Home » 2020 (Page 6)
Yearly Archives: 2020
UK to America: We’ll Hand Over Prince Andrew When You Hand Over Anne Sacoolas
Reports today indicate that US investigators want to interview the UK’s Prince Andrew in the hope he may have information that will help them prosecute Jeffrey Epstein for numerous charges in the United States, as if Mr. Epstein were still alive. But apparently he isn’t, having died while incarcerated in New York City on August 10, 2019.
After all, Prince Andrew did associate with New York City’s high and mighty, and no doubt had crossed paths with the now infamous Jeffrey Epstein, and Andrew the Duke of York visited Jeffrey the American financier on at least one occasion.
How much assistance the Duke of York might be able to give to US investigators is open to debate as it’s highly unlikely that Prince Andrew was involved in any illegal or unethical activities having been schooled his entire life to avoid those kinds of situations lest it bring disrepute upon the British Royal Family.
Were I one of Elizabeth’s children, I’d rather face Grendel, Arimaspians, or Smaug the dragon from J.R.R. Tolkien’s middle earth than cross their mother. You know how mothers get when you disappoint them. It just isn’t done, dear boy. Now mind your mother’s words. Hehe.
And that lifetime of living a highly controlled life is why I don’t believe that Andrew has done anything wrong in this, or any other legal case on the planet.
Nor do I believe that the Prince is guilty of anything more than naivety when crossing paths with certain of New York’s elite. In other words, Andrew knows nothing that would be of use to US investigators, so why ask to drag him across the ocean to answer questions of which he has no knowledge?
Seems a bit of smear campaign, actually. Or, maybe it’s their way of generating more publicity for their case against the (now) infamous (and dead) Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. One wonders what that’s all about.
Maybe It’s About Politics
One thing is sure in politics; If you’re in trouble — blame the other guy! Because that works. Every time.
But only because the media love a scandal and can’t wait to beat the police at their own game, their lurid headlines practically screaming, ‘We Beat the Police at Their Own Game! Now, Read This.’ Hehe.
I should say that most media outlets these days operate at a high professional standard, but they still take great pride in finding out important things that police investigators have missed or disregarded. Nature of the ‘biz, as they say. ‘Nothing personal, police persons. We know you’re trying your best, but we’re smarter and have a bigger budget.’
Yes, it’s a bit like that. But a little competition never hurt anyone, and if it does, you’re in the wrong business because being an investigator (whether employed by the police or by the media) is not for the thin-skinned.
So, if you’re a politician and you’re in some kind of trouble, you’re best bet is to always blame the other guy, proffer some scandalous tidbits to media and police investigators, and be prepared to stand back and watch them do your work for you. And besides, it’s rather fun watching the sharks circling your enemy, getting closer with each pass.
In the end, it’s a short term reprieve and you better have an escape plan that holds water — because once the sharks get bored with your political enemy they’ll be circling you with resolve. ‘Toot a loo, old boy. Should’ve taken the high road.’
Anyway, someone in New York is in trouble, and dragging a Prince of the Realm into the maelstrom might just take the pressure off him or her by distracting everyone for the next six months. So, I hope whomever it is has a plan to save themselves beginning December 2020.
Diplomatic Immunity From Prosecution
Whether we like it or not, all Heads of State and their senior staff, PM’s, Ministers of the Crown and registered diplomats of any country have 100% diplomatic immunity from prosecution except immunity from war crimes prosecution, as do Royal Family Members hailing from any country.
Whether that immunity extends to Anne Sacoolas (a US diplomat’s wife) is uncertain. But what is certain is that Prince Andrew is 100% protected from prosecution from any government. It must be that way, or every royal person and Head of State would face hundreds of frivolous court cases against them each year — due to jealousies, due to the games played by enemy or competitor nations, and due to the powerful forces of anarchy that hide in plain sight.
For example: Whether you agree with all of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s policies or not; Would it be fair that he spends his entire premiership in courtrooms defending himself from scurrilous allegations and frivolous cases, and would that be fair to British taxpayers? Of course not.
The same can be said about the important work done by the country’s diplomats, spies, senior military commanders and royal family members, almost all of whom have been tapped at various times for covert or sensitive missions abroad to protect the UK and enhance its security.
Therefore, Prince Andrew is 100% protected from prosecution so what do investigators hope to gain by inviting the Prince to New York City for questioning if they can’t charge him (let alone convict him) due to his diplomatic immunity, and what information do they hope to gain? Don’t they already have it? And if not, why not?
Something seems off.
Maybe telephone the good Prince, investigators. But his knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein is likely to be minimal as they were raised from birth as differently as it is possible to conceive and Andrew probably spent relatively little time with him.
Reciprocity Or Not?
In any event, the request for Prince Andrew to travel to New York to give evidence against the deceased Jeffrey Epstein should receive the same consideration that the UK government and Royal Family received from American authorities in regards to America’s Anne Sacoolas who allegedly killed young Harry Dunn in a motorway incident on August 27, 2019.
As I always say, ‘Every day we teach others how to treat us.’ And American authorities have certainly taught the UK government how to treat a polite request for an American citizen to be returned to the UK to have her case heard before the courts.
You said you wanted a reciprocal relationship America!
So do we. And it has (weirdly) turned out that not sending either person is also reciprocal. Although not in the way both sides had intended.
And that’s why the UK government shouldn’t allow Prince Andrew to travel to the United States (ever) until Anne Sacoolas is returned to the UK for the purposes of determining her guilt or innocence in the matter of the death of young Harry Dunn from Northamptonshire.
If the UK government bows to the Americans on this matter — then maybe it’s time for a Labour government, one that will stand up for the rights of Britons everywhere — whether it stands up for a son of wealth like Prince Andrew, or a son of utterly decent and working class parents.
Should Anne Sacoolas never return to the UK that’s no skin off my nose as the UK can live without her. On balance, that means that Prince Andrew should never appear in the USA, for any reason, including personal vacations.
But to my mind, every day that Mrs. Sacoolas refuses to return to the UK seems to incrementally prove her guilt in the matter of Harry Dunn’s death and the cost to America of that refusal should be Prince Andrew’s refusal to appear in the USA to give his testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein affair. Juste est juste!
The UK’s False Narrative on Hong Kong’s Protest Movement
Way back in the Colonial Era… it seemed a fine thing that a tiny cohort of middle-aged white men born in the United Kingdom could determine the fate of millions of people around the world… and the UK had plenty to offer the world at the time, bringing unheard-of mechanization to countries trying to improve the lives of their respective citizens. So it wasn’t all bad. But…
NEWSFLASH! Those days are over. The Royal Navy no longer rules the waves and the United Kingdom no longer consists of an Empire upon which the Sun never sets. And in no way should UK politicians be trying to roll the clock backward by empowering those who aren’t happy the world has changed.
Some History
In 1997, the UK government signed an agreement to return Hong Kong to China by the year 2000 — an agreement signed in good faith by both parties. And now that a small number of UK politicians, a tiny number of U.S. citizens (by the way, the U.S. was never a signatory of the treaty that returned Hong Kong to China) and several hundred thousand professional protesters from Hong Kong have decided they don’t like the deal, they think they have the right to overturn that good faith agreement.
Well, that just doesn’t cut it. So-called ‘seller’s remorse’ doesn’t present sufficient excuse to overturn a bilateral treaty signed between the UK and China. And that’s that. There’s no ambiguity in the treaty, therefore, there’s no room for debate, nor can there by any justification for failing to adhere to the terms and spirit of the treaty.
If you don’t like it that’s just too bad. Life isn’t fair and nobody ever said it was. So suck it up, people. An international treaty was signed in good faith — and both sides will keep their end of the bargain or chaos will ensue — as has been the case since time began. Check your Grade 12 history textbooks kids, because all the wars ever fought occurred because one side or the other didn’t adhere to the terms of an international treaty signed in good faith.
Thinking of Bringing Your HK Protest Movement to the UK?
Although I’m a supporter of Boris Johnson and his government, offering to host millions of Hong Kong residents in the United Kingdom wouldn’t be my first choice. It may be popular with certain American neocons specifically and China-haters around the world generally, it certainly isn’t the best thing for the average British citizen, the UK economy, future UK trade prospects in Asia, or for Britain’s reputation in the world as a country that abides by both the letter and spirit of international agreements.
Somebody should ask Nigel Farage what he thinks about the UK government offering UK citizenship to millions of Hong Kong protestors so they can simply relocate their violent protests to London. Stand well back, because you’re likely to receive a robust answer.
Not only Nigel Farage, of course. Millions of Britons might not want thousands of Hong Kong residents to suddenly appear in the UK, be granted UK citizenship, and be found protesting (perhaps violently) on behalf of HK issues every weekend in London, Brighton, Manchester or Glasgow.
Something to think about.
Memo to Boris: Bulk Medicine Purchases Could Save the NHS Millions Annually
The UK’s excellent National Health Service could save millions of pounds annually if the UK government were to bulk purchase all medicine for the entire country and thereby obtain huge discounts from pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The NHS can save itself millions of pounds sterling per year by simply purchasing a year’s worth of medicines in advance, similar to what is done in Canada where the government of Canada, using their mass-purchasing power, negotiates massive discounts on medicines from multinational pharmaceutical corporations.
In Canada, each province operates its own provincial health service and pays the entire cost of it via provincial income tax, sales tax and other fees — but they couldn’t succeed without the huge price discounts that the federal government of Canada obtains from its medicine suppliers. Not only do Canada’s healthcare systems benefit from lower drug costs, but the Canadian military and Coast Guard also benefit from those lower prices.
It’s not the whole answer to solve all NHS spending problems all the time but it could be a good part of the answer.
As the NHS constantly struggles to meet the demands placed on it by attempting to treat everyone, all the time, no matter the disease, ailment or injury; Saving millions annually on medicine costs could allow NHS funding to be better spent on treatment for patients, instead of it being consumed by drug costs.
It’s not about purchasing low quality medicines, nor is it about payoffs or patronage.
