The operation lacked United Nations Security Council authorisation, making it illegal under international law, according to numerous legal experts. Yet, the Bush administration argued that resolutions from the 1990s provided justification, though this rationale was widely rejected. No WMDs were found, hundreds of thousands of individuals died, and no Western leader was prosecuted. In contrast, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.S.advocated for accountability, resulting in swift United Nations-backed retaliation. This demonstrates that the RBIO enforces consequences for non-Western violators while protecting Western states from similar repercussions. Another example is NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya. Although authorised by UN Resolution 1973 to protect civilians from Gaddafi’s crackdown, the mission quickly shifted towards regime change, with NATO airstrikes facilitating the advance of rebel forces and ultimately leading to Gaddafi’s death. This intervention exceeded its original mandate, transforming a humanitarian mission into an operation for regime change without further United Nations approval, thereby constituting a clear violation of international law. Following this, Libya descended into significant instability and civil war. Western leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy, described the operation as a success. However, when Russia intervened in Syria under comparable 'humanitarian' justifications, Western states responded with sanctions and public condemnation. This contrast exposes the RBIO’s double standard. The ICC exemplifies Western avoidance of accountability. Although established to prosecute war crimes and genocide, it has primarily targeted African leaders, revealing a clear pattern of bias. When the ICC initiated investigations into U.S. actions in Afghanistan or Israeli conduct in Palestine, the response was severe. The United States, which has not ratified the Rome Statute, imposed sanctions on ICC officials, judges, and prosecutors and declared any investigation into American or allied forces illegitimate. On that occasion, even European Union officials condemned these actions as a significant setback for global justice. This illustrates a tendency to demand ICC accountability for adversaries, such as Russian officials in Ukraine, while rejecting it when it is directed at Western states. Western support for Israel further exemplifies this pattern. More than 200 United Nations General Assembly resolutions have condemned Israeli actions in the occupied territories, where settlements are deemed illegal under international law. The U.S. has responded by vetoing numerous Security Council measures and by continuing to provide military aid. This ongoing hypocrisy not only fosters global cynicism but also contributes to the erosion of the international system. It is therefore unsurprising that the U.S. views China with apprehension. Recent trade conflicts initiated by the Trump administration indicate that the U.S. no longer holds uncontested dominance. For sure the 'America first' policy has diminished U.S. influence, even among traditional allies, while China steadily expands its global presence through trade, exchange programmes, and infrastructure initiatives. Going off on a tangent, we may gain insight into how all this may play out. Male chimpanzees frequently form temporary alliances, or coalitions, to increase their standing and gain access to resources such as mating opportunities and food. These alliances are dynamic and often shift depending on the situation and the individuals involved. A dominant male, or ‘alpha,’ must constantly manage these relationships, often breaking up fights and maintaining social order to preserve his position. That includes sharing resources, cooperating, and being seen as fair. The process highlights the intricate social dynamics and political manoeuvring inherent in chimpanzee societies, where status is determined by a complex interplay of physical strength, intelligence, and the ability to form and maintain strong alliances. Alpha males who fail to cooperate with others and share are eventually ousted by a coalition of other males. I do wonder whether Trump ever watched a lecture by Jane Goodall.  "After 1,600 city-wide inspections and 700 new site checks, officials issued only four smoking penalties." Go to any bus terminus, and you’ll see smokers lighting up in plain sight, breaking the law with impunity. Challenge them, and many turn hostile—I encountered one just this week.
