17.9.09

Chronological Quotations 1.2

On 30 April 2012, Melanie Philips said this in The Daily Mail:

“A High Court family judge, Sir Paul Coleridge, will launch a foundation to promote marriage and to warn of the catastrophic consequences of family breakdown.

Britain is blighted by serial divorce and a corresponding erosion of marriage. In 2010, there were some 241,000 marriages in England and Wales, fewer than a century ago, and 120,000 divorces, up by almost 5 per cent on the previous year. This has gone hand in hand with a galloping increase in elective lone parenthood and cohabitation, whose own high rate of breakdown has poured petrol on to the flames of mass fatherlessness.

An appalling 3.8 million children are now caught up in the entrails of the family justice system, with as many as 320,000 new children each year being sucked in.

Sir Paul does not mince his words. As he so rightly says, family breakdown is the ‘scourge of society’.

Families do not recover from the fundamental shock it administers. Children dragged into such cases may never recover from the emotional upset, and the cost to society of clearing up the mess is calamitous. Yet as he also says, obtaining a divorce is ‘easier than getting a driving licence’…

How refreshing to hear someone in public life so robustly tell the un-PC truth like this… This is not, however, just a group of people who happen to be particularly knowledgeable about the effects of divorce. The courts and the legal world they represent are directly complicit in this disaster. Indeed, Sir Paul even likens his own profession to ‘cynical arms dealers’ making a living from weapons of family destruction…

For more than three decades, lawyers and judges have led the way in bringing about this seismic cultural shift by progressively liberalising the practice of family law…

The institutionally liberal Law Commission recommended one liberalising family measure after another, such as easier divorce, ending the stigma of illegitimacy or establishing equal rights for cohabitants, both gay and straight. At the same time, New Left thinking about radical and non-judgmental ‘lifestyle choice’ swept through the intelligentsia…

THE TRUTH BECAME NOT ONLY UNSAYABLE BUT UNKNOWABLE, AS GOVERNMENT RESEARCHERS AIRBRUSHED THE CATEGORY OF MARRIAGE OUT OF OFFICIAL STATISTICS, making it impossible to quantify the effects of different kinds of relationship.

ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS WHO TRIED TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON CHILDREN FOUND THEMSELVES PROFESSIONALLY OSTRACISED AND AT RISK OF HAVING THEIR GRANT FUNDING CUT.

The actual damage to children from divorce and elective lone parenthood was further masked and minimised by other researchers, who were either consumed by guilt over their abandonment of their own children, or cravenly chose to go with the flow. Meanwhile, RESEARCH CARRIED OUT MAINLY IN THE U.S. WHICH PRODUCED OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF THE RELATIVE HARM DONE BY FAMILY BREAKDOWN IN VIRTUALLY EVERY AREA OF CHILDREN’S LIVES, WAS WICKEDLY BRUSHED ASIDE…

Thanks to the family-wrecking Lib Dems the Government hasn’t even managed to get off the starting blocks in supporting marriage through the tax system. Too many who should have known better have simply sold the pass on the toll of childhood misery and social harm inflicted by family breakdown.”



On 29 April 2012, The Daily Mail exposed Mohammed Abdul, the Imam of a Bristol mosque, suggesting a way round the ban on female circumcision.

This is what he said:

"In this country, it is not possible, we cannot do that. For any other Muslim who likes to practise the way of Prophet Muhammad, the best way is to go to other countries. Some families, they go to Africa or Arab countries…

In this country you have to fight for your religion, your cultures, They don't like your Muslim cultures.'

The Mail added:

“Although female genital mutilation has not been advocated by Muslim scripture, a number of clerics encourage it. The procedure, which involves the removal of external female genitalia, causes incredible pain and leaves women scarred for life.

In some cases the vagina is sewn shut. It's estimated 100,000 women in Britain have undergone the procedure and another 24,000 are thought to be at risk.

Naana Otoo-Oyortey said she hopes the new evidence will force the government to do more to combat the problem. She said: 'With the summer approaching, this is the time when most children are at risk of being taken abroad to be mutilated’.”



On 29 April 2012, The Guardian told us this:

"Britain's wealthiest people saw their fortunes rise to record levels last year, according to the annual Sunday Times Rich List at a time when most Britons' earnings and savings were squeezed by inflation and low interest rates. The combined wealth of Britain's 1,000 richest people swelled by almost 5% to more than £414bn, the highest recorded by the 24-year-old survey.