It’s about deciding how much medicine to purchase (a year in advance) and thereby obtain competitive pricing from the legitimate pharmaceutical corporations in America and Europe which appreciate knowing (in advance) how much of each medicine to manufacture and (in the case of some medicines) they are willing to offer deep discounts (usually about 50% off the listed prices, but in certain cases those discounts can reach 80% off the list price) which can help healthcare providers to lower their costs.
Using the Mass Purchasing Power of the UK Government to Lower Medicine Costs
Of course, the NHS has almost certainly looked at this model in the past.
But ‘timing is everything’ they say, and in the midst of recession, austerity, or during times of political upheaval, it isn’t practical to divert millions of pounds to prepay an entire year’s worth of medicines, nor is it likely to be done without prior approval of the UK government.
However, once we move out of the Coronavirus crisis (but while there’s still plenty of well-deserved focus on the heroic NHS workers) it might be time to have a national conversation about bulk purchasing the UK’s entire annual medicinal requirements — including purchasing on behalf of all devolved territory NHS units and the UK military. The UK government would thereby become the sole wholesale purchaser and wholesale seller of medicines in the UK, even acting as the sole supplier to every wholesale medicinal distributor in the country.
It might take a bit of UK legislation for this to happen and some money, because for all it’s merits, you must still pay for an entire year’s worth of medicine in advance in order to qualify for those quite wonderful discounts.
Also, every NHS unit including NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, NHS Northern Ireland and NHS England, and the UK military and every pharmacy supplier would need to provide a list of medicines to the UK government a year in advance so they could form an accurate picture of the pending mass purchase and consequent deep discount.
Yes, it would take some work to calculate that list and perfect it over time. But if Canada (and certain other countries and militaries) can do it; Why not the UK?
The truth is that certain global healthcare systems benefit massively from volume discount medicine purchases and the UK government needs to act now to create the requisite legislation so each NHS unit can save millions, allow the UK military to save hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling, and allow pharmacies to lower their retail prices via significant cost saving on the wholesale price they pay their suppliers.
But other than the price — as everything else would remain the same — the UK must get organized so it can obtain those astonishing discounts and benefit as other healthcare systems benefit from bulk purchasing.
The NHS Will Save Multi-Millions on Medicine Costs
You’ve got to like that.
Ditto for the UK military and for retail pharmacies.
Therefore, I respectfully submit that the UK government pass legislation to create a National Medicines Purchasing Agency (or ministry) that should thenceforth operate as the sole purchaser for all (non-homeopathic) medicines for the entire UK, including on behalf of all NHS units, the UK military, and for suppliers to pharmacies UK-wide, and provide it with generous funding to accomplish the task.
The legislation should require the agency or ministry to create a continuously updated website that is robust enough that the public and medical professionals could find relevant information on every medicine sold in the country — including general information, dosages, contraindications, along with high quality images of each pill or tablet to help counter possible fraudulent imitation pills or tablets.
Further, I believe that such an agency should be set-up — not to earn a profit from reselling medicines, but to simply recover the cost of each medicine — and that should remain true whether the agency is selling to any NHS unit, to the UK military, or to pharmacy suppliers across the UK.
However, if other national healthcare systems wish to purchase surplus UK medicines, then perhaps that UK agency could offer them to other healthcare systems at cost-plus-ten-per-cent for example, or whatever seems reasonable. No favouritism, please. Just enough to maintain a zero deficit/zero profit annual budget within the national medicines purchasing agency.
Selling Medicine that is ‘Near To Expiry Date’ & Selling Other Surplus Medicine to the UK Foreign Aid Office in Lieu of Monetary Donations to Developing Nations
The UK is highly regarded globally for its foreign aid commitment of .7% of GDP. It’s one of the most generous foreign aid budgets in the world by percentage and compares well with larger countries even when measured in total currency amounts.
However, more can always be done.
And instead of dumping ‘near to expiry date’ medicines or other surplus medicine in a landfill or incinerator; By staying current with the expiry dates, the UK could boost its foreign aid spending by sending such surpluses to developing nations once those medications are down to 6-months remaining on their batch number expiry date.
Therefore, whatever those drugs have cost the UK government, by simply reallocating them to the Foreign Aid Office for transshipment to a developing nation along with a note to the Foreign Aid Office explaining how much the National Medicines Purchasing Agency (or ministry) paid for that pallet of medications, it’s a just way to increase the UK’s foreign aid budget by that exact amount. Or to top it up to .7% during lean years.
In either case, it won’t hurt to send a truckload or two of nearly outdated medicine (annually) to the developing nations that need them and include those donations as part of the UK’s foreign aid spending.
It’s a ‘Win-Win’ when you bulk purchase an entire country’s worth of pills annually and thereby receive astonishing discounts from multinational pharmaceuticals, it’s ‘Win-Win’ when each NHS unit never again runs short of medicine and only ever pays the deeply discounted wholesale price, it’s ‘Win-Win’ for pharmacy suppliers that benefit from a much lower wholesale price than they could ever hope to negotiate themselves, the UK military wins by having lower cost medicine for its personnel, and it’s a ‘Win-Win’ for the UK foreign aid budget/developing nations.
And all that, just by getting the UK organized on its total annual medicine purchase.
Who knew?
Letter to Britain 