Blog Archives

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

31/5/2020 Comments

Schadenfreude

"When is a rioter not a rioter? When the rioter is in Hong Kong."

'Schadenfreude' is such a delightful Germany word. It captures so many emotions, bundles them together and then spits them out in a guffaw. Since June 2019, the Hong Kong Police Force faced a relentless torrent of bile for doing their job. Every critic with an anti-China agenda jumped on the bandwagon, passing opinions and distorting the truth to fit their false narrative.

Much of that hate speech came from US politicians. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the violent protests in Hong Kong 'a beautiful sight to behold'. Well, Nancy, are the demonstrations rattling your windows and doors beautiful? How extraordinary that these events in the US should flare up now. The timing is sublime. As an atheist, I never went for the whole karma thing, but I'm open to the idea.

So here's the question: When is a rioter not a rioter? Answer: When the rioter is in Hong Kong.

That's according to the hypocritical mindset of Pelosi, Mike Pompeo and the Orange Clown in the White House. Perhaps we can excuse Trump given that he has consumed unproven medication which he probably swilled down with neat bleach. Pelosi has no such excuse unless all those facelifts have cut off the blood to her head.

Meanwhile, it's fascinating to watch the US riots unfold. As I write this, reports say as many as five people died in two days of violence. We had eight months of trouble in Hong Kong with one death caused by the rioters.

Meanwhile, 500 National Guard troops moved into Minneapolis, St Paul. Also, the Pentagon put elements of the Army on the ready to deploy to Minneapolis. Does anyone remember the feverish media speculation last year when the PLA gathered in a Shenzhen stadium to the north of us? That was portrayed as a prelude to invasion and deemed unacceptable by the US. Yet, the military on US streets is fine and dandy. Another example of 'do as I say, not as I do'.

On the west coast, the LAPD declared an unlawful assembly throughout Downtown LA. Besides, curfews were imposed in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Denver, Cincinnati, Portland, Oregon, and Louisville, Kentucky. Do that in Hong Kong and be ready for the human rights crowd to be screaming suppression.

You get my point. The stench of deceit hangs in the air around all the utterances from US politicians.

On a more serious note, sympathy lies with my brothers and sisters in US law enforcement. They are now experiencing the trauma the Hong Kong Police faced at the hands of unhinged rioters. These people hide behind causes, but in truth, they come driven by a form of psychosis. It is a mania that feeds upon itself, watered by false social media narratives and crude hatred.

Never forget that dealing with riots is messy, grueling and frightening. Thus is it churlish to say the US is getting a taste of its own medicine? Indeed some in the US sought to destabilise this place, and for that, they deserve a comeuppance. Yet, Trump is unlikely to notice the irony, given his willful blindness.

Trump would do well to reflect on something Confucius said: "A great man is hard on himself, a man with small hands is hard on others".

“Schadenfreude — pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.”

Comments

31/5/2020 Comments

An Empty Gesture

"Depending on which figure you believe, that's a possible 2.9 to 3.4 million Hong Kong folks heading to the UK"

As the fallout from Beijing seizing the initiative to enact Article 23 rumbles on, the UK is moving to open the door to British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders. Or that's what it purports to be doing. In truth, the picture is far murkier. A bit of background — until 1981, the Hong Kong people enjoyed the right of abode in the UK. Then, in a preemptive move, the Thatcher-led UK government removed that right before starting talks with China on the 1997 handover. In the process, the UK cut off the Hong Kong people and threw away a significant bargaining chip.

Now in the throes of self-flagellation over its moral obligations, the UK is proposing a 'pathway' to citizenship. Yet, the details of that 'pathway' are unclear, while a few boulders have already landed to make progress difficult. Not least of which is no one has consulted the British public. In fairness, people are rather busy with the Covid-19 travel habits of Dominic Cummings. It's the only story at the moment and a useful distraction.

Initial reports suggested the Brits would allow in 300,000 Hong Kong people. That's not an unsubstantial number. This figure struck me as odd because, with some 3.4 million BNOs issued, it appeared a massive under-estimate. My suspicions proved correct because the vast majority of citizens didn't renew their BNOs, opting for the cheaper Hong Kong passport. People can't resist a bargain. Currently, an estimated 300,00 BNOs are in use, hence the initial figure. We don't have much detail of the 'pathway' beyond the UK proposing the current six-month visa-free access extended to 12 months.