Some 77 members of the 2012 rich list were billionaires, two more than the previous record in 2008. THEIR GOOD FORTUNE CONTRASTED WITH THE ECONOMIC PLIGHT OF MANY BRITONS WHO FACE FIVE YEARS OF AUSTERITY aimed at wiping out a record budget deficit as the economy struggles to recover from the 2008 financial crisis...

The three top places in the list were taken by foreign-born magnates with a base in Britain who earned their fortunes from resource-based industries such as minerals, steel and oil.

Lakshmi Mittal retained his crown as Britain's richest man despite losing almost a quarter of his wealth over the past year following a fall in the share value of his Arcelor Mittal, the world's largest steelmaker…

Uzbek-born billionaire Alisher Usmanov, who owns around 30% of Arsenal football club, was again in second place and close behind Mittal with a fortune of £12.3bn.

Russian investor Roman Abramovich, who owns rival club Chelsea, held onto third place with a personal value of £9.5bn, down from £10.3bn last year.

The richest British-born billionaire was the Duke of Westminster who slid from fourth to seventh place even though his largely property-based fortune rose 5% to £7.35bn.

Britain's richest woman was former Miss UK Kirsty Bertarelli, who shares a £7.4bn fortune with her Swiss-Italian entrepreneur husband Ernesto.”

Thus, the three richest people in the UK are Indian, Uzbek and Russian.

Put another way, the three richest people in the UK are Hindu, Muslim and Jewish. Not a Protestant or Catholic Brit in sight.

Usmanov, the Uzbek Muslim dubbed "the hard man of Russia," who made a pile during the Soviet Union's particularly nasty variation on the privatisation scam and spent six years in a Russian jail for his criminal endeavours, is also married to a Jewess.

Such are the un-British types the top table courts and fawns over in modern Britain. Such are the mega-rich aliens who are currently buying up much of London.



On 28 April 2012, Henry Porter said this in The Guardian:

"The body count of those who had direct or indirect contact with Murdoch, whether by chance or choice, is extremely high. Prime ministers, MPs, newspaper editors, business executives, members of the public, special advisers, ordinary journalists, celebrities, senior policemen, lawyers and even family members are littered in his trail.

While more than 30 individuals wait to hear if they will face criminal charges, reputations are in shreds and political careers on life support, Murdoch, like a Marvel Comics villain, puts on the don's Borsalino at the end of last week's show, flashes the re-enamelled fangs and is swept from the Royal Courts of Justice looking triumphant. Of course he has been irreparably damaged by the scandal, as he pointed out several times (like all true villains, Murdoch aspires to victimhood). It's just that he seems to be suffering a good deal less than anyone else who became entangled with his enterprises...

The part where my ears pricked up during his evidence was when he started talking about democracy, because while democracy and free speech nearly always form his alibi, it is in these areas that he has done most damage.

His frequent claim on the word democracy was striking. While speaking about privacy, he said… ‘A privacy law is always proposed for the protection of the great and the good... not for the people who make up our democracy’…

The larger hypocrisy is that while he argues that he increased media plurality, he has been a steady drain on British democracy, debauching it with his cynicism and corrupting the process with threats and inducements, murmured in back channels. The idea that he did not ask favours from those seeking election is simply risible. They needed him and he needed them – why else would Cameron go to Santorini or Blair go to Hayman Island?…

We can take heart that Murdoch is already finished as a political force here, that the record of his morbid influence is being settled and serious crimes will be prosecuted. What we have to focus on now is protecting our democracy from the influence of such a character again. And that means directing an unflinching gaze at our own complacency as well as the evidence of current influence on, for instance, the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond. Did Salmond lobby for the BSkyB merger, and was it in exchange for favourable coverage in the Scottish Sun?

Jeremy Hunt is in grave trouble because of similar dealings and he should resign immediately, while Cameron may yet find himself in a greater fix, having allowed himself in a few brief weeks around Christmas 2010 to be surrounded by people lobbying for the merger between News International and BSkyB, talking to James about the deal at dinner with Rebekah Brooks, riding one of the horses loaned to her by the police and employing in a senior position at Number 10 Andy Coulson, Brooks's former deputy at the News of the World.

It's humiliating to realise how easy it was for Murdoch to ensnare the British prime minister and Scotland's first minister and, before that, how his company's agenda formed the core of at least three of Cameron's announcements on the scrapping of Ofcom, a review of the BBC licence fee and the relaxation of impartiality rules in broadcasting. It is as if Cameron had taken dictation. My belief is that he is in serious trouble and that this scandal has a long way to go and might yet bring him down.

