the first of March is Saint David’s Day and Sheffield City Council decided to mark the Welsh patron saint’s day in its own inimitable way, as reported by Nation Cymru, by flying the wrong flag from the Town Hall.
However, by early afternoon the Scottish Saltire had been replaced above the Town Hall with the flag of St David – a yellow cross on a black background.
The council also put out a statement declaring: “We are really sorry that the incorrect flag was flown above the Town Hall today. As soon as we knew, we rectified this immediately. We want to wish all who celebrate a Happy St David’s Day.”
Nevertheless, this is not the first time this particular local authority has been guilty of seeing all Celts as alike. In 2019, the Council celebrated St Patrick’s Day by flying Y Ddraig Goch from the Town Hall, as the BBC reported at the time, as well as being posted on social media
EU data protection authorities have negotiated a contract for the use of Nextcloud and LibreOffice Online in EU institutions. They are now testing the solutions, German IT news heise reports.
Data protection-friendly alternatives
It was announced last Wednesday that the European Data Protection Supervisor Wojciech Wiewiórowski and his team have begun testing both solutions this month. In coming months they want to examine “how these can tools support EU day-to-day work“. This pilot phase is part of a larger IT reflection process that the EDPS already started last year aimed at encouraging EUIs to consider alternatives to large-scale service providers to ensure better compliance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.
By procuring the Open Source Software from one single entity in the EU, the use of sub-processors is avoided. In doing so, the EDPS avoids data transfers to non-EU countries such as the USA and allows for more effective control over the processing of personal data.
According to Mr Wiewiórowski, “Open Source Software offers data protection-friendly alternatives to commonly used large-scale cloud service providers that often imply the transfer of individuals’ personal data to non-EU countries. Solutions like this may therefore minimise reliance on monopoly providers and detrimental vendor lock-in. By negotiating a contract with an EU-based provider of cloud services, the EDPS is delivering on its commitments, as set out in its 2020-2024 Strategy, to support EUIs in leading by example to safeguard digital rights and process data responsibly“.
Microsoft Office in the sights
Mr Wiewiórowski has already examined the contracts which EU institutions have with Microsoft and reached the conclusion in 2020 that the data processing purposes when using Windows or Microsoft Office had been defined far too openly. Processing contractors were not adequately audited and data could be transferred too easily by EU institutions to countries outside the Union. At the time, he demanded that Microsoft should only retain user information within the EU. The roles of all those involved with all their rights and obligations must be clearly regulated. Furthermore, Users should look around for alternatives that “enable higher data protection standards“.
The EDPS started further investigations into the use of Microsoft and Amazon cloud services by EU institutions. These entailed the use Microsoft Office 365 by the EU Commission. According to Wiewiórowski many contracts were concluded prior to the “Schrems II Judgment” and had to be examined in the light of the European Court of Justice case law.
Thérèse Coffey, the alleged Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has advised consumers to opt for turnips as tomato and cucumber supplies dwindle, owing to shortages.
This instantly reminds your correspondent of that phrase attributed to Marie Antoinette, supposedly uttered by her during the French Revolution: “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche“, usually translated into English as “Let them eat cake“.
However, there is no there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it, although folklore scholars have found similar tales in other parts of the world.
Anyway, back to Coffey, a minister devoid of humanity and compassion, but richly endowed with incompetence, callousness and that all-important can’t-do attitude.
Coffey has stated that shortages of salad and other vegetables in UK supermarkets could last up to a month. However, critics have accused the government of bringing the problem on itself by failing to support local growers and through Brexit policies.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Coffey told MPs British consumers should “cherish” home-grown produce, whilst castigating the latter for wanting “a year-round choice“.
In her own words:
“It’s important to make sure that we cherish the specialisms that we have in this country. A lot of people would be eating turnips right now rather than thinking necessarily about aspects of lettuce and tomatoes and similar.”
Finally, so that Coffey can indulge in ‘cherished‘ home-grown produce, your ‘umble scribe will perform a public duty by providing a link – should the alleged Secretary of State happen to be reading this post, to a recipe for cream of potato and turnip soup.
