The Concorde Café: A Nostalgic Dive into Luxury Flights

Sketch: The Concorde Café

Setting: A small, retro diner-themed café called The Concorde Café. The walls are adorned with posters of the Concorde, vintage aeroplanes, and Elon Musk’s rocket. Three characters sit at a table:

  • Nigel: A nostalgic Concorde enthusiast wearing a pilot’s hat.
  • Marge: A retired travel agent, armed with her trusty guidebook.
  • Trevor: A tech-obsessed Elon Musk fan wearing a T-shirt that says “To Mars and Beyond.”

Nigel: (sipping tea) Back in my day, you’d hop on the Concorde and be in New York in three hours. Three hours! Smooth as silk, no fuss.

Marge: (nodding) Three hours, Nigel. And they even served you champagne! These young ones wouldn’t understand luxury like that.

Trevor: (rolling his eyes) Oh, here we go. Concorde this, Concorde that. Who wants three hours when Elon’s “Rocket Ride” will do it in 27 minutes?

Nigel: (spluttering) Twenty-seven minutes? That’s not a flight—it’s a sneeze! What’s the point of travelling to New York if you haven’t had time to finish your peanuts?

Marge: (nodding sagely) Or flirt with the steward. Those were the days, Nigel.

Trevor: (leaning forward) Forget peanuts! Imagine this: you strap into Elon’s rocket, zoom up to the edge of space, glide across the Atlantic, and BOOM—you’re in Manhattan before you’ve even posted about it on Insta.

Nigel: (mocking) “Zoom up to the edge of space,” is it? And what happens if there’s a “re-entry failure,” eh? I saw that glowing debris over the Turks and Caicos. Lovely fireworks show, but not exactly reassuring!

Trevor: (defensive) That was a test flight! Elon says it’s 99% safe.

Nigel: (grinning) Oh, well, I’ll just cling to that comforting 1% chance of becoming space dust, shall I?

Marge: (giggling) Let’s hope he doesn’t serve dinner on board. You’d barely have time to unwrap a sandwich before they shout, “Prepare for re-entry!”

Trevor: (ignoring them) And another thing—you don’t have to queue at customs. You just land, hop out, and they zap your passport in space. Efficient!

Nigel: (snorting) Efficient? At least on the Concorde, we had time to discuss the wine list with the steward.

Marge: (nodding) And the jet lag! Proper jet lag after a Concorde flight—it was classy.

Trevor: (rolling his eyes) You lot are stuck in the past. Elon’s rockets are the future! In and out in half an hour.

Nigel: (grinning mischievously) In and out in half an hour? Sounds more like a dodgy takeaway than a flight!

Marge: (laughing) Or a quick trip to Basildon!

Trevor: (groaning) Oh, you’re hopeless. Hopeless!

Nigel: (leaning back smugly) Maybe, but at least I’ll still have my peanuts.


The Waiter:

The waiter arrives with the bill, looking annoyed.

Waiter: Who ordered the Elonjet Rocket Special?

Nigel: (pointing at Trevor) Him.

Waiter: (grumbling) Did you have to shake it? You owe us for the extra cleaning—your “rocket fuel coffee” exploded all over table three.

Marge: (to Trevor) 99% safe, eh?

Nigel: (to Marge) I’ll stick to tea, thanks.

All: (laughing as Trevor hides behind the menu.)

Justice Betrayed: The Plight of Victims in British Courts

Oh, justice! Where is your guiding hand?
In Britain’s courts, a fractured land,
Three arms of law now feeble, blind,
Betray the broken, torment the kind.

The Prime Minister speaks, but his words are a stain,
Shielding the guilty, dismissing the pain.
A nation’s children, their innocence torn,
While Westminster slumbers, complicit, forlorn.

The judges, the lawmen, the councillors too,
Turn from the cries of the girls they once knew.
For fear of offence, for fear of reprieve,
They bury the truth, and let evil believe.

Call it grooming? No, call it by name!
Rape, degradation, a nation’s shame.
Yet those in power cast victims aside,
In service of optics, they let justice slide.

The police, meant to guard, protect,
Became complicit, their duty wrecked.
One whispered, “It’ll teach her a lesson, you’ll see,”
A protector turned predator in tyranny.

In Parliament’s halls, where answers should rise,
Silence and obfuscation fill the skies.
Multicultural dreams built on deceit,
Left broken lives strewn at their feet.

Where is inquiry? Where is reform?
The storm grows louder; the grief grows warm.
But ministers falter, their vision unclear,
Protecting their ranks while neglecting the sear.