Yet, after 1,600 city-wide inspections and 700 new site checks, officials issued only four smoking penalties. This "clampdown"—following the introduction of new no-smoking zones lacks punch. The yawning gap between inspections and penalties raises the question: Is enforcement real, or just for show? Smoking wipes out over eight million people globally every year—most are users, but over a million are innocent bystanders breathing second-hand smoke. It’s the world’s number one preventable killer. So, while Hong Kong’s tougher no-smoking zones are good on paper, enforcement is another matter. Sixteen hundred inspections for just four penalties? Something doesn’t add up. The process feels half-hearted—more box-ticking than real action. Sure, a few enforcement officers might scare smokers off for a minute, but real compliance needs real consequences: fines, not warnings. Enforcement is supposedly the job of the Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office. But with so few penalties, you have to wonder if these resources are well used. Fortunately, Hong Kong has long been at the forefront of tobacco control in Asia, driven by a commitment to public health. It’s worth remembering that the city’s laws aim to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke and discourage tobacco use. We can celebrate that smoking rates have fallen from 23% in the 1980s to around 9.5% today, thereby averting thousands of premature deaths from cancer, heart disease, and respiratory diseases. The journey began in 1982 with the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance, which imposed initial restrictions on advertising and on sales to minors. A significant milestone came in 2007, when smoking was banned in all indoor public places, workplaces, and on public transport. Over the years, outdoor bans expanded to parks, beaches, and bus interchanges. By 2022, the focus had shifted to emerging threats, such as vaping, with a complete ban on the import, sale, manufacture, and promotion of alternative smoking products, including e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. As of January 2026, these regulations have been tightened further to cover traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and other alternative products. Entering 2026, the fixed penalty for smoking in no-smoking areas doubled from HK$1,500 to HK$3,000. In addition, smokers must now maintain a three-metre distance from entrances to childcare centres, schools, and hospitals. Another change is that hotels must offer at least 80% of their rooms as smoke-free. Vaping is subject to particularly stringent rules. Since 2022, possession of vapes for commercial purposes has been illegal, but personal possession has been tolerated until now. From April 30, 2026, carrying or using an activated vape in public will be prohibited, and offenders will face a HK$3,000 fine or up to six months in jail. These provisions cover e-cigarette cartridges and related materials. The ban also extends to heated tobacco, reflecting concerns about its marketing as a “safer” alternative. Flavoured cigarettes, excluding menthol, will be phased out by mid-2027, further reducing their appeal among young people. Sure, education campaigns and hotlines help—but they’re no substitute for tough, steady enforcement. Without it, these laws are little more than empty threats. Take vapes: the 2022 ban didn’t stamp them out—they’re everywhere. Until we take enforcement seriously, these problems will continue to undermine public health. Hong Kong’s anti-smoking laws are bold, but there’s a gap between what’s possible and what’s delivered. If vaping restrictions are to mean anything come April, robust enforcement is needed. 5/1/2026 1 Comment Venezuela - Pick Your Narrative "And yet, shockingly, removing Maduro won’t magically fix everything." In a stunning military operation that will no doubt inspire a few films, the U.S. nabbed a sitting president and his wife. Both were spirited away in the night - not just an average Tuesday night abduction. Hollywood’s finest, Kathryn Bigelow, surely has nothing better to do than scramble for the movie rights, because clearly this is a story worth telling.
And the reason for what happened? Take your pick! Oil, drugs, national security, political theatre—spin the narrative roulette wheel and see where it lands. Every pundit needs a pet theory, after all. Let’s unpack the competing narratives. Version 1: The “Oil Grab” Theory This perspective, prevalent among some left-leaning and anti-interventionist circles, frames the situation as a continuation of historic U.S. resource extraction in Latin America. Proponents point to Venezuela’s status as the holder of the world’s largest proven oil reserves. They argue that U.S. policy is about controlling Venezuela’s oil. Version 2: The “Narco-State” & National Security Narrative This narrative casts Maduro as the hemisphere’s villain—a criminal mastermind presiding over a narcoterrorist empire. With the U.S. Justice Department having indicted him, the only logical move is to swoop in heroically to save America from a cocaine tidal wave and single-handedly clean up hemispheric corruption. This, unsurprisingly, gives law-and-order types plenty of material for cable news monologues. Yet, in a plot twist worthy of reality TV, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a convicted drug trafficker, no less. Why? Well, who needs consistency? Version 3: The Ideological & Political Theatre Lens Some analysts—those diplomatic, “sober-minded” types—insist