Enjoy! 😉
Update 25/02/23. One consequence of Ms Coffey’s advocacy of “cherishing” this humble root vegetable is that supermarkets are reported as running of turnips. Your correspondent could find none at his local Lidl yesterday, although swedes (the Swedish turnip) are plentiful.
As a final postscript, your ‘umble scribe notes from The Guardian today that its political sketch writer John Crace has written:
Four years ago I tweeted, “Let them eat turnips”. It was meant to be a joke about Brexit. Now it’s government policy. Satire comes at you fast these days.
News broke this morning that the alleged prime minister minister, one Rishi Sunak, had finally shown some of the “integrity, professionalism and accountability” promised when he was inexplicably made Conservative Party leader by its ageing right-wing membership.
Yes, he’s finally sacked Nadhim “Stable Genius” Zahawi as Party Chair for what is described as a “serious breach of the ministerial code“.
And the nature of that serious breach? While he was in office briefly as Chancellor Chancer of the Exchequer under disgraced former alleged prime minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Zahawi by failing to declare he was investigation by HMRC into his tax affairs. It subsequently transpired that he has had to pay the taxman £5 mn. in back taxes and a penalty for tax avoidance. Despite his ministerial media appearances involving prominent – possibly patriotic – display of the Union flag (which some call the Bloody Butcher’s Apron. Ed.), environmental campaigner and philanthropist Julia Davies subsequently wrote in a Guardian opinion piece entitled “Dear Nadhim Zahawi: here’s what patriotic British millionaires do – we pay our proper taxes“.
Your ‘umble scribe cannot remember any time in his six decades of life when the minister allegedly in overall charge of collecting the country’s tax revenues has been investigated and penalised by the people he’s supposedly administering for not paying what he owed.
Even before the Zahawi incident, Sunak, who so far has only been PM since the end of October, had already lost one cabinet minister within two weeks of assuming office: over-promoted fireplace salesman “Sir” Gavin Williamson resigned as a result of alleged bullying.
However, looking around what passes for the current alleged government of the English Empire (which some still call the United Untied Kingdom. Ed.), it seems that despite Zahawi’s sacking, other members of Sunak’s administration seem to regard compliance with the ministerial code as an optional extra during their terms of office.
Take for example one the case Dominic Rennie Raab, supposedly the Secretary of State for Justice and Deputy Prime Minister.
Dominic is not a boy who took any notice of his mother’s admonitions to “play nicely“. He is currently under investigation for allegations of bullying. The Guardian reported in December that eight separate incidents of bullying by Raab during a previous term of office at the Justice Ministry during Johnson’s premiership.
Johnson himself faces a Commons privileges committee inquiry into whether he lied to misled parliament over the Partygate scandal.
Handy tip for anyone who believes there is any integrity in Johnson: never trust a middle-aged man with a toddler haircut who combs his locks with a balloon.
It doesn’t look as if there’s much of Sunak’s “integrity, professionalism and accountability” on either the front or back benches of what passes for the political party he is supposed to be leading.
Before the announcement of Zahawi’s sacking, there did not appear to be much local support in Stratford-on-Avon for their tax-avoiding dishonourable member. Given the opinions expressed to The Guardian four days ago, our Stable Genius would be well advised not to seek the Conservative Party candidacy for the next general election.
Update 31/01/23: In today’s letters in The Guardian, Keith Flett of the Beard Liberation Front remarks that Nadhim Zahawi “has now managed to bring the hirsute into disrepute“.
Following the announcement anti-trust action by the United States Department of Justice along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia against Google, Meta (owners of Facebook and Instagram), Microsoft and Twitter have all made statements seeking to defend their actions.
In their legal opinions, the big US tech giants, including Microsoft, Meta and Twitter, are warning the Supreme Court against amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). This would enable actions against content recommendation algorithms, French IT news site Le Monde Informatique reports.
One week after Google’s filing of a defence statement with the US Supreme Court warning that amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) “would upend the internet“, several companies including Twitter, Meta and Microsoft, have filed their own legal opinions. They support Google’s argument that a restriction of the law could have disastrous consequences for the content editors. By virtue of the 1996 CDA, the companies are shielded from liability for content posted by their users, including comments, criticism and advertising.
