»V lanskem letu, na t.i. x oddelku, specializiranem oddelku, ena od sodnic ni rešila niti ene zadeve. In v celem letu je imela samo 10 obravnavnih dni. Vrhovno sodišče je že dvakrat jasno povedalo: specializirani oddelki so strel v prazno. Dajte jih razpustiti in zadeve razdelite med sodnike.« Jan Zobec z dr. Jernejem Letnar Černičem na @Domovina_je
👉https://t.co/s0ixZLdlRG
Ena je pojedla pet rezin pršuta in spila deci vina. Nikogarjšni hlapci zo znoreli. Morala odstopiti. Druga si je kupila čoln. Nikogarjšnji hlapci so tiho. Vse štima. Noro. Dvojni vaflji v vsem svojem sijaju.
Zaradi te objave me je pravkar na domu obiskala kriminalistična policija. Povedal sem jim, da je to v prisluhih povedala Vesna Vuković in naj njo vprašajo od kje ji ta podatek. Mogoče jo zdaj bodo. Prijavo zoper mene je podal Martin Grašič, moral pa bi prijaviti Vesno Vuković...
Ne poznam revnega človeka, da bi iz banke dvignil 2,5 milijona €. Poznam pa ministrico Alenko Bratušek, ki je to storila. Ampak ona ni dvignila svoj denar. Ona ga je ukradla in zdaj je njen. V kateri tuji banki je naložen, bo pa izziv za organe pregona! Nadaljevanje spodaj⬇️⬇️⬇️
včeraj je vlada sprejela sklep, da nakaže na Borzen 30 000 000 eur našega denarja, čez par dni pa še 10 000 000 eur. o tem nihče ne piše!!!!...vlada, ki ureja le tekoče posle.....
American bought a brand new printer. She bought the ink for the printer, she bought the paper for the printer, now she’s at home and is ready to print
She can’t print
“They remotely shut off my printer until I paid $7.50 cents to print in my own home, to print on my printer, that I own in my home”
This is the new $7.50 subscription plan by HP Printers
Here’s how the plans work
HP’s Instant Ink and newer All-in Plan programs are subscription services options:
- You pay a monthly fee based on pages printed (not ink used).
- Plans start low, from $1.79–$7.99 per month for 10–100 pages
- $7–$8 per month plans are for around 100 pages
If your payment fails. HP will remotely shutoff your printer
If you are old enough to remember driving in Britain in the 1980s, you will remember the windscreen.
You could not see through it by July. A journey from Leeds to London in August ended with a front bumper that looked like it had been through a war and a windscreen that needed a proper scrubbing with a sponge at the services. Insects on the headlights. Insects in the wing mirrors. Insects packed into the radiator grille so densely that mechanics had to fish them out. This was simply the weather of the British summer, the cost of moving through a country that was still, in living memory, full of flying things.
Get in a car now. Drive the same route. Stop at the services.
The windscreen is clean.
The Bugs Matter survey, run by Kent Wildlife Trust and Buglife since 2004, has been measuring exactly this. Volunteers clean their numberplate, drive a journey, count the splats on a grid. Between 2004 and 2021, the UK average fell by roughly 59 per cent. England alone: 65. Kent: over 70. The 2024 update found a further 63 per cent drop on top of that.
The windscreen phenomenon has the data to back it up now.
And not just the insects. Between 1970 and 2024, the UK Farmland Bird Index fell by 62 per cent. Turtle doves down 99. Grey partridge down 94. Tree sparrow down 90. A generation of British children has grown up without ever hearing a turtle dove call, because there are, in functional terms, no turtle doves left to call.
Defra's own bulletin lists the causes without embarrassment. Loss of mixed farming. The switch from spring to autumn sowing, which took away the winter stubble the small birds had been feeding on since the Neolithic. The grubbing up of hedgerows to make fields bigger for bigger machines. Increased fertiliser. Increased pesticide.
Specifically, the pesticides. Neonicotinoids on oilseed rape. Glyphosate sprayed as a pre-harvest desiccant on wheat and barley. Chemicals applied in combinations and volumes that would have seemed psychotic to a farmer in 1950, applied to grow the crops that feed directly into the plant-based shakes marketed to people who believe they are helping the environment.
The insects died in the fields where the crops were grown. The birds that used to eat the insects, starved. The windscreen, accordingly, is clean.
None of this happened on the permanent pasture that cattle graze. A herb-rich meadow grazed by cattle has more pollinators, more ground-nesting birds, more beetles, more everything per hectare than the arable field next door. The South Downs and the Welsh uplands and the Cotswold commons where sheep and cattle have been grazing for a thousand years are the places British biodiversity is still, just, holding on.
The countryside did not empty because of the cow.
It emptied because we replaced the cow with the combine harvester, the meadow with the oilseed rape, and the hedgerow with another half-acre of monoculture that needed spraying fourteen times a season to keep it alive.
When someone tells you eating a steak is destroying British wildlife, ask them what was on the field before it became the soy farm, the rape farm, the wheat farm that produced the oat milk in their fridge.
It was grass.
And on the grass, there were cattle.
And when the cattle were there, the windscreen needed cleaning.
Pfizer toxicologist stands in the German Bundestag and says what everyone knew who didn't want to look away.
60,000 additional deaths in temporal connection with the COVID-19 vaccination. Not estimated by fringe thinkers, but the result of a pharmacoepidemiological analysis, presented by an expert who no longer lets himself be fobbed off with the usual "that's complex" platitudes.
The system was simple:
Emergency authorization without long-term data. Pressure instead of enlightenment. Reports of side effects were collected, but not evaluated. The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut documented, but drew no consequences. The Robert Koch-Institut communicated excess mortality in such a way that the numbers fit. Children, young people, pregnant women – everything without sufficient data basis, without legally binding enlightenment, without those responsible ever being asked if they knew what they were doing.
The legal category is called: prohibited human experiments. Not as a comparison, but as a criminal classification. Whoever pushes a novel active substance without sufficient testing into a population and systematically circumvents the statutory duties of pharmacovigilance has crossed the line that is not crossed even in wartime.
The demand is called: Nuremberg Trials. Not as revenge fantasy, but as constitutional state. If the democratic basic order allows state authorities together with private corporations to turn people into test subjects, then this order must account for itself in court.
Some say the comparison with Nuremberg is exaggerated. True. In Nuremberg the perpetrators knew what they were doing. Here they knew it too. They just call it differently.
Credit to @SHomburg