Sir Keir kneels for the causes afar,
But not for the girls left battered and scarred.
He speaks of division, of far-right bands,
While ignoring the torment at his homeland’s hands.

Justice, oh justice, where have you gone?
The song of the broken, their harrowing song,
Echoes through courtrooms, through councils, through time,
Yet no one answers for such a crime.

Deport the dual citizens, bring the truth to light,
End the silence that cloaks the night.
Let inquiry reign, let victims be heard,
Restore the meaning to justice’s word.

For the mothers who weep, for the daughters who fall,
For the soul of a nation—hear their call.
Three arms of justice, mend your decay,
Or step aside for a brighter day.

BBC Verify is a velvet hammer for smashing inconvenient truths

Listen to the deep dive podcast

What has happened to the BBC?

What happened to the state system that garnered cross-party political and general public support? Once heralded as a bastion of anti-bias news and public education and entertainment has turned into the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda run by a veritable army of Goebbels.

Baroness Stowell, the chairman of the Lords communications committee, told Ms Turness that “BBC Verify is not necessarily seen universally as something that is helping the BBC’s reputation or building trust and confidence”.

Sir Keir Starmer claims BBC has backed him over inheritance tax raid on farmers

“Die beste Propaganda ist jene, die sozusagen unsichtbar wirkt, das ganze öffentliche Leben durchdringt, ohne dass das öffentliche Leben irgendeine Kenntnis von der propagandistischen Initiative hat.” Joseph Goebbels

Goebbels would be proud of the BBC, his quote in English is a confirmation of BBC Verify’s aspirations “The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.”

The new BBC Verify department must be approaching it’s first anniversary and I confess I did not believe the former government would allow it to continue for more than a few weeks. It was, after all, offering it’s opinion as fact and opposing opinion’s as “misinformation” or “disinformation”.

I am thinking of writing a paper on BBC Verify but as I am in the middle of a real project have decided it will have to wait, nonetheless, for those fans of Michael Connolly’s “Lincoln Lawyer” Mickey Haller (my current alter-ego) here’s what I think he would think of Goebbels pride and joy, BBC Verify:

BBC Verify? That’s rich. More like a velvet hammer for smashing inconvenient truths. It’s not about finding facts; it’s about dressing up bias in a sharp suit and calling it gospel. If you can spin the lie well enough, package it with enough polish, folks will believe the sun rises in the west if you tell them it does. It’s like hiring a defence attorney not to prove your innocence but to convince the world that guilt is a virtue.

The real irony? They call it ‘Verify,’ but it’s got the credibility of a used-car salesman swearing that a lemon is a Ferrari. It’s not about truth—truth’s messy and inconvenient. It’s about control, about shaping the narrative so the big fish stay big, and the little ones keep swimming in circles. In my line of work, we call that a con. But when you’ve got the money and the power, you call it journalism.”

With my sincere apologies to used car salesman.

“It’s your words, not your deeds, that condemn you.” Welcome to British Policing Policy

The role of the police in any society is one of fundamental importance: to prevent crime, to investigate crimes when they occur, and to ensure that those who commit criminal acts are brought before the courts to face justice. This fundamental mission has underpinned the fabric of British law enforcement for generations. However, in recent years, a troubling shift has emerged—a trend in policing which appears to prioritise the pursuit and investigation of “non-crime hate incidents” (NCHIs) over their core duty to protect citizens from genuine criminal acts.

The situation has reached a crescendo this week with the case of journalist Allison Pearson, who has reportedly been invited for a police interview over a comment made over a year ago. While the police dedicate countless hours to investigating “offensive” or “hurtful” speech, the streets are beset by more pressing issues: shoplifting, violent crime, and open lawlessness. This shift in focus not only undermines public confidence in the police force but also erodes trust in the broader judicial system. When police resources are squandered on chasing speech incidents and perceived insults rather than combatting real threats to public safety, the public inevitably suffers.

Recent months have seen a palpable increase in social disorder since Keir Starmer’s government took the reins, with issues ranging from unchecked protests to a surge in street crimes. Instances of shoplifting, often treated as mere nuisances if the value is below £1,500, are brushed aside without recording or investigation. This neglect is not isolated to petty thefts; cases of street violence, such as assaults, robberies, and even the sight of machete-wielding individuals roaming public spaces, are met with similar apathy. Instead of targeting these grave threats to society, police are, ironically, lambasting citizens who dare to raise concerns on social media about this apparent abdication of responsibility.

