Emergency Talks on Maxwell Are Held By Andrew’s Lawyers

Prince Andrew’s US lawyers have reportedly held emergency talks after Ghislaine Maxwell’s convictions for child sex trafficking, and experts told a newspaper outlet that the guilty verdicts were not good news for the Duke of York whose future as a frontline royal is now looking increasingly gloomy.

Lawyers in the US think the ninth in line to the British throne should now be quaking in his boots, as his old friend faces spending the rest of her life behind bars unless she flips and names names.

Experts also think that the Duke of York’s odds of beating the legal action brought against him by Virginia Roberts Guiffre will not be even more difficult after Maxwell was found guilty by a New York jury.

The 60-year-old British socialite was labelled a dangerous predator as she was convicted of helping to entice vulnerable teenagers to Jeffrey Epstein’s homes for him to sexually abuse between 1994 and 2004.

Miss Maxwell, a friend of Andrew’s for numerous years who chose not to give evidence at her trial, could now try to cut a deal to lessen a verdict that would see her die in jail.

A newspaper outlet has declared, and described them as emergency talks, and that Andrew’s lawyers spoke after yesterday’s rulings to examine the fallout, but also think the decision not to call Mrs Giuffre as a witness was catastrophic for her credibility.

Royal experts have said the Duke of York’s reputation was now a busted flush because of his friendship with billionaire paedophile Epstein and now convicted sex trafficker Maxwell, and the Queen’s constant and tireless support for her son, including reportedly spending millions of pounds personally financing the Duke of York’s defence case against allegations of sexual abuse, risks bringing the Royal Family into disrepute, critics have argued.

Robert Jobson, the author of Prince Philip’s Century, told a newspaper outlet that whatever way you look at the Maxwell verdict, it’s not good news for the Duke of York. Not only has he confessed to judgement failure regarding his friendship with the dead convict paedophile Epstein, but it’s known that he also enjoyed a long friendship with convicted sex trafficker Maxwell.

Prince Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing and isn’t facing criminal prosecution in the United States, but was named twice in proceedings including one by a pilot as one of the passengers flying on sex offender Epstein’s private jet – the so-called ‘Lolita Express’ because it was used to transport the billionaire paedophile’s victims around the world.

Epstein and Maxwell were also photographed relaxing on the bench at the Queen’s secluded log cabin in Glen Beg, Balmoral after Andrew personally invited them to stay.

Sadly Andrew has been on a downward path for a while, driven by his own lack of judgement, selfishness, egotism, sense of entitlement and lack of any intelligence, and it will continue to be this way from now on – he’s the author of his own misfortunes, but as long as the Queen is around to protect this somewhat unsavoury character he will be protected by the Royal Family, but what will happen when Charles gets on the throne?

If Andrew is guiltless of any wrongdoing like he says that he is, then he should help in order to clear his name, but instead, he’s dragging the Royal Family down with him. Although he’s under no obligation to clear his name and I believe that would be a slippery slope for him and we’re seemingly innocent until proven guilty.

Fauci Will Receive The Largest Retirement Package In Federal Government History

According to a Forbes estimate, Anthony Fauci is set to rake in the highest ever federal government retirement package in US history with his annual income surpassing $350,000.

The White House’s top COVID adviser, who’s 81, has shown no indications that he will retire any time soon after 55 years as a federal employee.

Since 1984, Fauci has acted as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health, and if he retired now, Fauci would still make $350,000 per year on retirement and his pension and benefits would continue to grow with the cost of living adjustments.

Fauci has become somewhat of a superstar among Democrats after he became the point person on the White House coronavirus response under Donald Trump and continued that role with Joe Biden. He was frequently glorified by the left for criticising Donald Trump in the early days of the pandemic.

On the other hand, Republicans have called for Fauci to be fired and have slammed the doctor for his agency giving a gain of function grant to the Wuhan lab, which they claim led to the development of the COVID 19 virus.