this is all about grand ideology and political theatre. Trump, ever the subtle statesman, gets to flex his “anti-socialist” credentials and remind everyone that Venezuela is merely the latest bogeyman in a tradition stretching back to North Vietnam. Because nothing says nuanced foreign policy like dusting off Cold War talking points for a modern audience. Version 4: The Humanitarian & Democracy Framework Many opposition figures and international do-gooders insist it’s all about Venezuela’s humanitarian agony—migration, starvation, repression. Oil and drugs? Mere background noise. The real story, they say with utmost sincerity, is the noble quest to restore democracy and save the people—because those outcomes always follow foreign intervention, right? Iraq, anyone? Version 5: The Great Power Competition Angle This school of thought assures us that Venezuela is merely the latest pawn in the U.S.-China-Russia chess match. After all, what’s a sovereign country if not just a square on the great gameboard? For strategists, it’s all about flexing hemispheric muscles and making sure no one else gets to play in America’s backyard. So, Which Is It? In briefings, Trump has offered a buffet of explanations for his actions. He and his team insist it’s not about regime change, a truly innovative spin, given that they literally just ousted the regime’s leader. Who knew semantics could be so powerful? Reality, of course, is a delightfully tangled mess of all these stories. Geopolitics is never about just one thing—except when it is, or isn’t, depending on who’s talking. The U.S. is, no doubt, motivated by pure ideals: national security, regional chess moves, economic self-restraint, and a burning passion for democracy (just ask anyone at the State Department). And yet, shockingly, removing Maduro won’t magically fix everything. The same generals are still running the show. Surely, Trump’s moves have them quaking in their boots—or maybe plotting their next PR campaign aimed at the global South, waving the anti-imperialist banner like it’s Fashion Week. Meanwhile, the UK and the Europeans have masterfully ensnared themselves in a diplomatic mousetrap of their own ingenious design. These self-proclaimed champions of international law now twist themselves into Olympic-level knots, desperately trying to square their lofty principles with the urgent need to avoid bruising Trump's delicate ego. The resulting spectacle could be mistaken for performance art, were it not so revealing—casting Starmer and the rest as little more than eager vassals, tripping over themselves to appease Trump. What’s clear is that the Venezuelan people remain caught in the middle, with their fate often a secondary consideration amid these competing narratives. As we watch this story unfold, it’s worth examining not only the events but also the lenses through which we choose to see them. Our prism often reveals as much about our own priorities and worldview as it does about the complex truth on the ground. 3/1/2026 1 Comment British Justice Pays Well "... we have a double murderer, who took a prison officer hostage, refused to associate with other prisoners, became depressed, sued the government, won, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab." Oh, the British public’s devotion to its national institutions is truly the stuff of fairy tales—just a nonstop lovefest for these paragons of virtue, whose every action is a masterclass in wisdom, transparency, and unadulterated brilliance.
Honestly, it’s a wonder people aren’t camped outside Parliament with bouquets and thank-you cards, eager for a glimpse of these untouchable icons of public service. The suggestion of a 'pre-revolutionary state' is obviously just the fever dream of malcontents who can’t handle living in a society where the only thing more flawless than the system is the haloed leadership running it. If you sense any unrest, don’t worry—it’s probably just a national allergy to perfection. Joking aside, the saga I’m about to tell lays bare the depth of the rot. A rot often hidden behind legalese, process and flannel. So, grab a coffee, sit down (just in case you fall over in shock), and hear the tale of Fuad Awale. In 2011, Awale, a Somali drug trafficker, walked up to two teenagers in Milton Keynes, held a gun to their heads, and carried out an execution. “Execution” is the term used by the judge presiding over the case. In January 2013, Awale was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 38 years. In May 2013, while serving his sentence at Full Sutton Prison, Awale and others took a prison officer hostage for five hours, threatening to kill him. They demanded that Britain release the radical cleric Abu Qatada. Awale pinned the officer to a chair, held a makeshift knife to his throat, and said: “Stop struggling, I’ve killed two people – I’ll kill you.” Awale was sentenced to a further six years for this offence. Due to the danger Awale posed to staff, he was placed under close supervision - the so-called Rule 45 regime. By then, he was expressing extremist Islamic beliefs and declaring himself a jihadist. These beliefs, together with his actions, made him one of the most threatening prisoners in the system. Under Rule 45, a prison governor may authorise, in writing, a period of removal from association of up to 14 days. The Secretary of State may grant removal from association for a maximum period of 42 days and may renew such leave for subsequent periods of up to 42 days. Between 2019 and 2023, Awale