It is reasonable to conclude that the focus on NCHIs serves only to polarise discourse further, exacerbating tensions and resentment within society. These initiatives and investigations into non-criminal behaviours sap already stretched resources and embolden criminal behaviour in communities who witness an overstretched police force prioritising “words” over “deeds.” Law-abiding citizens are left unprotected, while those engaging in socially destructive behaviours learn that their crimes may go unpunished.

This two-tier system of policing, where serious crimes are neglected in favour of ideological policing, is unacceptable. It demands not only scrutiny but action. Those who serve as police spokespeople and leaders must know that their performance and priorities are being watched and recorded. There can be no place for policing policies that divide and alienate the very citizens who fund and rely upon them.

The police must be reminded of their primary duty: protecting the public from harm, ensuring justice is done, and maintaining public order. Anything less than this is a betrayal of public trust, and citizens will not stand idly by while this essential institution is steered off course. We demand accountability, transparency, and a rededication to core policing duties. Anything less threatens the very foundations of public safety and social cohesion that the police are sworn to uphold.

A Comprehensive Critique of Modern Policing Priorities: The Mismanagement of Public Safety

The case of Essex Police’s handling of an investigation into a social media post by journalist Allison Pearson exposes an alarming trend in policing priorities. This incident not only highlights a significant misuse of resources but also serves as a case study in the detrimental impact of this shift away from core policing duties. By establishing a “gold group,” typically reserved for critical incidents such as terror attacks, to investigate a year-old social media post, Essex Police have demonstrated an astonishing lack of focus on genuine criminal threats to public safety. This misplaced emphasis on non-crime hate incidents rather than actual criminal acts is both deeply troubling and indicative of a broader pattern of institutional failure.

Misguided Priorities and Institutional Dysfunction

The investigation into Pearson, for allegedly “stirring up racial hatred” through a social media post made in November last year, illustrates how resources can be squandered in pursuit of ideological policing goals. Police officers reportedly visited Pearson’s home without providing details of the post or the complainant, framing this matter as a potential breach of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act. Despite the force’s insistence that they have acted properly, their creation of a “gold group” to manage the case starkly underscores the troubling direction in which law enforcement is headed.

The use of such a high-level command structure for a social media incident illustrates how far police priorities have drifted from their primary purpose: protecting citizens from harm and maintaining public order. Councillor Neil Gregory’s sharp characterisation of Essex Police’s actions as “institutional incompetence and dysfunction on an epic scale” is not without merit. When forces prioritise diversity training and speech policing over tackling violent crime, open drug dealing, and serious theft, it signals a profound failure of leadership and purpose.

The Erosion of Public Trust and Safety

The broader implications of this policing approach are far-reaching. Drug-related crime, for instance, remains a serious problem across Essex, with open drug dealing regularly witnessed by residents and yet routinely ignored by police. Documents obtained by The Telegraph reveal that the force often fails to respond to 999 calls reporting drug-related incidents. Instead of deploying resources to confront these pressing public safety concerns, police appear more intent on policing speech and engaging in performative displays of political correctness.

The response from Essex Police Assistant Chief Constable Andy Marriner and others in defence of their work is, at best, cold comfort to communities left to fend for themselves. Claims of robust action against drug dealers ring hollow when residents continue to witness open drug transactions and feel the weight of police inaction. These failures undermine trust in law enforcement and leave citizens vulnerable to increasingly bold criminal behaviour.

The Consequences of Two-Tier Policing

The disproportionate focus on NCHIs and the “hurtful” words of journalists like Pearson over violent crime and open lawlessness represents a dangerous descent into two-tier policing. While genuine threats are ignored, citizens are subjected to scrutiny for expressing their views. This imbalance not only leaves communities less safe but also fuels resentment and division, eroding the very social cohesion that police claim to protect.

Law enforcement must refocus its priorities. The public demands—and deserves—a police force that dedicates its resources to preventing crime, protecting communities, and bringing offenders to justice. Anything less constitutes a dereliction of duty.

Holding Policing Leadership Accountable

Those who lead and speak on behalf of the police must understand that their decisions and priorities are under constant scrutiny. The public’s patience is not infinite. Continued mismanagement, misplaced priorities, and failures to deliver on core policing responsibilities will not be tolerated. It is time for a rededication to genuine public safety, free from the distractions of ideological policing and performative gestures.

The public is watching. We demand accountability, transparency, and a commitment to the fundamentals of policing. It is time to restore trust and ensure that the police serve their primary duty: protecting all citizens and upholding the law impartially and effectively. If our policing institutions cannot meet these basic expectations, they risk irrelevance—and the communities they serve deserve far better.