We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

In the rush of breaking news today, do not forget 7/7/2005.

Lots of news today. Nigel Farage has stood down as MP for Clacton, stating he will seek to be re-elected in the resulting by-election. The Daily Mail has defeated Prince Harry and several other high-profile claimants in a phone hacking case brought against it in the High Court, a result that Lord Dacre, the Mail’s publisher, has hailed as a victory for press freedom.

The papers were no doubt equally full on this day twenty-one years ago, before the 7 July 2005 London bombings wiped everything else off the front page.

The government will protect your data like it protects its own

The government consultation document “Making public services work for you with your digital identity” gives its chapters aspirational names like “Useful”, “Inclusive”, and “Trusted”. Here’s the description for “Trusted”:

Part 5: Trusted includes information on how we will design the new system to ensure that everyone can have confidence that it will protect their data. It includes discussion of technical security measures, data protection standards and how people can exercise greater consent and control when using the digital ID. There is also a chapter on governance and oversight

*

There’s an interesting report in today’s Telegraph:

Russian hackers steal government logins

Russian hackers have infiltrated the email accounts of UK government officials and overseas Foreign Office staff in a major national security breach.

In the sophisticated and ongoing attack – nicknamed FortiBleed by researchers – hackers stole login credentials belonging to government staff, granting unauthorised access to sensitive systems and threatening further infiltration across Whitehall departments.

Samizdata quote of the day – People are such rubes

And, btw, when it comes to words, Trump made one of his most astonishing public lies recently about how Putin did not help Iran in the recent war. Speaking at the G7, Trump went out of his way to praise Putin for being “neutral” in the Iran War. Here is what he said.

“And I want to thank Vladimir Putin, he was very neutral. They could have made it much more difficult for us.”

Of course, Russia was anything but neutral in the war, and provided key support to Iran, support that seems to have helped the Iranians win the war and defeat US forces (and defeat Trump). This Russian help went from vital drone components, targeting intelligence to help the Iranians hit US bases, sanctions evasion help and the delivery of finished munitions.

So Trump has recently gone to great lengths to lie and protect Putin and to loosen sanctions on the Russian economy. But hey, he did not insult Ukraine.

People are such rubes.

Phillips P. OBrien

“Half of Belgium sees the US as a bigger adversary than China”

“Half of Belgium sees the US as a bigger adversary than China”, reports EuroNews.

The poll also found that China is viewed less negatively than the US. Between 40% and 44% of respondents described China as an adversary. However, very few Belgians consider China an ally, with many respondents choosing the option “neither ally nor adversary”.

Despite that, concerns about Beijing remain. Nearly 60% of respondents said they believe a Chinese military attack on Taiwan is likely in the near future, reflecting continued unease about China’s growing military influence.

The survey also suggests that Belgians generally feel secure within their own country. Only a small minority believe Belgium itself could face a direct military attack, with 12% of respondents in Flanders and 21% in Wallonia expressing that concern.

At the same time, respondents supported greater European independence in both defence and economic policy. More than 80% said Europe should become militarily self-sufficient, while a majority backed stronger European responses to US trade measures and tariffs.

The poll also found strong support for limiting foreign influence in Belgian affairs. Nearly 90% of respondents said Belgium should not allow the US to interfere in its domestic matters, reflecting recent controversy surrounding comments made by the US ambassador to Belgium.

Despite growing scepticism towards Washington, Belgians remain broadly supportive of Western institutions. Around 80% said Belgium should remain a member of NATO under all circumstances. Many respondents view the alliance as a collective European security shield rather than an instrument of US influence.

Like it or not, the opinion of an increasing proportion of Belgians as revealed in this survey is shared by other European countries. Like it or not, the corresponding opinion of an increasing proportion of Americans is “Okay, bye”.

Quite possibly, this is all just a spat that brought on by the fact that, to use Scott Alexander’s formulation, Xi’s China is the “fargroup” you hardly ever think about, whereas Trump’s America is the “outgroup” whose antics irritate you every day.