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace said on air with a COVID panel that she wasn’t a Fauci groupie, and that she had been vaccinated three times and mask adherent.

She said that she buys KN95 masks by the caseload and that they’re in every pocket and that she wears them everywhere except when she sits down.

The infectious disease expert has preached avid mask-wearing and getting vaccinated, including boosted against coronavirus. This quickly led Trump supporters to turn against the doctor, arguing he was trying to take away freedoms by mandating masks and vaccines.

In 2019, Fauci had a wage of $417,608 and in 2020 was bumped to $434,312, giving him two consecutive years of being the highest-paid federal worker. Fauci even out-earned the president, four-star generals and the remainder of his approximately 4.3 million colleagues in the federal government.

As president, Joe Biden, 79, earns $400,000 yearly.

Information hasn’t yet been released for Fauci’s 2021 earnings, but Forbes filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain all financial disclosures, which a federal judge was required to produce starting February 1, 2022.

The Office of Personnel Management notes that federal employees with such a long service like Fauci can retire and still earn 80 per cent of their average earnings from the last three salaries they earned, plus any credit they’ve left for sick leave that wasn’t taken.

I wonder how much he will get from China?

But the reality is Fauci said that he wouldn’t be retiring any time soon, so why are we stressing about it now? Although no government worker should be getting this much pension because it’s a stupid amount of money, and someone out there should be able to make a spellbinding film about all this.

Fauci is perhaps the worst administration official in the history of the United States and he will have got the biggest retirement package, that’s if he doesn’t die before gets it. Now tell me the US isn’t screwed up.

A Cop Surrounds A Mother And Son At Their Table Before Kicking Them Out Of A Queens Applebee’s

This is the moment more than ten NYPD officers encircled a mother and her son at a table in a Queen’s Applebee’s, before booting them out of the restaurant for not having vaccination cards during a disagreement with mass anti-vaccine mandate protesters.

The video footage reveals the officers, who have been accused of traumatising and terrorising the child, surrounding the young family at their table during a demonstration at Queens Centre Mall.

Dozens of anti-vaccine mandate protesters had orchestrated a sit-in at the restaurant after they were denied service for not verifying their vaccination status, as part of a string of rallies against the rules.

An officer could be heard saying that unless they had vaccination cards, they had to vacate the restaurant.

The little boy looks as if he’s about to cry before he conceals his face while the police speak to the family after the restaurant called the officers because of the demonstration.

A gathering of demonstrators, who’d been protesting against vaccine mandates, could be heard screaming at the NYPD officers as they asked the family to exit the busy restaurant.

One person could be heard screaming that the officers were scaring the child and traumatising the child, and they hoped they felt good about themselves, the NYPD.

One protester could be heard saying that it was gross and disgusting.

In New York City, people aged five and older are required to establish evidence they’ve received at least one dose of a COVID 19 vaccine for indoor dining, including restaurants, catering halls, hotel banquets rooms, bars, nightclubs, cafeterias, coffee shops, fast-food restaurants and grocery stores with indoor dining.

One officer, addressing the gathering of protesters said that if they departed willingly they would not have charges pressed against them, but that if they declined to exit they would be arrested for trespass and that they would only get one warning.

A newspaper outlet said that a bunch of demonstrators had sat down in the Applebee’s restaurant on December 15 at approximately 9 pm and refused to leave after staff declined to serve them because they’d not shown their vaccination passes.

A newspaper outlet said that the NYPD had been summoned to the location by the restaurant staff following a disturbance.

The NYPD said that upon arrival, officers were told by the manager that people entered, declined to verify vaccination status in compliance with NYS Mandate and asked for the people to be removed from the area.

It appears that most criminality must have stopped in the city, so officers now have time to pester a mother and her 5-year-old child about a vaccination that doesn’t stop a virus – how proud New Yorkers must be, and all the police say is that they’re obeying orders, we’ve heard that one before.

