“Battle Hymn of the Empire” – Marsh Family adaptation of “Battle Hymn of the Republic” about Trump

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is an iconic American song, drawing on lots of roots and precursors, but pulled into its most famous shape by abolitionist Julia Ward Howe. During the American Civil War it became a signature marching song for the Union Army, linked to patriotism and faith, and has since become part of the canon of American national music. We do not attempt or treat it lightly, but our version reflects on how the first week of 2026 has already seen Trump’s troops advancing his domestic and foreign policy agendas. Every marching step is another step away from the principles and traditions embedded in the song: we have seen the transgression of international law in Venezuela, the murder of unarmed Americans in Minneapolis (and its defence by the administration), the US’s withdrawal from multiple international organisations, and explicit threats issued to other sovereign powers and polities, including Greenland.

Have thine eyes seen the glory of the coming of the Lord? – Owl

Letter to The Times 7 February:

Sir, In Devon we have our fair share of potholes. Rumour has it that this situation is helping our local police tackle drink-driving. If any vehicle is seen driving in a straight line, the driver is considered to be drunk.
David Lavender
Kingsbridge, Devon

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has just launched a consultation on the five proposals submitted by various councils and combinations of councils on how to abolish district councils in Devon.

Responses can be made by completing an online survey, or in writing sent by email or by post. Closing date is 23:59 on 26 March.

However, Owl finds things aren’t quite as simple as they might seem. 

Firstly, the proposals actually submitted last November differ somewhat from those discussed and reported by Owl during 2025.  For example, South Hams, West Devon and Teignbridge have now broken from an earlier consensus amongst the districts; and County has made significant changes to the composition of its 3 unitary proposal.

Secondly, the online survey appears to have to be completed for each of the five proposals and there are ten questions. [Owl will check this].

Thirdly, respondents, even in writing, have to  make clear where they are coming from and which proposal they are addressing.

Owl intends to take a few days digesting the related web pages and maybe stabbing a talon or two into the survey.

Meanwhile, the BBC has a good summary here

Worth reminding readers that the target population size for a unitary authority remains 500,000 and not even Plymouth comes near, let alone Torbay or Exeter.

With the councils in disarray, Owl’s view is that it is imperative that readers respond to this consultation and give their views. London based Ministers and the Mandarins of Whitehall have no real feel for the more remote parts of the country. They will see places like Devon as a quaint little place for a jolly holiday or even a second home. They need feedback from us who live and work here.

Owl’s attention was drawn to the apparent confusion over the applicant’s identity, see the last two paragraphs.

Developers are making a renewed bid for a 63-homes plan on land where a hedgerow was destroyed and efforts were made to protect mature trees from being cut down.

Bradley Gerrard, Local Democracy Reporter www.devonairradio.com

The prospect of homes on the site, based on land east of Sidmouth Road in Ottery St Mary, have previously proved controversial, but the location has become even more contentious after the unexpected removal of hedgerows and trees.

Back in December, Councillor Jess Bailey (Independent, Otter Valley) who represents the Ottery area on Devon County Council and East Devon District Council (EDDC), stood under one tree to prevent it being chopped down by contractors with chainsaws.

She also secured an emergency order to protect the remaining trees, and sought enforcement in relation to the hedgerow destruction.

A statement from the council, seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, states that it believes “hedgerow regulations have been breached in this case”.

“This is because the works that have been carried out have removed most of the previously unmanaged hedgerow along the western boundary,” it said.

“There are some remaining tree stumps present along the western boundary that may rejuvenate, however, large sections of the hedgerow have been damaged or removed and will not regenerate.”

It added the presence of gnawed hazel nut “provides confidence the area was used as a resting site for hazel dormouse” meaning the hedge would be “considered as important due to the presence of a Schedule 5 protected species”.

The email states the landowner had been given 14 days to explain their position, and that the council may, depending on the answer, consider a hedgerow replacement notice.

“But that could be subject to appeal and so we need to ensure we have all the facts before we decide on that,” the statement said.

Interestingly, the latest plans claim that it would be possible to “achieve a 9.66 per cent gain in habitat units and 12.73 per cent gain in hedgerow units, using the biodiversity metric” – suggesting the developer believes work can be carried out in conjunction with the prospective homes to help accommodate more flora and fauna.

This controversy about the scheme comes on top of the fact an application at this site has previously been rejected by EDDC.

The plan for up to 63 homes on the land was refused by East Devon’s planning committee in November 2023, and an appeal was subsequently dismissed by the government’s Planning Inspectorate in December 2024.

Part of East Devon’s reason for refusal related to the fact the site was an area of open fields, and the application included the “removal of a hedgebank to provide vehicular access and visibility splays [which] would have a harsh and harmful urbanising effect on the character and appearance of the area”.

“The resulting development would fail to respect the local distinctiveness or maintain the rural qualities evident in this landscape,” the decision stated.

The new proposal is an outline one, meaning that even if it is passed by the EDDC planning committee, a subsequent plan would be required to confirm details such as the layout of the development and design of the properties.

The new plans state the northern and eastern boundaries of the site are demarcated by hedgerow, while the western boundary is formed by Sidmouth Road. It adds that the site is currently being used sporadically and informally as agricultural grazing land.

The developer adds that across the road from the proposed site is a development of 45 homes.

Documents state the new plan proposes a mix of housing, ranging in size from two- to four-bedroom houses with gardens and associated parking.

“To reflect the character of the area, the proposed dwellings are two-storey and will be consistent in terms of mass and style with adjoining development,” the plans state.

“The scheme includes provision for 50 per cent affordable housing – equivalent to 31 units based on a scheme of 63 units.”

A spokesperson for the agent, XL Planning, said the firm did not wish to comment on the application.

The planning application form states the applicant as a Mr Davis of ALD Developments. Companies House data suggests that firm was dissolved in 2016, but has essentially been replaced by Proper Flap & Jack Investments. Both companies list an Adam Lloyd Davis as being linked to the company.

Proper Flap & Jack does not appear to have an official website.
 

Richard Foord Liberal Democrat, Honiton and Sidmouth

The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandelson was prepared to lobby in the United States in 2009 for a policy position in contradiction to that of Her Majesty’s Government, in which he was then serving as Business Secretary. Will this revelation encourage the Government to find out whether Lord Mandelson lobbied against his Government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States? Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister find out whether this lobbying against British Government policy is revealed in US policy towards the UK?

Darren Jones Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister), Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Minister for Intergovernmental Relations

As I have informed the House today, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing all documentation relating to Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister in the last Labour Government to see what information is available today, and we will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence. The hon. Member is right that any Minister acting against the collective decisions of Cabinet and against the Government is in breach of the rules. It is unacceptable behaviour, and if any Minister were to do that today, they would be quickly dismissed.

Source: US Department of Justice Release of Files Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 4:57 pm on 2 February 2026.

But don’t hold your breath.

Pippa Crerar on X yesterday reported that 

Gordon Brown says he has asked Cabinet Secretary to investigate disclosure of “confidential and market sensitive information” allegedly from Peter Mandelson to Jeffrey Epstein. 

Former PM says he first asked CS (Cabinet Secretary) to do this in September but biz department (Department for Business & Trade) found no records.

He has “now written to ask for a wider and more intensive enquiry to take place into the  wholly unacceptable disclosure of government papers and information during the period when the country was battling the global financial crisis.”