Lead, follow, or run away: Head of Scotland Yard chose the latter

Acting Commissioner of Scotland Yard Craig Mackey admits that he locked himself in his car while witnessing knife-wielding terrorist stab police office, then sped away.

Sir Craig, who retires in December, went on: "The attacker had one of those looks where, if they get you in that look, they would be after you.

"He seemed absolutely focused on getting further down and attacking anyone who was in his way."

Mackay’s colleagues were not impressed by his actions.

A former Scotland Yard commander, who did not wish to be named, said: 'When very senior officers get caught up in a situation like this, they need to remember, first and foremost, that they are a police officer – and then that they are a leader.'

Former Metropolitan Police Federation chairman Glen Smyth said: 'If you are an ordinary cop, your instinct when someone is in trouble – particularly a colleague – is to help them. 

Whether it was the right or wrong decision for the Acting Commissioner to leave the scene, it will certainly raise eyebrows.'

“Unarmed” doesn’t necessarily mean that no weapon couldn’t have been found: a tire iron in the body, perhaps? Had he been present on 9/11 when the towers were burning, Siir Craig would today be a “survivor”. Many he enjoy his retirement this December.

UPDATE: the comment from “Your Mother” regarding the use of an umbrella as a weapon reminded me of this:

This prediction from Glenn Reynolds sounds right

How Kavanaugh’s confirmation will change the Supreme Court

With Brett Kavanaugh as the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, things are going to be different. But how different? Here are a few changes to look for:

► There will be less change than you expect. Most Supreme Court decisions are boring, technical, and decided by easy majorities. That will still be true post-Kavanaugh.

► [snip]

► Strange New Respect for judicial minimalism. As Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule remarked, “Law review editors: brace for a tidal wave of legal academic theories supporting judicial minimalism, Thayerianism, and strong — very strong — theories of precedent. Above all: the Court must do nothing without bipartisan agreement, otherwise it is illegitimate.” The past half-century’s enthusiasm for judicial activism will vanish, as legal academia turns on a dime to promote theories that will constrain the Court until a left-leaning majority returns, at which point they’ll turn on a dime again.

► [snip]

As George Mason University Law School’s Adam White notes, we may see a rerun of the “Impeach Earl Warren” campaigns of the 1960s, only from the left. (Though, to be fair, the move to impeach Warren was led by Democrats, too, of the segregationist variety.)

And of course, there’s this prediction, which is sure to delight the manufacturer of Orvile Redenbacher’s popcorn:

Of course, the shrieking hysterics surrounding this Supreme Court appointment, as bad as they are, will likely pale beside the shrieking hysterics we’ll see if, as seems likely, President Trump has a chance to replace aging liberal heroine Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So there’s that to look forward to, anyway.

Second Amendment opponents call for their mob to chase down 2nd Amendment supporters "where they eat, live and work"..

This seems ill-advised, especially in states that enjoy “stand your ground” laws.

And one of the most disgusting spectacles in our nation's history concludes

AND THERE WAS A GREAT WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH

Kavanaugh confirmed, will be sworn in tonight, with formal investiture creamy later.

It’s being said that the Democrats overplayed their hand with their hysterical, phoney lies, and I agree. For that matter, Saint Ford’s story was falling apart as each day revealed still more inconsistencies, so it was a good thing for her reputation that the matter ended today, rather than a week from now.

What's a 1956 house way up on Rogues Hill worth? Not as much as these owners hoped

You’d think someone would have done some landscaping since 1956, but no

483 Round Hill Road is back with yet another broker and yet another price: $4.895 million. It’s been for sale since 2011, when it began at $6.750, and so far, no-one’s bit. Good looking house, but totally dated. Good views.

Described in a previous listing as a “spectacular gourmet kitchen”. Imagine the disappointment of any buyer who drove almost to New York with cooking on her mind.

Seems to have been a poor choice to renovate

2 Round Hill Road, Lake Avenue frontage, is a 1961 home purchased in 2006 for $4.9 million, and underwent, to quote its current agent, a “total gut renovation in 2007”. It was placed back on the market this year at $5.950, and the tepid market response has caused the owners to add it to the “land” listing category today, at that same $5.950.

Trouble is, the house isn’t selling because it’s a disappointing, bland 1960s house, and as land, what’s 3 acres worth here? Not $6 million, that’s for sure, even for those who enjoy the rush and noise of Lake Avenue.

And we're back!

Sorry about that. The trouble with blogging is that it requires steady, conscientious effort, and if you lose the discipline to write every day, and with every day without writing, it becomes easier to just skip the whole thing. I was s disgusted with the whole Kavanaugh mess down in D.C. that I refused to even look at the internet and turned to grouse hunting and reading novels instead.