But here's the rub. The UK Home Office has confirmed that all those born before 1997 in Hong Kong keep the right to a BNO and de-facto are eligible to hop on a now very crowded 'pathway' leading to Britain. Depending on which figure you believe, that's a possible 2.9 to 3.4 million Hong Kong folks heading to the UK. For reference, the population of Birmingham is 2.4 million. Note that the young hooligans rioting on our streets born after 1997 don't get a BNO.

You can see already that this arrangement is smelling fishy. Eventually, the penny will drop that millions heading off to the UK won't endear the Boris Johnson's government to the electorate. Neither is China well-pleased.

I will venture a prediction: Any scheme the UK offers will come capped either by stealth or bureaucratic processes. Of course, the UK will seek to cherry-pick who gets in; the doctors, nurses and other needed specialists will get a welcome, but the number will be limited.

While allowing in a million or so hard-working entrepreneurs from Hong Kong would boost the British economy, there is a tribal dimension here. In general, the British Chinese citizens enjoy an excellent reputation as industrious folks operating below the radar. As a group, they do not attract the sort of animus that falls on other ethnic minorities.

But the question must be asked, in Brexit Britain would the arrival of millions of Chinese change that sentiment? My guess is yes, especially amongst those communities blighted with unemployment and social deprivation. Never forget that the Labour Party faced a rebellion amongst its core working-class vote due to immigration issues. Politicians of all hues recognise that factor. Covid-19 hasn't helped matters.

On the other side, what's the likely impact on Hong Kong? Well, if millions left, the place would suffer. Yet, as I said, that's extremely unlikely. Plus, Hong Kong has brushed off high levels of migration in the past with no visible consequences. In 1989 after Tiananmen, people moved out. The same happened before 1997. In all this, the UK was never the favoured destination, as Canada and the US topped the list. Often overlooked is that a fair percentage quietly returned to Hong Kong, having realised living as a 'second-class' citizen in a foreign land isn't for them.

Reflecting on the cack-handling of the Covid-19 outbreak in the US and the UK, I'd question whether I'd put my faith in either place. Add to that under-funded public services, rampant crime, high tax-rates and police who don't respond to calls. Suddenly the UK isn't looking that attractive.

Will there be any takers? I'm sure some will take up the offer, but as I said, no doubt the scheme will face moderation by UK domestic interests. Because once the British public learns that millions of Hong Kong people could be coming, watch the reaction.

Plus, don't forget those pushing this matter do not represent the majority in the UK. The unholy trinity of Lord Patten, Lord Alton and Benedict (God speaks to me) Rogers come from a cohort that is the old-school establishment. And while Patten enjoys some star status in Hong Kong, in the UK he is a marginalised figure after his involvement in various scandals.

The Jimmy Savile case bashed his reputation. Being a patron of St Benedict's Catholic Private School in Ealing, London, a place plagued by child abuse scandals for decades didn't help matters. Then there is his work for accused sex offender Cardinal Pell. The Australian courts judged Pell not guilty, although the odour of something hangs in the air.

Thus, as the UK garners headlines to give the impression of acting on its obligations, reality will soon bite. Rest assured once the details emerge of the 'pathway', MPs will lobby in the background to limit the numbers allowed in. Having dangled the carrot, we can expect the UK to use 'process' to fend off the majority. Lastly, who recalls Chris Patten pushing hard for full British citizenship for the Hong Kong people before 1997?

No one, because he didn't.

Comments

25/5/2020 Comments

Beijing says enough is enough!

"The best outcome would be Hong Kong to enact the legislation after due scrutiny, however the Pan Dem's slammed that door shut"

The Hong Kong Pan Dem camp has brought to their door the very thing they feared the most. Their cocked-eyed approach to Hong Kong's democratic development has now hit 'realpolitik'. Beijing's decision to enact national security legislation is a direct result of the Pan Dem's inability to negotiate rationally.

The scenes we've seen in LegCo over the past two weeks are an affirmation of their juvenile, callow conduct. Well, Daddy has stepped in and taken away the keys to the toy box.

Let's get to the core of the issue. Beijing's biggest fear was always that Hong Kong might evolve into a centre for destabilising the whole nation. With 1.4 billion people to look after, China can ill-afford turmoil. Plus, any chaos may spill over into the wider world.

Thus, the interests of Hong Kong, with seven million people are de-facto subordinate. That's the hard truth.