We can no longer trust politicians to adjudicate on bids and mergers involving the media because they have too much to gain and lose. If journalists are to be more closely regulated, politicians must also be distanced from these decisions and changes in media ownership made more transparent and open to challenge and meaningful consultation.

The point of regulations and institutions is to defend the relatively fragile democratic process from people like Murdoch. THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE SAFEGUARDS WORKED AND WE CAME WITHIN A WHISKER OF ALLOWING HIS NEAR TOTAL DOMINANCE OF THE MARKETPLACE FURTHER ERODES OUR FAITH IN THE POLITICAL CLASS TO ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC…

Rupert Murdoch didn't do all this by himself. Over the years, he accrued a large number of supporters outside politics and his own newspapers; people who were happy to attend his parties and write sycophantic pieces about the benefits he brought to our society – whether because they were in awe of his withering cynicism OR SIMPLY SUPPORTED HIS OBSESSIONS WITH NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS AND GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. THESE HANGERS-ON WERE CORRUPTED BY MURDOCH AND ENABLED HIS DARK SIDE AS MUCH AS ANY POLITICIAN DID OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS.”



On 28 April 2012, former BBC chief, Sir Michael Lyons, condemned the Tory Culture Secretary thus in The Observer:

"I spoke to Jeremy and Adam Smith in the period immediately after the election and in particular over the runup to the extraordinary accelerated licence-fee negotiations and there is no doubt in my mind that Adam Smith did nothing without Jeremy knowing about it and condoning it. Secondly, that if there is documentary evidence linking Adam, you can be sure that there are texts and phone messages connecting Jeremy because he is not a hands-off minister.

I don't think he had a very high regard for his civil servants or a strong belief that a minister needed to be particularly bounded by the contribution that the civil servants might make. So he did things very personally...

A special adviser is trusted in these discussions because they are the direct emissary of the secretary of state and that is what they have historically been used for...

We were concerned to avoid what Jeremy Hunt wanted to do, which was a scale and scope review of the BBC, which would have had the secretary of state actually judging how big the BBC is and what things it should do. And part of our concern about that was that we thought he was FAR TOO CLOSE TO SKY...

A succession of ministers have paid scant regard to (the) conventions and it is about time it was tightened up."

Lord Puttnam was quoted thus in the same Observer article:

"It is now clear that the extent of the secretary of state's prior dealings with the Murdoch empire in opposition and then in government were such as to make it totally inappropriate for him to have been handed political responsibility for oversight of News Corporation's bid for the whole of BSkyB.

He now finds himself branded as having behaved, not impartially, but more like a dodgy ref, who not only demonstrates bias on the pitch, but ducks into the dressing room at half-time to offer advice."



On 27 April 2012, Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel's domestic intelligence service, criticised Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak thus on Israeli radio:

"I have no faith in the prime minister, nor in the defence minister. I really don't have faith in a leadership that makes decisions out of messianic feelings… They're creating a false impression about the Iranian issue… I saw them up close, they are not Messiahs...These are not people whose hands I would like to have on the steering wheel…

They're creating a false impression about the Iranian issue. They're appealing to the stupid public, if you'll pardon me for the phrasing, and telling them that if Israel acts, there won't be a nuclear bomb…

An attack will only encourage and increase the speed with which they work towards developing a nuclear weapon."



On 27 April 2012, Cambridge University don, Professor Robert Tombs, was quoted thus in The Daily Mail:

"Over-specialisation on a few topics crowds out vast areas of history… It would be difficult to name a European country that teaches history in such a manner, ONE WHICH CAN LEAVE THE MAJORITY OF SCHOOL-LEAVERS IN THE DARK ABOUT THE UNFOLDING STORY OF THEIR PAST… Our present compulsory curriculum lags behind other countries in its neglect of swathes of European history.”

That’s political correctness for you.

The Professor added:

“Many examiners seem to know little about the topics they mark.”

That’s the PC Crowd for you.

The Mail added:

“Very few current GCSE courses examine history before 1870, he said, with more attention often paid to skills such as evaluating sources rather than acquiring knowledge… He said the late middle ages and most of the 18th century are hardly touched…

Scant attention is paid to the British Empire, despite its far-reaching implications in global history.”

Oh, the bad guys do not want us to know our history.

History, for them, must start in 1948, when the Windrush colonists and the escapees from the newly liberated (and genocidal) Indian subcontinent came to save us from our indolence and racist attitudes.



On 27 April 2012, The Daily Mail quoted Malcolm Bruce MP, Chairman of the International Development Committee, thus:

"A report by a House of Commons committee challenges the UK Government, which provided £1.23 billion in aid via the EU in 2010, to demand tougher standards to ensure support goes to the neediest nations.

"British taxpayers want the aid they give to go to the places where it can make the most difference, to countries where millions of people are getting by on less than a pound a day… Giving aid to relatively rich countries like Turkey could devalue the concept of aid."

The report itself said:

“Turkey has consistently been in the top five recipients of European Commission aid (£182 million in 2010) as has Serbia (£178 million in 2010)… The DFID (Department For International Development) Minister told us that 'it would take forever and be difficult' to change the definition of ODA so as to exclude relatively wealthy countries and that a change in the definition would make it difficult for some countries to meet the 0.7% target. We do not accept this: the Government should be bolder and less risk averse by tackling the criteria for ODA so that more funding goes to the world's poorest people and the poorest countries, and less to the European neighbourhood. Failure to do this may undermine the UK public's support for EU institutions."

Such support went out of window decades ago.

In case you hadn’t noticed.



On 26 April 2012, Philip Inman said this in The Guardian:

"Britain's economy has sunk into recession for the second time in three years after a dramatic slump across the financial services and construction sectors and a poor start to the year on the high street.

Official figures showed the economy contracted in the first three months of the year after a poor performance before Christmas. This meant it registered two consecutive quarters of negative growth, the standard definition of a recession. The economy is now in its longest depression for 100 years."



On 25 April 2012, The Daily Mail quoted Professor George Patton thus:

"For the largest generation in the world's history, the available global profile of youth health is worrying.'

The Mail added:

"Britain has the third highest proportion of sexually active teenagers in the world as well as some of the worst levels of harmful underage drinking, it has been revealed. Shocking statistics published in the medical journal the Lancet show that youngsters are more at risk from binge drinking, drug taking and sexually transmitted diseases than ever before…

England had the fourth highest percentage of youngsters who have been drunk by the age of 13 in a league table of 40 mostly high income countries. Wales was fifth and Scotland eighth…

The statistics are revealed in two studies by Professor George Patton, of the University of Melbourne in Australia, and colleagues which was published in The Lancet Series on Adolescent Health.

The researchers said with longer periods in education, and significant delays to marriage or settling down, the period during which young people are exposed to the risks of adolescence has extended significantly. Such behaviours include harmful alcohol consumption and illicit drug use with peers, and sex with more casual partners, increasing the risk of sexually transmitted infections.”



On 24 May 2012, The Daily Mail told us this:

“Sociologists from Harvard and Tufts universities asked 209 white and 208 black men and women to rate 'racism' against both ethnic groups since the 1950s on a scale of one to 10. The results showed that while both blacks and whites saw anti-black racism decreasing over the decades, WHITES SAW RACE RELATIONS AS A 'ZERO SUM GAME' WHERE THEY WERE LOSING OUT AS BLACKS 'GAINED' THE ADVANTAGE.

The results, published in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, showed that on average blacks saw anti-white bias rising slightly from 1.4 in the 1950s to 1.8 today. Blacks also perceived that racism against themselves had steeply declined from 9.7 in the 1950s to 6.1 in the 90s.

White respondents, however, saw a very different picture. For the 2000s, 11 PER CENT OF WHITES GAVE ANTI-WHITE BIAS THE MAXIMUM 10 OUT OF 10 RATING, compared with only two per cent of whites who did so for anti-black bias. Whites believed that discrimination against them had increased from an average of 1.8 in the 1950s to 4.7 in the 2000s.”



On 24 April 2012, Nicholas Cecil said this in The Evening Standard:

"London town halls were today caught in a ‘social cleansing’ row over plans to move some of their poorest tenants to homes up to 280 miles away… Letters have gone out to landlords in Newcastle upon Tyne, 280 miles away, Cornwall, Stoke, Macclesfield, Oxfordshire and many other areas in the Midlands and the North.

Westminster city council, the flagship Tory town hall, is also considering moving some local residents classed as ‘statutory homeless’ to Derby and Nottingham.

Newham claimed it had been forced into this action by the Government’s housing benefit caps.”

This isn't about housing benefit.

This is about distributing diversity to the most obstinate bits the great experiment. This about multiculturalising the rest of the country to the London standard.



On 24 April 2012, Robert Fisk described Iraq as it is now in The Independent:

“All the way back to Baghdad, the old American bases looked scruffy, some of the concrete blast walls had collapsed. There was a feeling of an empire departed...