US Supreme Court. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and UpstateNYer
However, the Supreme Court has been asked to examine whether Section 230 was still pertinent and appropriate, given that it was promulgated before the internet became part of everyday life. The law was subject to a minute before the suit filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23 year-pld US citizen killed in Paris during the 13th November 2015 terrorist attacks claimed by ISIS. The Gonzalez family asserts that the algorithms should be regarded as editorial content not covered by the immunity from liability granted by Section 230 and thus Google’s YouTube subsidiary has violated the US Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) when its algorithms have recommended ISIS-linked content to users. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case on 21st February next.
Criticisms of the protections of Section 230 for websites
Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have criticised the protections provided for by the law. The Republicans believe that those in respect of liability make websites take partial decisions regarding content removal, whilst the Democrats would like the same sites to take more responsibility as regards moderation. In a statement President Biden has stated that his administration would support the position that Section 230 protections should not apply to recommendation algorithms. In its petition of 19th January, Microsoft asserts that if the Supreme Court makes amendments to Section 230, it would “strip these digital publishing decisions suit—and it would do so in illogical ways that are inconsistent with how algorithms actually work.“.
The company added that any decision aimed at restricting the law “thereby expose interactive computer services to liability for publishing content to users whenever a plaintiff could craft a theory that sharing the content is somehow harmful“. In its own petition Meta stated that the plaintiffs’ argument is “deeply flawed from a legal point of view”; by interpreting Section 230 as a means of protecting sites from liability for content posted by its users whilst removing protection from content “ignores the way in which the internet works“. The company continued by describing the plaintiffs’ position as “regrettable from a practical point of view” and by stating that a ruling in their favour would ultimately prompt “online services to remove important, provocative and controversial content on matters of general interest“.
Protection from liability essential for website operation according to Twitter
Twitter has said that the current interpretation of Section 230 “ensures that sites such as Twitter and YouTube can work in spite of the unfathomable amount of information they make available and the potential liability that might result from this“. Since Twitter’s acquisition by Elon Musk, the site has been criticised for having reinstated the accounts of people it previously banned, such as disgraced former president Donald Trump or alpha male par excellence and all-round amateur human being Andrew Tate who is currently under investigation in Romania for alleged human trafficking.
However, the review of several other high-profile cases will have to take place before the law is changed. Last week the Supreme Court was set to discuss its jurisdiction in two cases that challenge Texas and Florida laws prohibiting online platforms from removing certain political content. In addition, a Twitter vs. Taamneh case, which has many similarities with the Gonzalez vs. Google case, is due to oral pleadings on 2nd February. In this case Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are accused of having aided and abetted another attack claimed by Islamic State.
In 1941 in the midst of World War 2, George Orwell wrote his essay The Lion and the Unicorn on the state of England in wartime and examining what the England of the 1940s could have in common with the England of 1840.
His line of reasoning resulted in him penning the following paragraph.
England is not the jewelled isle of Shakespeare’s much-quoted message, nor is it the inferno depicted by Dr Goebbels. More than either it resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family, with not many black sheep in it but with all its cupboards bursting with skeletons. It has rich relations who have to be kow-towed to and poor relations who are horribly sat upon, and there is a deep conspiracy of silence about the source of the family income. It is a family in which the young are generally thwarted and most of the power is in the hands of irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts. Still, it is a family. It has its private language and its common memories, and at the approach of an enemy it closes its ranks. A family with the wrong members in control – that, perhaps, is as near as one can come to describing England in a phrase.
There is so much in that one paragraph that is still pertinent today: the cupboards bursting with skeletons; the poor relations who are horribly sat upon; deep conspiracy of silence about the source of the family income; and above all a family with the wrong members in control.
Which brings us very neatly to today’s Daily Mirror font page with some blunt advice for the current “wrong” members in control.
The ‘irresponsible uncles’ mentioned by Orwell
When alleged prime minister Rishi Sunak entered Number 10 he promised: “this government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”
His words have rung hollow, as revealed by his own actions – not wearing a seat belt in a moving car whilst being over 17 years of age – and those of others such as disgraced former alleged prime minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s cronysim. Furthermore, Sunak has revealed himself to be particularly foolish. Who else would video themselves breaking the law and then post the evidence on social media?