How, you wonder, did we get to this situation. Cut a long story short, an attempt to pass Article 23 laws in 2003 failed after massive public opposition. Since then the issue has been held in abeyance.

Then allied to that in 2014, the Pan Dem's failed to grasp the opportunity for democratic reform, making 'perfect' the enemy of a practical solution. Since then, things spiralled downhill; Occupy Central, the Mongkok 2016 CNY riot and the civil unrest of 2019.

We all know that ‘one country, two systems’ was always a compromise solution that nonetheless has a certain elegance. It could work if each side recognised the other concerns. I’m afraid that's not happening.

To safeguard its interests, the Chinese insisted that the 1997 agreement included national security laws. In simple terms, Hong Kong should not be a base to subvert the government in Beijing. The British agreed that provision, although the detail was left for after 1997.

It's 23 years since the handover with Hong Kong nowhere near agreeing on legislation. In the meantime, the likes of Anson Chan, Martin Lee and Joshua Wong went running to Washington demanding a US intervention. These actions are the very thing Beijing feared.

You can excuse Joshua Wong, after all, he's a young man with issues. This means he may not always comprehend the consequence of his actions. The same cannot be said for Anson Chan and Martin Lee. As seasoned political operators, they’ve elected to inflame sentiment.

Following the events of 2019, with Hong Kong teetering on anarchy, and the recent shenanigans in LegCo, Beijing lost patience. I’m told behind the scenes talks to broker a settlement broke up months ago.

Having slammed the door on negotiations, the Pan Dem's adopted a policy of filibuster and disruption.

Pro-establishment politicians are not blameless. They failed to reign in the filibuster, wobbling and prevaricating in LegCo. At the same time, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, proved incapable of breaking the impasse.

The emergence last year of an independence movement at the core of the violent protests must have rattled the windows at Zhongnanhai. Kids with underdeveloped frontal cortexes, and thus impulsive by nature, took to the streets to confront the police.

With little ability to grasp the possible outcomes, these kids are now paying the price with jail terms, careers ruined and families in pain. Meanwhile, the failure of the Pan Dems to condemn the violence, the killing and the mayhem is a stain on their reputation.

The timing of Beijing's move is astute. The Pan Dem's could likely win a large victory in September's LegCo elections. That would rule out Article 23. Further, the distractions of Covid-19 and a weakened US president, provide a window of opportunity.

Added to that, Hong Kong is a city of extreme hypochondriacs: thus the virus might be seen as a more significant threat than national security laws. This may mute any response, although its anyone's guess.

This morning the social media chatter was its usual bipolar self. Some decried the decision of Beijing and others welcomed it as correcting a failing. The detractors asserted Hong Kong would experience a new wave of emigration.

They may well be right, but we've encountered several such waves in the past and brushed off the impact. In any case, many of those who left before 1997 regretted their decision and sought to return quietly. With anti-China sentiment on the rise overseas, the welcome mat is missing.

Taiwan was open to Hong Kong protesters fleeing arrest action in 2019. Then once Tsai Ing-wen secured another four year term, she closed the door to Hong Kong migrants by imposing new regulations. She can ill-afford to have a cluster of hard-core Hong Kong asylum seekers stirring up trouble.

What is clear, the Pan Dems are now between a rock and a hard place. They can shout and bleat all they like, or take to the streets again. It won't matter. Their tactics backfired and gave us the result we didn't want, because the best outcome would be Hong Kong to enact the legislation after due scrutiny.

Many of us warned of such an outcome if the Pan Dems continued with their myopic relentless anti-Beijing mindset. And so it's come to pass.

Comments

17/5/2020 Comments

Saint Greta of Iceberg

"Not only is Greta a specialist on climate change but she's also the go-to-expert on Covid-19"

Some 500 years ago, the Chimu people in what is now Peru ritually killed hundreds of their children in the largest known child sacrifice. The Chimu believed slaughtering the kids appeased the angry Gods.

Down the ages, as pestilence and death stalked the land, our ancestors sought a solution through such killings. At other times distraught people seeking answers would gather around a possessed child to hear the voice of God.

While child sacrifice is rare these days, even in this so-called enlightened era, we still can't help ourselves. Thus we venerate the words of a kid with Asperger's syndrome and OCD, allowing her to lecture us on climate change.

You could argue that Greta Iceberg fulfils a niche for those people seeking answers beyond science.

You know the sort, those who believe in tarot cards and astrology. It remains a sad reflection of the homo sapien’s finite mind that we seek comfort from such pronouncements.

This week I learned that not only is Greta a specialist on climate change but she's also the go-to-expert on Covid-19. Greta is busy popping up on CNN and in The Guardian (of course) offering her sage advice.

Greta famously can see carbon dioxide in the air; that's according to her mother. This skill is incredibly useful in the fight against climate change.

The world's scientists, with all their training, need fancy instruments to do the same. Thus it's only appropriate that Greta helps us beat Covid-19.

At this stage it's unclear whether Greta can see the Covid-19 virus — we can only hope. After all, she's had the disease and survived. Well, when I say she's had it, no tests were done on her.

That's not needed because Greta carried out a self-diagnosis. Thus it's now gospel truth in the media that she had the Covid-19 and defeated it. It's another omen.

Her skills know no bounds. As I write this, she's likely at a secret X-Man school with Professor Charles Xavier coaching her to the next level. Except we know that Greta doesn't need schooling or teachers. She has a gift.

The advocates for Greta proclaim that people with autism are not as influenced by social pressures as the rest of us, which frees their mind to see problems more realistically and find creative solutions.

The syndrome comes with gifts of abstract thinking, which lends itself to talents in science and political theory. Except I've not heard a single innovative solution from Greta.

She repeats the usual rote messages; plant trees, protect biodiversity and cut carbon emissions.

It's all rather entertaining, apart from the fact it's not. Her parents orchestrate all the activities, find sponsors and collect the money. They have the connections that make this profitable.

Around Greta are various interested supporters including business people including a venture capitalist. Are they in it for the sake of the planet or for a profit? Is this really ethical?

Meantime, Greta and her minders have seized upon the lockdowns 25 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions as proof of what is possible. In the process, they've blindly ignored the tremendous damage to the economy, people's livelihoods, the old and our mental health.

None of that matters, because according to Greta and her followers, Covid-19 has given us a sign. The way forward; lockdown, economic ruin and death.

Like old-time medieval zealots, the eco-warriors proclaim Covid-19 is a punishment for our evil ways. Along the way, Greta morphs into a latter-day Joan of Arc. And look how it turned out for poor Joan.

That the mainstream media provide a platform for Greta and fetishise her every statement is bizarre. Yet, those who a voice of concern about letting a 17-year-old control the narrative are beyond the pale; dismissed as evil old folks who caused the problem in the first place.

Forgotten in all this, is that Greta is receiving mental health treatment through a system operated and funded by these old folks.

Somebody called Poppy Noor gets a column in the Guardian to argue that Greta is the perfect choice to speak about Covid-19. Noor asserts that Greta's public profile and standing qualify her.

I wonder if Noor would elect to have heart surgery done by David Attenborough on the same basis? He's got a high public profile and enjoys public confidence.

Of course, Noor proclaims anyone critical of Greta is sexist. That's the unthinking default response these days— others include racist, homophobic, transphobic.

So while leading scientists struggle to comprehend Covid-19, we're expected to draw advice from this high-school dropout of no fixed ability. Please give me strength.

Unfortunately, the media have no such misgivings. In the end, all Greta could offer was 'listen to the experts'. That's it: no unique insights, no new truth nor direction. Fair enough.

Comments

15/5/2020 Comments

The Worm has turned.

"His best mitigation is his guilty plea." Judge Amanda Woodcock.

After months of a relentless battering in the press and on social media, the besieged Hong Kong Police Force has something to celebrate. Meanwhile, I expect that bottoms are twitching amongst the 1,600 folks arrested and charged for public order offences.

Today, the district court handed down a four-year prison sentence for rioting. The defendant, a 22-year-old male, was part of the disturbance outside our parliament on 12th June 2019.

This judgement is significant for several reasons. First, the defendant pleaded guilty and displayed considerable remorse. That contrition should have earned him a significant discount on sentencing. The charge of rioting carries a maximum 10-year jail sentence, although the starting point for first offenders is around five to six years.

In passing sentence, the judge said "Such violence cannot be tolerated in a civilised and diversified society. His best mitigation is his guilty plea." Without a doubt, the message is clear; taking part in a riot isn't a smart idea.

Meanwhile, those awaiting trial will now be scrambling to revisit their pleas. If a guilty plea earns a defendant four years, then conviction after trial must invite a higher sentence. That's a sobering thought.

Second, the call to drop the riot characterisation — one of the five demands of the protest movement — is now affirmed as hopeless. Simply put, the court has judged the event a riot and sentenced this man to jail.

This demand was always a non-starter because it amounts to suspending the rule of law in the interests of a specific group. If one group could secure such a privilege, then you set a terrible precedent. Who's to say that someone else couldn't come along to demand the 'get out of jail free card'.

Meanwhile, after a delay caused by a failed judicial review, the Independent Police Complaints Commission published its thematic study into police actions during 2019.

The IPCC went looking for cancer and found eczema. In its findings, the Police Force comes cleared of the outrageous allegations made by the militants. The IPCC review affirms that Police only used force in response to escalating violence.

Furthermore, the IPCC concludes the use of force was in accord with international standards. Any rational person could see that for themselves. Only those with an agenda have sought to distort what happened.

Also addressed by the IPCC are various critical incidents. These include the events at Yuen Long on 21 July 2019 and Prince Edward Station on 31 August 2019.

The IPCC has a far better understanding of the sequence of these events than the media or the militant's PR machine. Their edited videos and deliberate distortions don't cut the mustard.

For the Prince Edward incident, the IPCC details the build-up, including the attacks on innocent passengers by protesters. Much of the media coverage ignored that sequence of events and only portrayed police action. Seen in context, the Police acted appropriately.

Moreover, the detail provided by the IPCC exposes the lies of deaths and Police obstructing medical teams. Likewise, the IPCC concludes there is no evidence to substantiate claims the Police colluded with triads in Yuen Long.

Serious allegations, such as a female being shot in the eye outside Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station on 11 August 2019 and other females being allegedly sexually assaulted at San Uk Ling Holding Centre and police stations, are not covered.

Why? Well, because the purported victims did not come forward to complain to IPCC. One of these alleged victims is now wanted for making a false report to Police.

In fairness, the IPCC doesn't exonerate the Police. Noting that improvements are needed; it makes several recommendations.

Of course, this report will not appease the opposition. They view everything through a distorted prism of prejudice, thus facts are irrelevant to them. Already, in a childish hissy fit, Pan Dem legislator Lam Cheuk-ting ripped up a copy of the report.

That gesture sums up the Pan Dems. Instead of dealing with the issues by debate, they'd rather destroy the evidence. They live in a world that is best described as 'post-real' — where facts have no standing; only selfish opinions matter.

Some of these irrational types will only be content with the disbandment of the Police so they can run wild on the streets. That's never going to happen, and it's starting to unravel for the protest movement. So what's the scorecard looking like (thanks Digger)

Extradition bill - withdrawn!
Stop calling it a riot - courts have ruled it was a riot!
Amnesty for rioters - hard to defend this claim when one of your own pleads guilty to riot.
Universal suffrage - It is blatantly clear this is nothing but a sectarian independence movement with little to do with democracy
Independent investigation - the IPCC report is out and puts the blame squarely on the rioters. Sorry.

"Five demands, not one left!".

Comments

11/5/2020 Comments

The Circus is back in town.

"Young people filled with passion, impulsive and inclined to act on their emotions, are led astray with ease."

With a vengeance, the heat of a Hong Kong summer has arrived. A typhoon is lingering south of us, as the cool weather of our Covid-19 period retreats.

Likewise, the militant protesters are back. They're testing the limits of the social distancing laws, testing the police and everyone's patience.

With the economy in decline and unemployment rising, it's debatable whether large numbers of citizens will risk everything by returning to the streets.

Last night, the black shirts made a reappearance in Mongkok, only to face a swift intervention by the increasingly assertive police. As the courts jail rioters for up to seven years, we all debate whether this will dissuade the militants. Everyone has an opinion that draws off a thousand variables.

The calm we enjoyed during the Covid-19 semi-lockdown was an opportunity for Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step forward as the people's protector in these dangerous times.

After all, people will cleave to robust leaders. And while Lam and her team did exceptionally well in containing the virus, she's failed to ride the wave of success.

Currently, only the Commissioner of Police, Chris Tang, is showing the sort of robust leadership needed in times of crisis. He stands tall amongst a field of mediocre, sheep-like, officials.

You can see that Tang trucks no nonsense from his officers nor opponents. The recent arrest of officers indicates he will hold them to account.

No politician has succeeded in landing a damaging blow on Tang despite repeated attempts in district councils and at LegCo. I sense he enjoys sparring with those people while they seek to score cheap points.

Of course, they don't like it when he retorts to their misplaced attacks with polite derision and hard facts.

Meanwhile, the LegCo circus is in full swing. On Friday, after seven months of delays, the pro-establishment camp swept into the chamber to seize the House Committee. This body controls the business of LegCo; thus, whoever directs the committee sets the pace in LegCo.

The committee failed to elect a chairperson since October 2019, as filibustering blocked progress. Acting chair Dennis Kwok allowed endless arguments about procedures and brought LegCo to a halt.

Starry Lee from the pro-establishment camp, acting on legal advice, marched-in, under escort, to seize the chair. An outflanked opposition reacted by charging forward; scuffles followed, as the two sides faced-off. Lee then declared the meeting in session.

As trouble rumbled on, she ordered eleven opposition councillors out of the chamber for causing disorder. The rest soon followed.

With fourteen bills cleared that afternoon, the opposition was left claiming assault and foul play. There is no shortage of evidence with live CCTV coverage, the media on scene and councillors filming events.

Opposition legislator Ray Chan charged back and forth in a comical manner before he's dragged away shoeless. At the same time, Eddie Chu demonstrated remarkable skills by climbing the chamber walls. His attempt to breach the cordon-line protecting Starry Lee failed.

This unedifying spectacle sets a terrible example. No wonder the kids believe it is acceptable to throw petrol bombs and beat up anyone who questions their methods.

Doubtless, this is far from the end of the matter. Last Friday's skirmish is part of an evolving opposition rear-guard action. They believe that in September's election they'll gain controll in LegCo.

So until then, the plan is to stall all legislation, especially the national anthem law and anything related to Article 23. I expect more shenanigans in the weeks ahead.

And yet, life goes on because Hong Kong is a resilient city. In my forty years here, she's survived typhoons, riots, refugees, financial collapses and pandemics.

As Donald Tsang asserted at the height of the 1998 financial crisis, "No one makes money by betting against Hong Kong."

Yet, how many times do all-knowing foreign journalists come here, sniff around, do a cage-home story and then feel able to write their 'fall of Hong Kong' article? In truth, they know next to nothing.

This place has a tremendous capacity to absorb a crisis, brush it off and then move forward, cushioned by the vast Chinese hinterland.

Despite last year's wide-spread unrest with some terrorist activity, we are still here. The property market didn't crash, the Hong Kong dollar is intact, and business activity is returning.

In other places, when this state of affairs has continued for long enough, they have a revolution. Here that's not an option.

"We made the wrong decision." That's from a friend who jumped too early as Covid-19 took hold here in January. They put their faith in the US by fleeing to the safety of New York with three kids. That's not something they'll do again. Despite everything, Hong Kong looks like a sanctuary of safety.

Watching all this unfold, I feel things are rarely black and white. While the protests are back, the determination of the violent militants remains open to question. Many of their mistakes are due to the excess and overzealousness of youth.

Young people filled with passion, impulsive and inclined to act on their emotions, are led astray with ease. And because they know everything, their confidence knows no bounds. Then reality bites with arrest, court and jail time. Life is a severe teacher.

With one of the five demands met, the other four languish in the bin. The militants must have noticed that the courts have designated that the events of 12 June 2019 as a riot.

Their demand for a retraction of the riot characterisation is now impossible without suspending the rule of law. If suspending the rule of law is possible, then we are truly lost.

Moreover, the protesters now face a unified and blooded Police Force, who have grown in confidence. Anyone thinking they can win this struggle on the streets is taking a considerable risk.

Their best bet is the LegCo elections, if the opposition doesn't blow that with their infighting.

Either way, it's a long hot summer coming.

Comments

9/5/2020 Comments

Heroes

"To be a hero denotes that something is unusual, extraordinary and uncalled for. That would suggest that something has gone wrong." Anonymous NHS medical worker.

We are all heroes of our own story. And, unfortunately, we all engage in comparisons, whether personal or at a broader level. Covid-19 brought this trait into sharp focus with nations involved in a grim game of comparing infection and death numbers. And yes, I'm as guilty as the next person.

Yet, it's baffling to observe the UK engaged in mass 'clapping', the deification of Captain Tom Moore and the ascent of the NHS to 'medical Valhalla'. My sense of unease increased as I witnessed this collective glorification of failure.

Then it struck me. The British are a forgiving and obliging lot, who are being played so that the hard facts slip off the front page. Despite claims to the contrary, 'clapping' does nothing tangible except affirm a herd mentality. Instead of 'clapping' people should be yelling from the rooftop "Where is the PPE? Where is the leadership?".

This 'clapping' business is reminiscent of the manufactured-grief over Prince Diana's death that engulfed the UK in 1997. Of course, if you didn't join in, you earned the label 'heretic". North Koreans would understand.

Granted, signs of solidarity with hard-pressed health workers is commendable, but it's also a useful distraction. At least one doctor is waking up to this charade.

Next up is the formidable Captain Tom Moore. I commend the man. No one can take away from him the fact that he's captured the attention of the nation with his grit. He is a true hero.

Yet, the fact that a 100-year-old man needs to raise money in such circumstances raises questions. Why isn't adequate public funding available?

Then his achievement is hi-jacked by self-serving politicians, who harness it to their agenda to bask in the reflected glory. Likewise, seeking to shift blame to China is a distraction that doesn't help tackle the problem on the ground.

From the Charge of the Light Brigade to Scott of the Antarctic, we Brits flip defeats on their head. We can't help ourselves as we make these stories cherished examples of the British spirit.

Boris Johnson, Britain's Prime Minister, is seeking every opportunity to engage in this sort of gesture politics. The 75th anniversary of Victory in Europe is an ideal fit. Meanwhile, real initiatives to curb the spread of Covid-19 are lacking.

From the outset, the UK was on the wrong track. Blinded by arrogance — and perhaps some belief in British exceptionalism — Johnson opted for the 'herd immunity' model.

This idea came from the experts at Imperial College, London. Instead of watching what was happening in China, Japan and South Korea, and learning, the UK went off on a different approach.

As the UK entered March, it soon became clear that the model was wildly wrong. The boffins had assigned the virus a percentage of patients that need ICU care with ventilators. But, nobody bothered to tell Covid-19.

As the virus spread, the ICU rate proved to be 50 per cent out. Perhaps the UK could have weathered the storm with a fully prepared NHS. But the NHS was far from ready.

Thus, with only 5000 ventilators and death projections moving towards 500,000, Johnson needed to act. By mid-March 'herd immunity' was dropped as Johnson pivoted to the social distancing approach. You know, the sort of thing that worked in China and elsewhere. By then, it was too late.

Only this week did Heathrow Airport put in place temperature checks for passengers. Again, far too late. It was needed in late January, as news of the pandemic emerged.

Besides, the UK's contact tracing, testing and the supply of PPE remains well below par. Germany tested some 20,000 people per day in the second week of March, Britain was testing on average under 2,000.

With over 31,000 deaths by early May, the harsh truth is the UK failed. The system failed, the politicians failed, the NHS planners and the media failed. From the outset I was appalled at the very idea of herd immunity: Doctor William Hanage said it better than me.

None of this takes away from the thousands of medical workers toiling to save patients. But here's the thing. If Hong Kong can get through without a single medical worker infected, what does it say when so many frontline UK medical workers die of Covid-19.

Meanwhile, the UK's official death toll from Covid-19 is now the highest in Europe. But it's hard to know for sure whether these statistics are accurate. Experts think it's too soon to say whether the UK has been hit the hardest. It may be years before we have a final reckoning.

What is clear is that the UK lost vital time by adopting the false promise of 'herd immunity'. Moreover, don't forget that Johnson missed five emergency Cobra meetings. Johnson attended his first Cobra meeting on 2nd March when the outbreak had already taken hold.

Plus, he decided in early February to delegate responsibility for tackling Covid-19 to his health secretary. That decision turned what could have been a total-government response into a departmental one for a crucial month.

In short, the captain wasn't on the bridge, and no one took the issue seriously until it was too late. Since then the UK played chase with a virus that doesn't bother about your politics.

Then Johnson's brush with death took the focus off his failures, the shortages and the poor messaging by government. He was taken ill on 27th March.

Britain's ongoing shortage of tests and lack of robust contact tracing means a return to any semblance of normal life could be far slower than other countries.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people are still dying every day, and there are more new infections. Let us hope that hard lessons don't fade in the jingoistic hubris.

Comments

4/5/2020 Comments

Something Out There? No!

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Carl Sagan

Last week, the US Navy released three videos of encounters with 'unidentified flying objects'. The tin-foil hat brigade, with too much time on their hands during the Covid-19 lockdown, went into hyperdrive.

This saga has a backstory, much of which the main-stream media are getting wrong.

Let me set the scene. The first video — titled FLIR — records an incident that took place on 14 November 2004 in the Pacific Ocean off Southern California. Two F/A-18 Hornets from the USS Nimitz reported chasing a UFO.

One of the Hornets captured infrared video with its targeting pod. Simultaneously, naval vessels and other military planes in the vicinity reported radar sightings. By some accounts, similar incidents occurred in the following days although no video evidence is available.

The second series of incidents involved the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Atlantic Ocean. These events took place from the summer of 2014 to March 2015 with five F/A-18 Hornet pilots reporting UFOs.

The Navy released two infrared videos of these encounters — GIMBLE and GO FAST. Like the Nimitz incident, radar contacts identified the presence of an object. One of the videos appears to show something travelling at very high speed at sea level.

These videos first emerged to the public domain in December 2017 in a New York Times story featuring Luis Elizondo, a former US Defence staffer. The media alleges that Elizondo 'leaked' the videos.

This untrue statement gives the tale a disquieting edge, suggesting a cover-up. In truth, Elizondo attained proper consent to use the videos. Various branches of the military did not know this, leading to some confusion. Thus, with the Navy's 'official' release in April 2020, the story became a significant event.

Of course, speculation is rife. Why did the Navy decide to make public the footage and confirms its existence? Are we being prepared for an alien encounter or is a Covid-19 distraction exercise underway? Meanwhile, the videos are shoe-horned into every crackpot conspiracy out there. This is often the way these days.

The truth is more prosaic. Could the release be anything to do with the thousands of 'freedom of information' requests they've received? These requests, placed with various agencies, have fed conjecture of a cover-up. Yet, as insiders note, the US military is a massive entity.

So, just because one section has certain evidence doesn't mean the whole institution knows. Accordingly, when replying to FOI requests with "we don't have such footage" the author was mistaken but honest.

The fact that the footage sat idle and unreported elsewhere suggests nothing more than lax procedures.

I reckon the US Navy is fed up with all the fuss and having concluded the videos show nothing unusual, they released them.

The Navy hasn't given out any of the radar or other sensor data that accompanies these incidents. That's no surprise. Such details are sensitive as it gives away information about military capabilities that are secret.

As expected, a great deal of stuff is now buzzing about on the Internet. To some folks, these videos affirm the presence of aliens or beings from another dimension. To others, these sightings are trial runs of drones that will later spread Covid-19.

Then you have pseudo-scientists asserting that the object in the FLIR clip is travelling at 40,000 miles an hour while pulling 60Gs. To them, this is direct evidence of advanced alien technology.

Consider that an F/A-18 Hornet will break up at about 16G, while the pilot dies at approximately 9G. When asked to produce calculations to verify their findings, these 'experts' go silent. I can only surmise because it's nonsense.

The Navy has not stated what it believes is happening the videos. Radar data and other sensors likely provide a full explanation, but again for reasons of secrecy that's not something we are going to get. Thus, the lack of a full account is feeding the frenzy.

Further, not knowing the explanation for the sightings does not mean we can jump to the conclusion its aliens. Such a leap would need a substantial amount of evidence.

So here comes Mick West, who does share his calculations and draws conclusions from the available data. As Mick points out, there are simple explanations for these three events. He debunks the claims made about the FLIR video and in a series of YouTube clips covers the other encounters.

The details, including the maths used to calculate speeds, are all given. The role of the sensor unit on the F/A-18 Hornet is critical, plus an understanding of parallax and trigonometry.

I'm sorry to say and rather glad that ET hasn't arrived nor has a portal opened to another dimension. With all this Covid-19 nonsense, we don't need another conspiracy firestorm.

Not everyone will accept these mundane explanations. All that does is place the ball in their court — show us your evidence.

By the way, if you want to fake your own ET video clip, below is an example using my iPhone and the sensor lights on the back of my watch. A bit of editing, some mood music and ten minutes later, bingo.

Comments

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

Schadenfreude

An Empty Gesture

More Article 23 Shannigans!

Beijing says enough is enough!

Saint Greta of Iceberg

The Worm has turned.

The Circus is back in town.

Heroes

Something Out There? No!

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter