Best Of

Today I finish a three and a half year contract at a very well known and major global institution where I've set up and run a worldwide whistleblowing programme. It's been a blast but I am rather looking forward to a spring and summer without having to read procedures which are never followed or the sorts of emails which should never have been sent.

I have lots of other plans: a 1000 square metre garden to create, finding a publisher for my book, getting my health back after six months of difficulties, planning a trip to the Far East and so on. So if a depression and WW3 could be avoided, that would be great. Otherwise I'll be digging for victory in my potager and orchard and flogging the eggs from my chickens (1000% mark up for Americans).

I remain open to interesting (and, importantly, lucrative) work.

Meanwhile this - https://knowingius.org/p/sex-in-the-supreme-court-762 - is a very clear guide to what the Supreme Court will and, just as importantly, will not be deciding in the For Women Scotland case next week.

The US Supreme Court has instructed the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to a mega-jail in El Salvador.

The Trump administration has conceded that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported due to an "administrative error", but appealed against a district court's order to "facilitate and effectuate" his return to the US.

On Thursday, in a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court declined to block the lower court's order.

That order "requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent", the justices ruled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o

I seem to remember reading here that SCOTUS would never oppose Trump.

Has it? Trump said "we have no powers over El Salvador". If he ignores the court they do what? If he pays lip service but the guy stays in jail they do what?

Losing the goodwill of SCOTUS would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

Sensible people use their political capital on things that matter.

Now Trump works on his own scale when it comes to losing goodwill and being sensible.

But the price of ignoring SCOTUS on this will be SCOTUS ruling against him on future, more important cases.

The case has complexities, explored well here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQmqvE01RQE

Trump's choices are:
1) Obey and deliver; 2) Pretend to obey but 'fail' to achieve resolution; 3) Defy unequivocally; 4) Delay and compexify for now, and kick the can down the road.

2 and 4 combined are highly probable. 1 very unlikely, 3 fairly unlikely - they won't pick this case for the proper constitutional crisis. as the government is so clearly 100% in the wrong, and have admitted it in court.

The SCOTUS decision effectively ends rendition. Everybody has a right to a fair hearing of their rights. No ambiguity.

Anybody involved in abusing that process risks being hauled up for contempt.

The idea that the US can send somebody abroad for endless detention and cannot then retrieve them says something about how far it has fallen as a power for good in the world.

Hurrah for Kemi Badenoch

“I don’t need to watch Casualty to know what's going on in the NHS,” said Kemi Badenoch, when she was asked on the BBC if she had watched Adolescence yet.

The presenters could not believe what they had heard. “Why would you not want to know what people are talking about?”

Badenoch replied that the issues of toxic masculinity and smartphone use are ”important issues and they are issues that I’ve been talking about for some time”. She reminded her interviewers: “It’s a fictional series.”

“You’re comparing Adolescence with Casualty: did you really mean to say that?” A surprising question from a BBC presenter, implying that a Netflix series is more important than a mere BBC soap opera.

Badenoch really did mean to say that, and she is quite right too.

- John Rentoul

The comparison of a Soap Opera to a Docudrama (Correct label - I ahven't watched it?) is interesting. I had not twigged the longevity of Casualty, but then these days I know more than enough in one episode per decade format (ish) about hospitals than to want the bloody things on TV as well.

I'd expect Kemi to have a Nigerian Elite type of innate understanding of medicine from her family background - how many ordinary Nigerians travel to a private hospital in London to have a baby? Plus what she has picked up here through living here from 16, and politics.

I'm not sure how well politicians are in touch with the NHS, outside looking at it through the lens of their particular dogmas, and lobbying. And I'm not sure if I have a reliable way of judging that.

Would Kemi introduce The Archers into a discussion about farming?

Wasn't that the whole point of The Archers* when it started? To introduce and discuss agricultural topics in an educational but entertaining way to rural audiences?

It has shifted a bit over time, and now educates on topics such as coercive control, Pride and rural poverty to middle class middle England. Indeed isnt it why we study literature, film and drama more generally? to expand our knowledge of the human condition and society in an entertaining format.

*I love Neil Kinnocks proposal to rename it "The Grundys and their Oppressors"

...

Hes going to ban vaccines isnt he.

RFK Jr: "By September we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we will be able to eliminate those exposures."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1910385387614146987

Here you go: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12632/w12632.pdf

It's correlation based, but seems plausible.

I would think TV as a trigger highly unlikely. My eldest lad demonstrated peculiar traits from a very, very young age. When he started crawling he crawled backwards and at this point getting himself out of corners was nigh on impossible. He was noticeably different from similarly aged children including his brother.

The debilitating element of the condition was social interaction. He was viewed as weird from aged around two and a half by his peers. That continues today. Communication skills including speech and language were slow and not because he was glued to the Teletubbies. Throughout his life he has focused on a particular interest, and I mean focused. It is the only focus in the moment. Firstly it was Thomas the Tank Engine, apparently young autistic boys relate to the faces on the engines (toys, books and on screen). There is certainly a marked neurodiversity about him. He thinks differently to others, and it was notable before he started watching Bob the Builder. He's quite smart, he has a 2:1 programming degree, although he didn't do well at GCSEs and got where he is today via a BTec route, but he only reads stuff that is of interest to him (he passed his driving theory test on the second attempt and a practical driving test on the first) and his general knowledge is shockingly poor. He doesn't assimilate information well but can function well using routine. He is rules based so he meticulously adheres to speed limits and he is unnaturally polite. He is learning Japanese at evening classes. He is different, well different and not just "a bit peculiar"!

So why the burgeoning rates of autism diagnosis? Now I am sceptical when Leon claims, for example, Theresa May is "on the spectrum" because she is "awkward". There is more to it than that, although perhaps over diagnosing awkward people as neurodiverse is an issue that should be looked at and avoided. Sometimes naughty boys are just naughty, and pinning it on ADHD and/or autism is simply a handy hook to hang it on. Perhaps in that instance they watched too much TV.