I was on the highway with Dr Lubna Naji, a 25 year-old medical practitioner. She shook her head and said: ‘There is no real country anymore. I talk to my friends, mostly doctors – and all talk of moving out of Iraq. They all dream of going outside. Because home is where you belong – where you are wanted. WE'VE LOST OUR SENSE OF SOMETHING THAT BELONGS TO US, OUR HOMELAND. WE'VE LOST OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY AS IRAQIS.’

You hear this a lot. THE GOVERNMENT, THEY TELL YOU IN BAGHDAD, IS UNASHAMEDLY SECTARIAN. AND CORRUPT.”

That’s what the shiny-eyed evangelists of Washington and Westminster REALLY did over there.

That’s why a million Iraqis are dead. That’s why so many of our finest young men aren’t coming back.

Funny isn’t it? As soon soon as he sets foot upon Western soil, the alien is encouraged, promoted and eulogised by the PC Crowd. And yet, minding his own business in his own back yard, the same anti-human bunch choose to slaughter him.

The bought-and-paid-for politicians of the western world did what they did to Iraq at the behest of the US Neocon.

Almost all of whom are Jewish.



On 24 April 2012, The Telegraph cited the some of previous day's twitter opinions of Ken Livingstone's former race adviser, Lee Jasper.

Here's an example:

“Institutional racism in the criminal justice means black citizens face discrimination...

BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T BE RACIST... No black person in the UK can be racist. Racism is prejudice plus power."

The Telegraph added:

"The 53 year-old was forced to resign as senior policy adviser on equalities to Mr Livingstone, who was then mayor of London, in March 2008 over allegations of cronyism. Leaked emails showed that he had exchanged highly flirtatious messages with a married mother of three, whose projects received £100,000 from City Hall on his recommendation.

In one email, he told the woman that he wanted to 'whisk her away to a deserted beach and honey-glaze her.' Mr Jasper, who is now the chairman of the campaign group Black Activists Rising Against Cuts, took to Twitter yesterday to complain about the number of black youths being jailed."

The self-serving anti-Brit is right.

The "racism" slur was invented to destroy the white man alone.

No one else.

Trotsky, the Russian revolutionary who coined the term, Magnus Hirschfeld, the German "sexologist" who first popularised it and Victor Gollancz, the Hungarian publisher who ensured that it was broadcast throughout the Western world, would have been proud.

Trotsky, Hirschfeld and Gollancz were Jewish.



On 23 April 2012, George Pitcher, Archbishop Williams' former public affairs secretary, said this in his Daily Mail blog:

"I suppose it was only a matter of time before the race card was played as candidates jostle for best position to succeed Dr Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury.

It comes from Arun Arora, who has served as Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu's chief spin doctor and is about to take the top PR post at Church House, which houses the Church of England's civil service.

He says that Dr Sentamu, who is from Uganda, is the victim of criticism that amounts, at worst, to 'naked racism which still bubbles under the surface in our society, and which is exposed when a black man is in line to break the chains of history.' Rev Arora cites an Oxford don calling Dr Sentamu 'brutish' as an example of this latent racism…

I'm probably as close as anyone to Church gossip about the runners and riders for Canterbury and I've not heard a single racial slur, directed at Dr Sentamu or anyone else. If anything, the situation has been rather the reverse. My impression is that THOSE WHO HAVE HAD CRITICISMS OR RESERVATIONS OF DR SENTAMU'S CANDIDACY HAVE LARGELY KEPT THEM TO THEMSELVES OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY FEAR THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF RACISM IF THEY EXPRESSED THEM. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HAS SERVED DR SENTAMU WELL…

I've heard these words: CAPRICIOUS, IMPULSIVE, VAIN WITH THE MEDIA AND QUICK TO TEMPER… None of these words has anything to do with Dr Sentamu's ethnicity…

As for Rev Arora, I'm not at all sure he's served his former boss's interests entirely well in this episode.”



On 23 April 2012, Mid-Bedfordshire MP, Nadine Dorries said this on BBC2's Daily Politics:

"There is a very tight, narrow clique of a certain group of people and what they do is they act as a barrier and prevent Cameron and Osborne and others from really understanding and knowing what is happening in the rest of the country...

Unfortunately, I think that not only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others - and that is their real crime."

And THAT is telling it how it is!

From a most unusual source. An MP, no less.