spent long periods in solitary confinement. He was offered opportunities to socialise with other prisoners (playdates, if you like), but declined some, claiming he feared for his safety. Yet the record shows that Awale was a danger to other prisoners and staff. In July 2019, Awale attacked another prisoner during association. He claims he made a pre-emptive strike in self-defence. After this, Awale faced rotation through various high-security prisons. Throughout 2020, he remained at HMP Manchester, spending most of the day out of his cell and engaging with staff. However, in January 2021, he attacked and punched a prison officer in the face. Following concerns that he had been inciting prisoners to harm staff, on 26 March 2021, he moved to HMP Long Lartin, where he began to settle down. As the prison service struggled to find prisoners for Awale to associate with, he eventually landed at HMP Woodhill. Still seen as a danger, he was subject to a four-officer unlock with body-worn cameras in operation. With effect from 15 December 2021, Awale entered an association group with prisoner LF, which permitted association outside their cells. They developed a good relationship. Then LF moved prisons. The prison service assessed that only 13 potential associations existed for Awale across the entire estate, assuming Awale would associate with them. Over time, Awale claims to have developed depression. His lawyers then took the government to court, arguing that the depression resulted from procedural failures, rights infringements and the presence of racist and Islamophobic gangs in the prison system. No shit, Sherlock. Who knew the prison was full of nasty people? In 2024, in a High Court judgment, Awale won his case. The judge found breaches of procedural rules, common law fairness, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the ECHR protects the fundamental right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. I kinda assumed that when you went to jail for a double murder and then held a prison officer hostage, threatening his life, you’d forfeited these rights. Moreover, repeated attacks on staff and prisoners made you ineligible for these rights—silly me. In December 2025, Justice Secretary David Lammy revealed that Awale was awarded £7,500 in compensation and £234,000 in legal costs, to be paid by the taxpayer. In short, we have a murderer who took a prison officer hostage, refused to associate with other prisoners, became depressed, sued the government, won, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Along the way, the lawyers make a tidy sum. Regarding the lawyers, Matrix Chambers represented Awale. Cherie Blair helped found these chambers—recall her? She’s married to former Labour PM Tony Blair. Dan Squires KC of Matrix Chambers appeared for Awale, and Sarah Hannett, also of Matrix Chambers, represented the government. Squires is married to the current Labour Minister for Courts, Sarah Sackman KC, MP. It's a small world. I’m sure this is all normal and above board. Also, just for the record, Sackman’s boss is Justice Secretary David Lammy, who authorised the payment. Oh, and guess what? The court, in its infinite wisdom, discovered all sorts of procedural failures—like not properly reviewing Awale's isolation or pondering the subtle effects of racism in a prison system that’s clearly running like a well-oiled machine (if the oil is, say, molasses). Shocking, right? I mean, who could have ever anticipated that a system teetering on the brink of collapse might drop the ball? And of course, Labour, always up for a bold move, decided that the best way to fix things was to throw open the doors and release a bunch of prisoners—including, just for good measure, sex offenders. Because what could possibly go wrong with that? The ruling and payout drew intense criticism from many quarters, including opposition politicians, who labelled it a "sick joke" and called for emergency legislation to overturn such judgments. Oh, absolutely—legal commentators have noted that the judgment is brimming with common sense (if you live on another planet) and that the judge, far from being lost in a maze of self-important mental gymnastics, was simply delivering the kind of brilliant, real-world insight we’ve come to expect from the bench. Truly, hats off. Naturally, the icing on the cake is last month’s Labour PM, Kier Starmer, rolling out the red carpet for an Islamic extremist who, ever so charmingly, referred to British people as “dogs and monkeys” and called for Jews to be killed. Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? Clearly, Kier just can’t catch a single break—what with sending Jeffrey Epstein’s BFF off to represent Britain in Washington (because who better?), and then, for good measure, losing his deputy PM thanks to some totally-not-shady property deals. It’s almost as if there’s a secret competition for the most questionable decision. Who could imagine why the average person might have any issues with our politicians or the legal system? I mean, it's only a flawless system that showers rewards on the deserving (read: the worst of the worst), while the rest of us just get the privilege of footing the bill. Truly, what a dream.  "The most significant event was President Donald Trump's return to office and the swift start of a global tariff war." As we move into 2026, it is essential to look back at the major geopolitical shifts of 2025. Rising trade tensions, power grabs, and broken alliances significantly changed the global landscape.