However, perhaps far worse than that is the case of present Tory Party chair Nadhim “Stable Genius” Zahawi. It has now come to light that he was under investigation by the Revenue for tax irregularities while he was Chancellor Chancer of the Exchequer. It has emerged today that Zahawi actually had to pay overdue taxes as well as a penalty.
Last time your ‘umble scribe looked, those who handle their tax affairs with integrity generally have to pay penalties to the taxman.
Sunak’s fine words in respect of integrity, professionalism and accountability have a distinctly hollow ring, reminiscent of a phrase of Orwell’s regarding political speech in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language.
Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
One wonders whether Sunak’s answer to all the sleaze, corruption and general misbehaviour rife in his party with an updated version of John Major’s 1990s Back to Basics campaign. However, your correspondent doubts Sunak has the political skills.
One Mary Elizabeth Truss has the distinction of being the prime minister of the English Empire (which some still call the United Kingdom. Ed.) with the shortest term of office, staying in post a mere 49 days.
However, that did not stop her crashing the economy with the budget cooked up by her and her Chancer of the Exchequer Kamikwasi Kwarteng‘s disastrous 2022 mini-budget, as well as being profligate with other people’s – i.e. taxpayers’ – money.
The Mirror reveals that Truss’ so-called ‘Jenga‘ lectern specially made for her cost the public purse £4,175. That equate to an ependiture of £85 for each of the forty-nine days she served. The Mirror piece reveals that Truss also had a second similar lectern made, but that was paid for by those gullible people who pay membership subscriptions and donate to the Tory Party.
Mary Elizabeth Truss and that lectern. Photo credit: gov.uk
It wasn’t as if Downing Street had a dearth of lecterns at the time; current alleged prime minister Rishi Sunak never bothered to have a bespoke lectern made and is using a predecessor’s cast-off that “was purchased under a previous administration” at a cost of £3,050. What an absolute bargain the former Goldman Sachs asset is.
When she was pretending to be the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (FCD), Truss gained quite a reputation for her spendthrift ways. These included using half a million pounds of public funds to hire a private jet for a visit to Australia. At the time Truss was roundly criticised for her reluctance to use a regular, cheaper and faster scheduled service. The most expensive business-class ticket for the former foreign secretary’s entire itinerary on Qantas would have come at a cost of £7,712 to the public purse.
However, it was not just Truss’ love of air travel that drew the media’s attention. Back in September 2022, Sky News reported that Foreign Office expenditure during Truss’ tenure included 2 trips to the hairdresser for her at a cost to the taxpayer of nearly £3,400. Then there was nearly £2,900 spent by her department at the Norwich City online store – £1,318 on 21 October last year and £523.50 on 21 March 2022 by an unknown purchaser for unknown goods. Truss is allegedly the Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk, so that might explain this anomalous FCD expenditure.
In 1897 British troops attacked, burned down and looted the palace of the Oba (king) of Benin in West Africa. The former Kingdom of Benin (1180–1897) is now part of present-day Nigeria.
Amongst the squaddies’ loot was a huge haul of bronze sculptures, many of which found their way into museums, galleries and onto the western art market.
One of these was acquired in Bristol City Museum & Art Gallery in 1935, where it is described as Object Number Ea7821.
Back in 2020 Prince Edun Akenzua of the Royal Court of Benin made a direct appeal to Bristol to return the looted artwork to Nigeria, as reported at the time by the Bristol Post.
Since then many fine words have been written by the city council about repatriation both on the museums website and the museums blog with the latter stating the following regarding the fate of the sculpture:
Although we have still not been able to make contact directly with Royal Court officials, we have been looking at the work of the British Museum and the Benin Dialogue Group and discussing options with the Legacy Restoration Trust. To be clear, we are not bound by the thoughts or decisions of any of these bodies, nor the UK government.
We have been gathering information about the best way to take on board the variety of thoughts and concerns of different groups in Nigeria. There has been a lack of consensus about the best place to hold objects that return to the country. The new, but yet to be built, Edo Museum of West African Art is one option that many do agree with.
Your ‘umble scribe also believes the city council’s museums service could have moved a little quicker and has today filed the following FoI request with the city council.
Dear Bristol City Council, This is a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The City Museum & Art Gallery contains in its collection a Benin bronze head (Object Number: Ea7821) looted by the Oba’s palace in 1897 and acquired by the museum in 1935. Some years ago, the local media reported that this object was to be repatriated to Nigeria. There have been no subsequent reports of its repatriation, so I am assuming this has still to happen.
Kindly provide an explanation for the delay in repatriating this object to where it belongs despite the city museums website (source: https://www.bristolmuseums.org.uk/collections/action-on-decolonisation/repatriation/) stating: “Bristol City Council acknowledges and recognises that the possession of historic Benin Bronzes is highly contentious and that there are calls for repatriation to Benin (Nigeria). As a consequence, Culture team staff are establishing contact with the interested parties in Nigeria and those who are currently negotiating with them across Europe as part of the Benin Dialogue Group and through the Legacy Restoration Trust in Nigeria”.
Yours etc.
In the past couple of months museums in the United States of America and Germany respectively have repatriated far more Benin bronzes than one bronze head, so come on Bristol, it’s time for you to exdigitate or if you can’t manage that, get your finger out! 😀
Your ‘umble scribe has not bothered with social media since the obscenely wealthy and undertaxed man baby masquerading under the name Elon Musk took the helm of Twitter and promptly set about trashing it with his control freak approach to company management, sacking lots of the tech staff that keep the platform running and demanding those that survive show their dedication to the company by working excessive hours.
This was a big wrench for your correspondent, as time not spent working was generally filled with social media discussion and debate, and so entailed a wholesale change in his daily activities (Note to self: must get round to getting on Mastodon some time soon. Ed.).
Following his acquisition of the platform, Musk installed himself as Twitter’s CEO and now seems to have reached the conclusion his rather doubtful skills are up to the job.
In recent days Musk held a Twitter poll to ask Twitter users whether he should remain as the platform’s boss. The results were not flattering if Musk has – as I suspect – a narcissistic streak.
One candidate springs to my mind immediately: an egomaniac with current experience of running a social media platform (albeit one misnamed Truth Social. Ed.). Step forward one Donald John Trump, disgraced 45th president of the United States, who spends a large share of his time playing golf (as he did whilst supposed to be occupying the Oval Office. Ed.).
I do hope these two prime examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect play nicely with one another. 😀
By way of contrast, donations to the Labour Party have risen by almost 25%.
“Hello! Let me introduce you to the powerful and influential person holding me…”
During this time the Tories have worked their way through 3 prime ministers – the disgraceful Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, one Elizabeth Mary Truss and now Goldman Sachs cheerleader Rishi Sunak – and two budgets, including a fiscal disaster from short-lived Chancer of the Excheqeur Kamikwasi Kwarteng.
The Tory spokesperson quoted by The Guardian seems to be very much on the defensive, if your ‘umble scribe’s reading between the lines is accurate.
The Conservative party only accepts donations from permissible sources, namely individuals registered on the UK’s electoral roll or UK registered companies. Donations are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, openly published by them and comply fully with the law.
If as stated the Tories are only accepting donations from permissible sources, that represents a quick volte-face from six months ago when, as Open Democracy reported, it was still donations from Russian sources linked to the gangster regime of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
![Tweet reads Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus - Happy St. David's Day!
From [Sheffield City Council]](http://xislblogs.xtreamlab.net/slwoods/wp-content/uploads//sites/23/2023/03/sheffield_dewi_sant.png)
EU data protection authorities have negotiated a contract for the use of 
Take for example one the case Dominic Rennie Raab, supposedly the Secretary of State for Justice and Deputy Prime Minister.
Following the announcement anti-trust action by the United States Department of Justice along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia against Google, Meta (owners of Facebook and Instagram), Microsoft and Twitter have all made statements seeking to defend their actions.
In 1897 British troops attacked, burned down and looted the palace of the Oba (king) of 