In any event, here we are, back in the game, and today’s lead off is that spec house I’ve written about before, 11 Round Hill Club Road, which today dropped from $11.950 million to $9.950.

The builders of this Lego set paid almost $4 million for the land some time ago (a price I would have advised against, but no one asked me) and put up their mansion for $17.950 (another price I’d have advised against, but …) in October, 2015. It’s been down hill ever since.

Someone is bound to come along who wants this place, but when that person will appear, and what price he’s willing to pay, remains unknown.

Presumably she isn't blaming Kavanaugh, but you never know these days

83-year-old legislator reveals that she was groped and kissed by an adult 70 years ago.

'Each of these experiences are seared in our brains, in our emotions, and on our bodies. And no we are not confused. We know who our assaulters are and we know exactly where we were when they happened.'

The octagenarian claims the isn’y confused, but it’s hard to understand why this Democrat would insist that the truth of am allegation of sexual assault can be found in the fact that the victims remember, indelibly, exactly when and where they were attacked. Dr. Ford fails that test, miserably. In fact:

Not only does Ford not remember where or when she was attacked, she can’t even remember things she did less than a month ago.

1. She still can’t confirm the basics of her account

She can tell everyone definitively that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, but she doesn’t know when, where, who took her there or picked her up (she was 15), or pretty much anything of significance. She has no facts, no corroboration, no medical report, no police report. There is nothing but a claim from a woman with a bad memory and a story contradicted by all her own witnesses. At this point, there is not even any evidence that there was a party at all, much less that Kavanaugh was there or that anything happened between Kavanaugh and Ford.

2. There’s the polygraph weirdness

Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor in Maricopa County, Arizona, who questioned Ford today, went out on what seems to be a strange tangent about the polygraph that Ford took in August. Surprisingly, it still prompted Ford to say a couple of very strange things. Ford said the polygraph was done in Maryland because of her grandmother’s funeral and she was asked if it was done on the same day as her grandmother’s funeral. Ford did not know the answer to that question. Mitchell also asked if she paid for the polygraph, which would normally be quite expensive, and again, Ford said she doesn’t know. If Ford doesn’t have a clear memory of big events that happened to her LAST MONTH, how can anyone be sure her memory of what happened 36 years ago is correct? Was Kavanaugh involved? You wouldn’t think someone could get confused about something like that, but you’d also think someone would know if she spent thousands of dollars paying for a polygraph last month.

3. She could have testified in California

At one point, in response to Mitchell’s comment about how this wasn’t the best forum to explore her allegations, Ford agreed it would have been better if she could have testified at home without having to do this publicly in D.C.  -- except she could have done exactly that. Not only was the offer made to her legal team, but there were also news articles about it. It was not a secret. So either Ford is lying or perhaps worse yet, she really doesn’t know what’s going on and her legal team unnecessarily tossed her into the meat grinder for political purposes.

4. Ford’s fear of flying is fake

Ford’s own lawyers have been publicly claiming that she’s too frightened to fly and they have gone out of their way to say that she won't get on a plane because of the Kavanaugh incident. Because of that, they said she’d have to drive cross-country to get to a hearing. Of course, she actually flew. Additionally, under questioning, she admitted she had flown to Maryland, Hawaii, and Tahiti. In other words, that was a bald-faced lie. If she is lying about that, what else is she lying about?

And our senior senator continues to embarrass the state

Blumenthal gilled Kavanaugh yesterday on whether the judge understood the meaning, false in one thing, false in all). This from a man who lied about being on the Harvard swim team and, of course, and more important, falsely claiming to have served in Viet Nam.

It took a bit of Photoshopping, but someone has come up with a picture of the senator’s heroic service in that lamented war:

Nope, Senator, you weren’t there

Next story: Kavanaugh slaughtered and dismembered elephants on the bedroom floor.

Actually, that particular story was used against the McMartin family day care operators, told by four-year-olds with “recovered” memories which delivered the family into a prosecutorial hell for ten years. A similar tale about the Amirault family in Boston was believed by a jury, resulting in jail sentences of more than ten years.

But today we have a third accuser of Judge Kavanaugh crawl from under a rock. First story was that he groped a girl’s breasts; when that lost some traction, the ext one up said he’d waved his dick in her face. Now it turns out he’s a serial rapist, at least according to a woman who claims that as a college student she attended, voluntarily, one presumes, a series of high school parties where girls were drugged with quaaludes and repeatedly raped. Why, exactly, she kept going to back to these parties for more is left unsaid, but it’s a remarkable achievement for a man with an impeccable history of propriety, to go from a teenaged titty fondler to a dick-waving drunk to a serial rapist, all in just one week.

In normal times, this third, absurd accusation would end the circus and we could all get on with seating this fine judge on the Supreme Court. But these are not normal times, or at least, this sort of mass hysteria didn’t used to be considered normal.