Many will remember 2025 as the year the post-war international order fell apart. Instead of clear-cut battles, ongoing confrontations and tough choices reshaped the world. The United States focused on its own economy, China showed patience, Russia sought to maintain its influence, and Europe struggled to stay united. Meanwhile, the global south recognised that international law is merely another tool wielded by stronger powers against them when convenient. They will increasingly be unwilling to play that game. The U.S.-China Economic Confrontation: A War of Attrition The most significant event was President Donald Trump's return to office and the swift start of a global tariff war. The U.S. imposed high tariffs on imports from almost every country, saying this would restore lost wealth and boost American manufacturing. In April, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods jumped to 145%, causing imports from China to drop by almost 25% in the first nine months of the year. Still, China handled the situation better than expected, thanks to years of preparation. Beijing hit back by targeting U.S. grain exports and restricting exports of rare-earth metals. The plan to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. mostly failed, with data showing a loss of blue-collar jobs. On top of that, the uneven way tariffs were applied created significant uncertainty for American businesses and shoppers. By year’s end, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods settled between 20% and 50% for most items, lower than the April peak. Analysts called this a clear win for China, noting how Beijing stood firm against U.S. pressure and kept its economy growing. The semiconductor competition also cooled, and China showed that top-tier technology is not always necessary to succeed. By using good-enough chips and innovative programming, China matched its main rivals. In a stunning move, Deepseek landed for free. By the end of the year, China maintained its strategic edge, while the U.S. economy sent mixed signals under Trump’s leadership. Lacklustre job gains were concentrated in just a handful of industries, while high prices remained a concern, prolonging the affordability-related struggles that beset Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden. Meanwhile, the U.S. banking system is creaking and things could quickly run amok. It's kinda complicated - the best explanation I've found is here. Russia's Strategy: Retaining Power Through Hybrid Escalation Vladimir Putin stayed in power in 2025, but his government faced more risks. After failing to win clearly in Ukraine, Russia’s decline may make it more likely to take risky actions. Russian troops made slow, costly progress by using small-unit tactics and better drones, but experts agree that a clear path to victory is not evident. With war costs rising to near late-Soviet levels, Russia’s military strength is declining. Since a regular military win seems unlikely, experts warn that 2026 could see more hybrid tactics. This might mean more sabotage of European defences, stronger information attacks on important elections, and military pressure to weaken Western support for Ukraine. Europe's Dilemma: Humbled by Division, Not Just Trump In 2025, Europe had to face the hard truth that the U.S. was no longer a reliable ally. Still, many of Europe’s political problems were caused by its own actions. The Trump administration changed its approach to Europe, often using critical language. Important documents, such as the U.S. National Security Strategy, warned that Europe could decline due to uncontrolled migration. Instead of coming together to negotiate as equals, Europe often gave in to Trump’s demands. European leaders wanted to maintain support for Ukraine and ensure that NATO was not abandoned. But deep divisions within Europe weakened this strategy. Far-right parties with pro-Russian views led in polls in several countries, which hurt the EU’s ability to negotiate on trade and defence. Big countries like Germany, France, Italy, and Spain could not agree on how to respond to U.S. tariffs. By year’s end, European leaders recognised the need to strengthen their self-reliance. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Europe "must become much more independent from the U.S.", signalling a late but serious push for change. Britain: A Country Adrift Eighteen months after a big election win, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government is facing major political problems. Although they promised change after 14 years of Conservative rule, the government is now caught up in scandals, losing public support, and facing internal divisions. Seeing the Chancellor cry next to the Prime Minister in Parliament was a first and showed the government’s wider problems: they are playing with a second-rate team. A string of mistakes has undermined the government’s claims to be more ethical and competent than those before it. For example, Starmer choosing a close friend of a convicted paedophile to represent the country in Washington was a significant error of judgment. A cabinet member's cheating on a house purchase didn’t help matters Nigel Farage’s Reform UK now regularly leads Labour in national polls, winning over voters in Labour’s old strongholds who are fed up with mainstream politics. The Green Party is also gaining ground, especially with young people and in cities like London. The first big test comes in May 2026, with important elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd, and many English council seats. Labour is likely to face a shellacking that seals Starmer’s fate. If Labour loses Wales, it would be a significant blow. In his New Year message, Starmer asked people to be patient and promised that real change would come in 2026. He said he would stick to his current plan and that Britain would see positive changes However, with his approval ratings falling, the party behind in the polls, and MPs disagreeing internally, Starmer’s leadership looks less and less sustainable. 2026: Who knows? The events of 2025 have set the stage for an even more unpredictable future. The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether the Trump's tariff policies are legal. If the court rules against them, the U.S. might have to pay back up to $1 trillion in tariffs, causing major economic uncertainty. The U.S.’s national security policy is also likely to further break up the international order. Still, the pundits are starting to think about what might happen after Trump. That is unclear. Europe should get ready not for a stronger Russia, but for a desperate one that might use sabotage, cyber-attacks, and disinformation to make up for its weaker military. Russia could also use nuclear threats to get the world’s attention. Europe has a big choice to make: keep reacting to events or invest in its own defence, hybrid warfare protection, and a united foreign policy. Whether Europe can come together will decide if it shapes the new world order or is shaped by it. In short, 2025 was not about big wins but about ongoing challenges. China showed strength, Russia acted out of weakness, Europe’s divisions were clear, and the U.S. went its own way both economically, strategically and politically. Stay tuned as we navigate what 2026 has in store. Happy New Year! |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2026
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed