King's College, London and Sandhurst...

King's College, London is, like Sandhurst Royal Military Academy, another one of these current-day UK institutions living off its past history, and building fairy-tales from the obscurity in modern times of the nuances that history often fails to disclose to other than those with a direct family background in the exact matters in question. 

Now I am related to the Bell's - one of whom was the sister of Virginia Woolf - Woolf being 'claimed' by King's College as an alumna.

No such thing! There were no women students or pupils at any of the London Universities, the only difference in the case of King's being that their senior masters did not have to be celibate, unlike those of Oxford and Cambridge, and consequently, the wives and mistresses of said senior lecturers and professors created this thing known as 'the ladies' department' which was far away from King's campus itself off Kensington Square and not in the Strand where King's is. These people are shameless and brazen liars who will blatantly lie to the modern-day ignorant public and aggrandize themselves in the most crude ways.

The last Wellesley but one - fine fellow, passed 2014
(also the Duke of Wellington, of course)

Secondly, King's was and still is a paranoid and strongly anti-Catholic institution whose authentic history includes a failed duel between the Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Winchelsea, the latter of which accused Wellington of enacting some kind of plot to re-establish, presumably, a Catholic to the Throne or at least somewhere close to.

Part of today's MI6 is run from out of King's College in the IVF Department grounds and offices. But probably more disturbingly, like Sandhurst, which runs from funding from wealthy and powerful Middle Eastern dictators, King's is the haven of one exiled Saudi surgeon, Saad al-Fagih, and the 'dissident' Saudi physicist Mohammad al-Massari.

And, he's not the Duke of Wellington

Now you have to understand something about so-called 'Saudi dissidents' - they are not really dissenting from the suppression of women, or the ability to rape women and get away with it, or the continuing of slavery and virtual slavery of lowly foreign 'service workers,' and the prospering of the Saudi 'elite' layer of 'society.' What they are dissenting from is the ruler-ship of the House of Saud, specifically.

Well look, I don't know whether this other 'dissident' Jimmy Khashoggi had fingers surgically amputated while still alive, or just his head cut off but still screaming while still alive, or maybe his arms and legs removed - hence 'dismembered' - whilst still alive, by a Saudi expert in anatomy... basically because the story has not been straight one single time since it was first advanced. However I do know that it used to be policy for the general professional media to announce before these kinds of lurid reports something along the lines of: 'we warn that the following material might be disturbing to some viewers,' and that for some reason I cannot say, no such warnings were made in any single version of this fairy-tale from the moment it began being propagated, till now.

And I also know that all of these very graphic stories - Saddam stealing humidicribs from little babies in hospital, 'Jihadi John' cutting off the heads of shackled men in orange jump suits, Syrian flyers being incinerated alive while held in a cage and video'd from many angles - all came from one single office somewhere, oh, perhaps not that far from Kensington Square, Londonistan, would you say... 

Now - so that the rest of you know the following is a coded statement for a friend in high office somewhere who travels on plane a lot - these words will seem obscure to most who read here:

the Oxford comma is something I personally regard as an affectation and one moreover, which frankly doesn't make audial sense when you read sentences in which these things occur. But for someone who is always interested in intelligent discussion and whom I know collects a lot of peripheral ideas for some theoretical future use - sometimes, what the Oxford fellow means, is that there is something left unsaid from the litany of 'ands' and -, which one would be best advised to factor in as being there although unsaid, and unseen, and hidden in the shadows...