This is just another level of crazy, no wonder people are leaving, and this is authoritarianism and just disgraceful, and our freedoms are being taken from us and some people appear to be alright with this.

Schools quit teaching real history and this is where we’re at now. History is now repeating itself, and it’s becoming like East Germany, but without the wall!

Meanwhile, murders are taking place throughout the metropolis and offences go unsolved by staffing shortages, but it takes ten officers to patrol vaccination status for a mum and her child, and they seem to be able to roust a mum and her child, but when criminals smash and grab and rob your store, you’re told to file an insurance claim – what’s the real agenda here?

Mother Who’s Breastfed Her Two Children For Eight Years

A mum of two who still breastfeeds her four-year-old son has been branded disgusting by strangers.

Beccy Ashe, 35, from Liverpool, works as a breastfeeding support worker and has been breastfeeding her two children for a whole eight years.

The mother says although she gets judgemental stares from people in public, and dealt with the backlash online, she doesn’t care what others say.

Beccy said that she knew some people believed it was gross, or whatever, and that it was okay for everyone to have an opinion about it, and that she just asks that they be respectful, and she said she knows that it’s seen as odd, and of course, people can say what they want from behind the screen, but in person, she’s never had an adverse experience.

And that with most people, once she explains it to them, there’s no negativity, and they respect that this is a choice she’s made even if they don’t agree with it.

She said that she does sometimes get some stares, but usually if she’s in public she’s focused on her child, so she doesn’t peek to see what other people think about it.

Beccy currently breastfeeds her son Tobias twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening, and he eats solid meals throughout the day.

She said that she always knew she was going to breastfeed, but she didn’t intend on doing it for this long when she was expectant with Daisy, and that the organisation that she now works for, Breastfeeding Support, she started with them when she had Daisy, and it was there that she was informed of all the advantages of breastfeeding, like how it lowers the risk of breast cancer.

She said that when she got to six months and was starting on solid foods, she had to decide to either change her onto formula or keep breastfeeding and that it didn’t make sense to stop, so decided to carry on until she was one and then introduce cow’s milk, but she never quit breastfeeding.

Beccy continued to breastfeed Daisy throughout her pregnancy with her second child, Tobias, and she said that with Tobias, obviously she had more experience, and she wasn’t concerned that she wouldn’t be able to produce milk, and she thought that if there was any reason she couldn’t breastfeed him, she would find donor milk or attempt to find someone else to wet nurse.

This is of course totally bizarre to keep breastfeeding your children like they’re still infants, and it’s a bit like putting nappies on them when they’re eight years old.

I certainly wouldn’t be a fan, but she’s doing precisely what breasts were intended for, and I guess it’s better than drinking cow’s milk, produced from another species.

Ancient civilisations have breastfed for thousands of years and it was only in western cultures that we were programmed to be revolted by it, which is sad, and this woman isn’t hurting anyone and she indeed loves her children, and she should just be left to get on with it. However, mother nature provides a big clue when a child should be weaned off the breast, they’re called teeth!

Banning This Jigsaw Advertisement Isn’t Just Stupid

So let’s get this right! An advertisement from Jigsaw, one of British fashion’s most mainstream, middle market, don’t-scare-the-horses brands, has been banned for objectifying women. How silly.

The black and white picture in question displays a girl in the Berkshire countryside climbing over an old stile while sporting a pair of hiking boots, a white fisherman’s rib sweater, and as far as one can see, a brief sliver of a swimsuit. As a result. Jigsaw stands accused of being irresponsible and causing serious offence.

Laughably, one of the points made by the Advertising Standards Authority, in passing down judgment, is that she seemed to be out for a trek or stroll in the woods where people would not ordinarily be disrobed in that way.

The image was emailed to customers as part of the brand’s Autumn/Winter Into The Woods campaign, and it no more objectifies women, although it could turn hiking boots into fetishwear.

It depends on how you’re looking at it, or who’s looking at it, but all that I could see was a lovely, peaceful and sensitive image, thought up by a team of in-house staff as one of the add ons to the main campaign.

The picture, captioned ‘These boots were made for walking’, a nod to the 1965 hit song by Nancy Sinatra, which enunciated loud and clear that she was a woman capable of walking out of any situation, not to her taste.

Does this picture actually depict women as helpless or as hapless sex objects, and that this sort of thing should be something that we should be protected from? I don’t think so! Women wanted their rights and they got them, but now that they have them they yell from the rooftops that they’re being discriminated against or that men are ogling at them far too much.

Into The Woods was created by Joanna Sykes, Jigsaw’s Creative Director since 2019. Joanna Sykes has a hugely thriving track record in women’s fashion, especially in clothes that reverberate with grown up’s, real women. She did a stint at Aquascutum before going to Nicole Farhi for a few years.

Farhi and Jigsaw are both labels that have delivered reliable staples for women’s professional wardrobes. They’re garments for real-life rather than flights of fantasy. This is where advertising comes in because successful advertising catches the eye, which in this case, it clearly has done so.

Perhaps there’s been an outcry about the image because she has almost all of her bottom on show – she could have at least put on larger pants, and to be fair, going for a hike in the countryside, well, those pants just wouldn’t cut it, her legs would get torn to shreds by the brambles and nettles, but then the advert is totally sexualised for engagement.

But there are people out there that are offended and shocked by these catalogues, which are full of models, men and women in strange and meaningless poses to create a specific image. How long before we cancel sex altogether?

We’re apparently living in a free society and as such, it shouldn’t matter if a woman is clothed suitably or not – that’s the whole point of living in a democracy.

We’re meant to be an open-minded society, not like a bunch of disapproving old women, but all we keep doing is banning things in Britain and cancelling people, which is an extremely dangerous, slippery road to totalitarianism and hell.

It all comes down to this, all they need to do is look at the sales before the advertisement and then the ad after. If the advertisement was inappropriate or upsets people, sales will go down, but if people don’t care and believe it’s good marketing, sales will go up, so let the market decide instead of a few easily offended people.

The Most British Complaint Ever Received By A Homeowner

A homeowner received the ‘most British complaint’ ever from a neighbour who was kept awake by his Christmas light display.

The homeowner, who wasn’t named, received the polite typed letter through his letterbox, along with a timer to allow him to switch the lights off overnight.

In the letter, the neighbour explained he and his wife had been kept awake by the flashing lights and that it triggered his Ménière’s disease, a condition of the inner ear that can lead to dizzy spells and hearing loss.

He asked: ‘Could you possibly use the timer, if you really don’t need them on all night’, and added, ‘please accept this in the good faith in which it is meant’.

The kind neighbour had even preset the timer to make it easy as possible.

A photograph of the note and timer was shared on Reddit’s Casual UK forum by the homeowner’s brother in law and sparked a surge of support from fellow users.

The letter read: ‘You will probably think this is a rather unusual note, but please accept it in the good faith that is meant. The enclosure is really a Christmas present – if not to yourself and your partner, then to my wife and myself!

‘We are not sleeping well just now, as the flashing festive lights wake us through the night and trigger my Meniere’s problems.

‘Could you possibly use the timer, if you really don’t need them on all night? I have taken the liberty of setting it to switch between about 8.30 am and 11.00 pm.

‘Just set the pointer on the dial to the actual time when plugging it into the mains sockets. With thanks and kind wishes.’

Impressed by the letter, a stream of responses to the post applauded the neighbour for attempting to solve the problem instead of just complaining.

One person wrote: ‘That’s a much more polite and lovely letter than your inconsiderate brother-in-law deserves! A lovely little gift and an apology note back would be lovely’. And they said there was nothing wrong with this and that it was well written, the solution had been clearly explained and it’s a tiny thing to do that would mean a lot to them.

A third added: ‘The thought and the effort that has gone into this shows just how real and genuine it is. I hope your brother does not see it as a complaint in the slightest, it’s someone genuinely and very considerably asking for a favour from him.’

It’s also the same when people let off their fireworks at the wrong time of year, although you can’t put a timer of those things, especially when they’re going off terrorising the heebie-jeebies out of you, but then some people don’t have any respect for other people’s welfare.

Christmas is a fantastic time of the year and the lights do look nice, but do people actually need to keep their lights on at night when everyone’s gone to bed? Who’s going to see them anyway?

It’s not difficult for someone to turn their lights off at night, but they’re easy to forget, especially if you’re tired and heading off to bed, and a timer would seem like the simple solution that most people don’t even think of, and there really isn’t any need to have the lights on past midnight.

At the end of the day, what this neighbour did was just old-style good British manners and he acted calmly and intelligently to deal with the situation. There was no screaming vulgarities or physical brutality, which appears to be the norm these days.

A Transgender Man Gave Birth To A Son

A father has complained that nurses insisted on calling him ‘mom’ during his pregnancy despite being a man.

Bennet Kaspar-Williams, 37, from Los Angeles, first discovered he was trans about ten years ago, in 2011, but didn’t start his transition until three years ago.

Then six years later, in 2017 he found Malik, his future husband, who he married in 2019.

The couple decided that they wanted to have children, and weighed the options available to them because it meant Bennett stopping the testosterone hormone therapy he’d been on for several years to enable his ovaries to function.

Bennett, who’s had surgery on the top half of his body but not on his genitalia, eventually decided that he would be comfortable trying to conceive and carry a child.

He fell pregnant naturally shortly after they started trying, and the couple welcomed their son, Hudson, via cesarean section, in October 2020.

Two years after beginning hormone treatment, in the summer of 2015, Bennett had surgery to remove his breasts, paying $5,000 for the procedure.

Remembering how it took the operation to make him realise how unhappy he was about having female breasts, he said it was liberating, and that he had this feeling that it was something that he needed to do, but that he never had a self-hatred of his breasts, like some trans people, and he said that he had no dysphoria about specific parts and still doesn’t, but that he could’ve never have predicted what a relief it would be to find them gone, it was a massive weight off his shoulders.

He said that’s the end of the surgical road when it comes to his transitioning though, and that bottom half surgery is off the table because he has no dysphoria with that part of his body. However, carrying and giving birth to his own child wasn’t a straightforward decision for Bennett.

He said he always knew there was a chance that his body might be able to achieve pregnancy, but it wasn’t something he ever wanted to do until he learned how to separate the function of his body from any notions of gender.

He said that once he learned to think of his body as a tool and not a collection of gendered stereotypes, he discovered that he could both be the person he wanted to be and bring a child into the world.

Many people reading this might be appalled by the idea of a man giving birth, although years ago we watched ‘Twins’ with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny De Vito and thought it was a great film, but the idea of a man giving birth never really entered people’s minds, it was just a comedy.

But that was then and this is now and lots of things are transforming and our world is developing into something we couldn’t possibly understand or even want to, it’s almost as if the world has gone mad, or saying that, it might even be too late for that.

At the end of the day, it’s freedom of choice. To choose what you want to do concerning your body, after all, it is your body, and the thing that people seem to overlook is that it’s not their life and they should just walk on by.

A man having a baby will be the ‘in’ thing now. Not that it should concern other people because they’re plenty of children being happily and lovingly raised by two mums or two dads and there has been for years, and guess what? The world hasn’t ended.

Daddy’s Boy!

Fanatics have gone feral over Archie’s uncanny likeness to Prince Harry after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex released a family picture showing the first peek of baby Lilibet in time for Christmas.

The adorable family picture shows Meghan, 40, holding up their giggling six-month-old daughter, while smiling Harry,37, looks on with his arms around their two-year-old son Archie, in the image by their wedding photographer Alexi Lubomirski.

But supporters couldn’t help but swoon over Archie’s jaw-dropper red hair, commenting on how the little boy, 2, whose face hasn’t been seen properly since his first birthday last year, looked just like his daddy.

One follower wrote that Archie was so cute with his hair.

The Sussexes, who are presently living in a $14.7 million mansion in Montecito, released the card to announce that they’ve made a donation to several charities, including an organisation that supports Afghan families left behind after the US withdrawal and Paid Leave For All, in line with the Duchess’ recent campaigning for a paid family leave law for all Americans.

Their message read that this year they welcomed their daughter, Lilibet, to the world and that as they looked forward to 2022 they’d made donations to several organisations that honour and protect families, from those being relocated from Afghanistan to American families in need of paid parental leave.

It came as the couple, who used the American Happy Holidays expression rather than the British Merry Christmas in their card, prepared to spend their third festive period outside of the United Kingdom, and away from Prince Harry’s family.

In the photo, Harry, Meghan and Archie all opted for a low key look in denim jeans, with the Duchess teaming hers with a navy jumper, while the Duke sported a blue shirt and his son a white one. The couple’s daughter laughs while wearing a white getup.

The look was decidedly relaxed for the Duchess, who’s known for her love of designer clothes and costly personalised jewellery, but it was Archie who robbed the show, as hundreds of fanatics herded to the image shared to the photographer’s Twitter, with another writing that they loved all of their smiling faces, and that Lili was cute and Archie had beautiful hair.

Archie looks just like his dad with his incredible red hair, but clearly, Harry and Meghan didn’t want the public to see him, face on, but even without a frontal of Archie, we can all plainly see that the child is the image of his father.

It’s an adorable picture of the family and they look so happy together. Harry went for what he wanted for his family and he got it, and clearly, his mother’s death had more of an effect on him than we knew about, and quite frankly once the Queen dies, all might be revealed.

Although according to the media, Harry and Meghan didn’t have that many fans because they didn’t agree with what Harry did. But what did Harry do? Well, if you ask me he did what any good man would do for their family. It really doesn’t matter if it was his decision or Meghan’s or both, at the end of the day, they made that decision and stuck to it.

Not everyone is suited to live inside the Royal household with no privacy. Sadly for Harry, he was born into a family of Royals, he didn’t get the option, but Meghan did and she said no, and obviously Harry loved her enough to say it was the best thing to do – he could have said no, nobody was putting a gun to his head.

Sarah-Jane Mee Reveals She Wept As She Walked Out Of The Sky News Studio

Sky News presenter Sarah Jane Mee has demonstrated how having a baby has altered the way she responds to hard-hitting news reports.

The news anchor, 43, from East Sussex, has told how her life has totally changed since she turned 40, going from single and carefree, to engaged and a stepmother to her partner Ben Richardson’s eight-year-old son Teddy, and that the most significant shift was welcoming their daughter Rae, 1, during the lockdown, with Sarah-Jane admitting that she walked out of the studio crying as reports broke revealing footage of a newborn baby being given to Marines over a barbed wired wall by her frantic parents amid the messy US withdrawal in Afghanistan in August.

Talking to a newspaper outlet, Sarah-Jane said that the separation was easier before she became a mum.

She said that she returned from maternity leave just as the Afghanistan withdrawal story broke and that image of a baby being given over the barbed wire to soldiers would torment her permanently and that she had to walk out of the studio when that report was playing because she was crying.

She said that she had to admit that she would have laughed if someone had told her three years ago that she would move to the country, become engaged and welcome a little girl all within three years.