But if these attitudes are real, the Belgians and other Europeans need to get equally real about the cost of the changes they say they want. “More than 80% said Europe should become militarily self-sufficient”. Europe being militarily self-sufficient would make Belgium safer, but also poorer. It would require more Belgians to be ready to fight and die for their country at a moment’s notice. I am not sure they even realise that that is what Trump has been asking them to do for years.

What is the point of the police appealing for witnesses to a racist attack if they will not state the race of the attackers or the victim?

This is the whole text of a BBC report published forty minutes ago:

Taxi driver victim of ‘unprovoked, racist attack’

Police are appealing for information about a racially-motivated attack on a taxi driver in Belfast.

Two men and a woman approached the taxi driver on Talbot Street at about 23:10 BST on Saturday and, after being refused a lift, they became aggressive and used racial slurs.

The taxi driver, who is in his 30s, was spat at and struck by one of the men and he hit the ground and lost consciousness. As he got back up, he was hit by a second man.

The three people then made off on foot in the direction of the city centre.

‘Unprovoked attack’

Inspt Moutray from the Police Service of Northern Ireland ( PSNI) described it as an “unprovoked attack, which is being treated as a racially-motivated hate crime”.

“There is no place for hate, racism or violence in our communities, and everyone has the right to feel safe and treated with dignity and respect,” the officer said.

“The area was fairly busy at the time, as would be expected for a Saturday evening, and we’d ask anyone who witnessed this assault to get in touch.

“The woman is described as wearing a black dress, while both men are described as being of muscular build and were wearing a white shirt and red T-shirt.”

I do not know if the decision to hide the race of the victim and the suspects was taken by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the BBC, or both. Whoever it was, they cannot care very much about actually catching the perpetrators. Do they seriously think that someone reading the above who was in the area at the relevant time would have their memory jogged by mention of the colour of the woman’s dress or the men’s shirts? For any crime at all, giving a description of a suspect that leaves out their skin colour is unlikely to be productive in prompting witnesses to come forward. When the crime is a a racial attack such playacting becomes even more outrageous.

Related post: It’s not like anyone needs to know what a killer still at large looks like

When luxury beliefs turn lethal

“The people pursuing luxury beliefs are engaged in a kind of status competition. Who can épater la bourgeoisie with the boldest, most transgressive political statements? After Oct. 7, 2023, we saw this kind of status-jockeying on college campuses, where elite students vied to become the most fervent supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Keffiyeh scarves became de rigueur. Celebrating political murder is the next step on this progression. For most, it’s only talk. But there will always be a few who seek what they see as the ultimate status: actually carrying out a political attack.

“People who shrug off this violence chic as mere talk need to take a hard look at what’s going on. The foiled attack on President Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner was the third attempt on Mr. Trump’s life in less than two years. The 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk was tragically successful. As was the hit on two Israel embassy staffers on a street in Washington, D.C., last year. We’ve seen hundreds of attacks on Jewish-owned businesses and synagogues. An anti-Israel extremist firebombed the residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. The list goes on and on. And the pace of these attacks seems to be accelerating.”

James B Meigs, Wall Street Journal ($)

His article also addresses how it is now considered chic for these poseurs and self-regarding halfwits to steal stuff.

One consequence of all this nastiness will be a rise in vigilantism, and I don’t at this point think anyone has an excuse for being surprised.

A dangerous profession

Suspect in custody after shots fired at White House correspondents’ dinner, reports the BBC:

Gunshots were fired at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington DC on Saturday night. The suspect was arrested. An officer was shot at close range, but his bullet-proof vest saved him.

Here’s a recap of what happened:

The annual event was held at the Washington Hilton hotel, with Trump attending for the first time as president
First Lady Melania Trump, Vice-President JD Vance and hundreds journalists, media personalities and government officials were also there
A suspected gunman ran into the hotel foyer, trying to get past security officers and metal detectors, at about 00:45 GMT
Loud bangs were heard, prompting security service personnel to immediately escort the president and other officials from the venue
Hundreds of guests stayed behind for about an hour before the ballroom was cleared
Trump shared images and a video of the suspect on social media
Cole Tomas Allen, 31, is reportedly the suspect
Allen is expected to be charged on Monday with several offences, including using a firearm during a crime of violence
Trump told reporters afterwards, “I can’t imagine many professions that are more dangerous” when reflecting on several shooting attempts over the past three years

Update: As usual, everyone is rushing to find out the suspect’s politics. So far he’s weakly linked to the Democrats – a $25 donation to Kamala Harris and the fact that he’s a teacher. I do not, in fact, blame the entire Left for one man trying to assassinate Donald Trump. But I come damn close to blaming the entire “liberal” media for the unseemly haste to look up the would-be killer’s political donations. The haste is actually quite rational given the propensity of both old and new media to highlight or hide a suspect’s background depending on political convenience. These media double standards go back a long time. Here’s a Samizdata post from 2011: Two contrasting articles by Michael Tomasky on spree killers. Here are two quotes from different articles by Mr Tomasky:

Quote No.1 from this article: In the US, where hate rules at the ballot box, this tragedy has been coming for a long time:

… You don’t have to believe that alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, is a card-carrying Tea Party member (he evidently is not) to see some kind of connection between that violent rhetoric and what happened in Arizona on Saturday.

Quote No.2 from this article: American, for better or worse:

We should assume until it’s proven otherwise that Hasan was an American and a loyal one, who just snapped, as Americans of all ethnicities and backgrounds and political persuasions do.

Why were the Metropolitan police so easily duped by Carl Beech?

I missed this story when it came out a few days ago. It is still relevant. It will be relevant so long as the patterns of human behaviour observed in the Salem Witch Trials last, which is likely to be a long time.

“The Met was duped by fantasist Carl Beech. A decade later, the real victims are still suffering”

Here is an excerpt:

Ten years ago this month, Harvey Proctor, the former Conservative MP, received a letter from the Metropolitan Police informing him that he would not be facing charges of multiple child rape and murder.

Following an 18-month investigation, which had cost more than £3m, the country’s leading police force had concluded there was, after all, not enough evidence to prove that he had been part of a VIP paedophile ring that had spent years torturing, abusing and killing children.

There was not enough evidence, of course, because the entire thing had been made up by a fantasist called Carl Beech, who was, in fact, a paedophile himself.

and

The police investigation – which became known as Operation Midland – began in earnest in November 2014, when Beech, an NHS manager, went to police, claiming to have been abused for almost a decade by a powerful cabal of politicians, establishment and military figures.

He had already met with Tom Watson, the Labour MP, who enthusiastically encouraged him to take his allegations to Scotland Yard and then, without any due diligence, made a speech in the Commons warning of a “powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10”.

The list of those Beech – or Nick, the pseudonym he was given – accused read like a Who’s Who of the 1980s establishment.

He named Edward Heath, the former prime minister; Lord Brittan, the former home secretary; Lord Janner, the former Labour grandee; Harvey Proctor, the former Tory backbencher; Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the Army; General Hugh Beach; Field Marshal Roland Gibbs, the former Chief of the General Staff; Maurice Oldfield, the former head of MI6; Michael Hanley, the former head of MI5; and Major Raymond Beech, his own stepfather. He also threw Jimmy Savile’s name into the mix, perhaps to add a semblance of credibility (Savile’s crimes had become known in late 2012).

The list of people “Nick” claimed had abused him was a great deal longer than that. The Times journalist David Aaronovitch wrote an article (which I cannot now find to link to) before “Nick’s” true identity had been revealed that dared to question Beech’s tale on logistical grounds. I say “dared to” because at that time the witch-hunt was at its height and the comments filled up with people who said that for Aaronovitch to quibble about the likelihood of so many of the most scrutinised men in the country (including Edward Heath who as a former Prime Minister was given round-the-clock police protection) being able to slip away for murder parties quite that often must mean that Aaronovitch was in on the conspiracy too.

The Telegraph article continues,

In December 2014, in line with a new national policy that demanded the police must start from a position of believing all victims, Scotland Yard held a press briefing at which it declared Beech’s claims to be “credible and true”. Seasoned crime journalists present, including me, were somewhat surprised to hear detectives declaring allegations to be “true” at the outset of an investigation.

Sir Richard believes that this was a fatal mistake from the police. “For senior officers to stand outside New Scotland Yard and say Carl Beech was credible and true before they had even spoken to him or read his interviews really was outrageous.”