The presenter was introduced to branding agency founder Ben, 42, at a party thrown by mutual friend Autumn Phillips, the ex-wife of Princess Anne’s son Peter, and Sarah-Jane said that having a baby during lockdown had its ups and downs, admitting that having her partner Ben home meant she didn’t feel so isolated during the lockdown and made baby Rae’s first year about mum and dad equally.

However, it also made social media trolls more ruthless than before, with Sarah-Jane admitting that cruel jibes about baby weight bothered her.

She said that when she went back to work after having Rae, social media was overwhelmingly positive but there was one comment that noted her weight. One comment out of hundreds, but that was the one she remembered.

She replied by saying that she had no excuses, but that it wasn’t baby weight, it was lockdown weight and she was sure they had a bit of that too, and she said that she didn’t want them to know it had affected her, but that it did and that she was having such a good day and then one person said the wrong thing, but that you remember that one person and that they would probably never walk up to your face and say it.

I think the main thing here is that the baby was given over to the soldiers where it will be safe and that’s all that matters, although the parents would have been distraught and parents never get over losing a child, for whatever reason it might be. It might get easier as time goes on, but those parents will never forget.

AI Prosecutor Developed In China

Researchers assert that China has created an artificial intelligence prosecutor that can charge people with offences with more than 97 per cent accuracy.

The dystopian machine can recognise dissent against the state and recommend sentences for supposed offenders, pulling people from the prosecution process.

There are already worries the system could be weaponised by the Chinese Communist Party with human prosecutors concerned about who would take accountability for the AI’s findings.

The tool can file a charge based on a verbal description of the case and was created and tested by the Shanghai Pudong People’s Procuratorate, the biggest and busiest district prosecution office in China.

The projects lead scientist Professor Shi Yong said the AI would permit human prosecutors to reduce their workload and allow them to only concentrate on the more complicated cases.

The South China Morning Post said that the system can run on a standard desktop computer and would press charges based on 1,000 markers from the human-generated case description text.

It was trained using 17,000 real-life cases from 2015 to 2020 and is able to recognise and press charges for the eight most typical offences in Shanghai.

These include provoking trouble, a word used to suppress conflict in China, credit card fraud, gambling offences, dangerous driving, theft, fraud, intentional injury and obstructing official duties.

Soon the AI prosecutor will be able to identify more kinds of criminality and file numerous charges against one suspect once it’s upgraded.

Professor Shi Yong said in a paper printed in the Management Review journal that the system could replace prosecutors in the decision making process to a certain degree.

Some AI technology already exists in law enforcement but this would be the first time it’s involved in pressing charges.

In Germany, image recognition and digital forensics are utilised to assist with caseloads, while China uses a device known as System 206 to assess evidence, a suspect’s possible danger and the conditions for the detention, but the system has no part in the decision making process and doesn’t suggest penalties.

One prosecutor in Guangzhou said that he had concerns about the new technology.

He said that the accuracy of 97 per cent might be high from a technological point of view, but there would still be a chance of oversight, and asked who would take accountability when it happens? The prosecutor, the device or the creator of the algorithm?

Any reader familiar with Science Fiction will know where we’re going from here. AI judges, AI Facial Recognition, Chip Implants, Digital Currency Control, and it’s actually no longer fiction because such controls are already in place.

And soon the Social Credit Score system will say that you’ve been a bad boy and now you face the evil AI that can press charges. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

In the end, you’ll be chained to a conveyor belt whilst the guilty verdicts are given out – all for the sake of efficiency and then you’ll be swiftly transported to your pod cell and appeals will be a thing of the past – doesn’t our future world look bleak?

However, this will only occur and will only work if we comply. Of course, in China, that’s not an option because as a state they will destroy you, but here in the West we must reject any group or movement that wants this, and this certainly isn’t Building Back Better.

I understand that technology has changed our lives, and there is a place for it in our everyday life. However, even as technology has grown we have sent robots to Mars, but there’s no robot that can wash a car better than a human being, and that being the case, how on earth can we allow machines to take over court judgements for humans?

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started