The senior officer who stood outside New Scotland Yard and said that Carl Beech’s accusations were “credible and true” was Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald. It was no mere slip of the tongue. Here is a BBC video from 2014 of him repeating it. I once thought that the presumption of innocence was drilled into every police officer.

What happened to Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald? He and the other officers who led Operation Midland to disaster were allowed to retire early on full pensions.

What happened to Tom Watson, the Labour MP who used Parliamentary Privilege to amplify Beech’s accusations in Parliament? Sir Keir Starmer sent him to the House of Lords. He should now be addressed as “The Right Honourable the Baron Watson of Wyre Forest”.

What happened to Harvey Proctor, the former Tory MP falsely accused of multiple rapes and murders of children? He lost his job and his home and says he will never feel safe again.

What happened to Field Marshall Lord Bramall and Leon Brittan? They did not live to see their names cleared. Their last days were darkened by the knowledge that millions of people believed they had raped and murdered children, because the police said the accusations were true.

What happened to “Nick” a.k.a. Carl Beech? He was released from jail early having served less than seven years of his 18 year sentence.

Digital Effing Voice

This letter appeared in today’s Guardian:

What needs to be spelled out to the politicians looking to consult people about digital ID is that you cannot have a universal digital anything until you have universal phone coverage (UK digital ID scheme to have limited use before next general election, minister says, 10 March). When the old copper phone lines are switched off, we will be cut off because no provider will invest in our area, and this is not untypical of large areas of Devon.

That means that any digital ID accessed by phone will not be available to us unless we go and park in a layby every day where we can get signal. Does Darren Jones, the prime minister’s chief secretary, even understand this point? We are not refuseniks. We just live near a hill, and so we won’t be able to do our car tax, get our medical records or anything else as things stand.

This is not a lifestyle choice either because we had a properly functioning analog TV signal as well as a landline when we moved here. We can’t give out our mobile number to anybody important because we know that the device will let us down, and we are paying the same as everyone else – have been for years.
Teresa Rodrigues
Crediton, Devon

This is a good argument against digital ID in itself and is also likely to work well in the public sphere. I welcome any blow against digital ID, and I sympathise with Ms Rodrigues, but I must acknowledge that there is a problem for libertarians here.

As the letter says, the UK’s old Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) landline phone network is in the process of being replaced. This link takes you to the government guidance page on “Moving landlines to digital technologies”. The government and the phone companies present this transition to “Digital Voice” as being un upgrade for which we should be grateful. It is not an upgrade for me and I am not grateful. Compared to some, I am not badly affected, but I have lost the convenient ability to dial six digits instead of eleven for a local number, and, more worryingly, Digital Effing Voice doesn’t work when there is a power cut, which we have fairly often. For those who live in rural areas, such as the writer of the above letter, it will be much worse. A friend of mine lives in Scotland, has very poor mobile signal at the best of times, and regularly experiences days-long power cuts due to snow. That’ll be fun when the landline doesn’t work. Next year’s papers will be full of stories about old people in isolated houses who died because they could not call for help in an emergency. This change is not being done for the benefit of the customers. It is being done because the “new digital technologies using the internet such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Digital Voice or All-IP telephony” cost less to run than the old technologies.

What to do? If I was a socialist or a big-state Conservative, I would immediately say that the old copper phone lines must be maintained despite the expense in order to protect the vulnerable and to keep the system working in the face of attack or disaster. As a minarchist, I might be able to say the same, but given that the actual socialists in power and the big-state Conservatives who preceded them have not taken that route, when I have no doubt that they would have been happy to trumpet that they were doing so, I would guess that the extra expense of maintaining the old system must be insupportable.

Or am I wrong?

A war a day

Friday 27th February 2026: Pakistan declares state of ‘open war’ after bombing major Afghan cities

Saturday 28th February 2026: US and Israel launch attack on Iran, as Trump says ‘major combat operations’ under way

Lot of it about these days. I was going to make a rather tasteless metaphor about it being like the Gorton and Denton by-election, with the Greens winning and Reform coming second, displacing the established parties. But of course the surprise war – to all but the very old – was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Given Iran’s participation in proxy wars in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and its hostile actions against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and probably other countries that I’ve forgotten (even leaving out Western ones), I’m surprised this didn’t happen earlier. As for Pakistan and their former protégés the Taliban, he who sups with the devil should have a long spoon.

Update: Israel says that Ayatollah Khamenei has been found dead in the rubble of his compound. For the sake of the Iranian people, so many of whom have been murdered by Khamenei’s regime in the recent protests, I hope that this is true. In contrast, Zack Polanski of the Green Party says “This is an illegal, unprovoked and brutal attack that shows once again that the USA and Israel are rogue states.” Illegal, Zack? If the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran wanted the protection of international law, they should have renounced and made recompense for taking diplomats hostage. In the absence of that renunciation the international community should have put them down like rabid dogs forty-seven years ago.

Not “less human”, but yes to all the rest. I guess I must be a sanist.

Beatrice Adler-Bolton
@realLandsEnd

Sanism names a deep, pervasive belief that ppl who appear out of control, incoherent, or in psychiatric crisis are not trustworthy, less human & fundamentally disruptive to social life. It’s a hierarchy of credibility and belonging, where visible distress = danger/contamination

1:59 AM · Feb 23, 2026

https://x.com/realLandsEnd/status/2025752283435196882

This tweet by Beatrice Alder-Bolton, co-author of Health Communism: A Surplus Manifesto, has been garnering interest, as it was intended to do. As the title says, while I never doubt the humanity of people who appear “out of control, incoherent, or in psychiatric crisis”, I do think that while they remain in this state in public places they are disruptive to social life. I also think that while in this state they are untrustworthy.

Beatrice Alder-Bolton would like us to believe that she trusts them. If she had said that she sympathised with people visibly in psychiatric crisis, I would have believed her. I also sympathise. If she had said that she tries to engage with such people in order to help them, I might have believed her. I have met a few kind souls who habitually respond in this way. I admire them (the kind souls) from a safe distance. But when Beatrice Alder-Bolton implies that she thinks the man having a psychiatric crisis in front of her on public transport is trustworthy, I do not believe her. Her body goes onto high alert just like anyone else’s. And speaking for myself, you bet I don’t trust the crazy guy. You bet I think he might be dangerous. And if he has just emptied his bowels or his bladder in the carriage I do indeed fear contamination.

But in order to be worthy of trust myself, I cannot simply dismiss Beatrice Alder-Bolton as a high-functioning mad left-winger of the sort that even other left-wingers are beginning to realise are poisonous to their cause (“I am begging leftists and liberals to not do this again. It is normal and smart to be nervous and on high alert when someone behaves in a profoundly anti-social way (peeing on the subway) and/or a threatening way (screaming on the subway). The more cities tolerate this, the fewer people ride public transport, the worse that transport gets, and eventually it gets to a breaking point and people wind up voting for right-wing politicians who come in and crack skulls and way over-police.” – Jill Filipovic), I have to acknowledge that when Alder-Bolton’s way of thinking is described as “left libertarian”, the “libertarian” part is perfectly real.

I wrote about the influence that the libertarian writings of Thomas Szasz had and continue to have on me in a post called “Ideology and Insanity on the New York Subway”. Just as certain chemicals are harmless in themselves but dangerous in combination with others, the way that Szasz’s* libertarian ideals combined with the dominant suicidally empathetic ideals of our time has produced results like the random murder of Iryna Zarutska by Decarlos Brown.

There are ways to respect the equal humanity of those who cannot function in society while, well, continuing to have a society. Private property is one, and if that is too much for modern sensibilities, the rediscovery of the right to exclude mad people from public property. To use Ms Alder-Bolton’s word, sanism. The rediscovery of proud, unapologetic sanism.

*You say it “sasses”. In Hungarian the digraph “sz” has the same function as the English letter “s” and the letter “s” on its own is pronounced the same way as the English digraph “sh”. Confusingly, Polish is the other way round.

Chagos baffles me

Can someone explain to me why the Tories opened negotiations with Mauritius over the control of Chagos, which was never part of Mauritius and whose inhabitants have never wanted to be part of Mauritius? And can someone explain why Labour wants to pay Mauritius to take over territory it never previously owned at any point in history?