On 22 April 2012, after Abdel Hakim Belhadj said he would be suing Jack Straw, MI6 and the government over his rendition to Libya and subsequent torture in 2004, Lord Goldsmith, tony Blair's Attorney General, said this on Sky News:

"I’m very troubled by these allegations… I think the problem was that Gaddafi did do something which was important in this period, which was accepting that he would get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. We thought – the world thought – he had turned for the good, but he hadn’t. THAT WAS, IT TURNS OUT, A WRONG JUDGMENT.”

Another one.



On 21 April 2012, The Daily Mail quoted Peter Kerridge, Chief Executive of Premier Christian Radio thus:

“Our application was dismissed because we planned to inform the public debate and help make a fairer society. The decision represents a direct threat to the democratic right to freedom of speech and we intend to continue the fight through the appeal process. It greatly reduces the right of ordinary people to have their say in democratic debate and, regrettably, seems to be wholly reminiscent of a totalitarian state.”

The Mail explained:

“A radio station was barred from broadcasting an advertisement on the rights of Christians at work after an intervention by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Mr Hunt said the advert should be kept off the air because it was 'political'.

A High Court judge agreed yesterday and said that Premier Christian Radio was 'trying to make changes to society'. Mr Justice Silber ruled that the station should be banned from airing the advert, which asked for information from listeners who feel marginalised at work.

Mr Hunt is the second of Mr Cameron's ministers seeming to go against the Prime Minister's claim earlier this month that a 'Christian fightback' is under way and that 'the values of Christianity are the values that we need'. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone has opposed the rights of Christians to wear crosses at work in a submission of the Government's views in two test cases to the European Court of Human Rights. She has told the European judges that THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVES CHRISTIANS DENIED THE RIGHT TO WEAR A CROSS AT WORK SHOULD FIND ANOTHER JOB…

The advert said that, according to surveys, 60 per cent of Christians think believers are being increasingly marginalised at work. It asked listeners to report their own experiences to its website because 'we are concerned to get the most accurate data to inform the public debate'. The advertisement said: 'We will then use this data to help make a fairer society.'

The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre, an industry-funded body which checks radio ads to ensure that they comply with the law, said the appeal should not be broadcast. When the radio station went to court to challenge the decision, Mr Hunt stepped in to ask the judge to enforce it.

Mr Justice Silber said in his ruling: 'The advertisement was seeking to obtain information and it stated that such information would be used to inform the public debate and to help make a fairer society. This information which it was seeking would be used so as to try to make changes to society.'

“Such information would be used to inform the public debate and to help make a fairer society.”

And helping 'to make a fairer society' when the anti-Christ is busy doing the opposite will never do. Not in the land of unfairness, it won’t.

Jeremy Hunt, who is up to his over-priviliged, Charterhouse Head Boy neck in pro-Murdochian sleaze at this moment in time, is married to Lucia Liu, a Chinese woman.

A global villager to the hilt then.

Justice Silber and Lynne Featherstone are Jewish.



On 21 April 2012, Andrew Gilligan said this in The Telegraph:

“An investigation has been launched into alleged postal ballot fraud after claims that some of Ken Livingstone's supporters have been ‘harvesting’ postal ballot papers.

The returning officer in Tower Hamlets, east London, ordered the probe after a dramatic rise in the number of postal votes at some addresses in the borough…

Residents in the Spitalfields ward of Tower Hamlets said supporters of the borough's elected mayor, Lutfur Rahman, had taken their postal ballot papers from them for a council by election in the ward last Thursday…

Mr Livingstone campaigned for Mr Rahman, against the official Labour candidate, and refused requests by Labour to campaign for its candidate last week. The byelection, caused when one of Mr Rahman's councillors was jailed for housing benefit fraud, was narrowly won by Mr Rahman's candidate, Gulam Robbani.

One voter, Fatima Begum, who lives in the ward, said: ‘People working for Gulam Robbani came and collected my husband's postal vote.’

A second voter int Brune House, Husneara Khanam, said that Mr Robbani's workers had collected her and her husband's vote. A third resident took a picture of one of Mr Rahman's councillors, Aminur Khan, holding a sheaf of papers which the resident said were ballot papers…

There is also evidence of apparent ‘ghost voting’ at the block with as many as eight voters - all with postal votes - registered in some flats.”



On 4 April 2012, Jon Brown, head of the NSPCC's sexual abuse programme, was quoted thus by The Daily Mail:

“A concentrated effort has to be made if we are to start reducing this distressing level of offences, many of which are committed on extremely young and helpless children. When you have a situation where MORE THAN 60 CHILDREN ARE BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED EVERY DAY, something is very wrong.”

The Mail added:

“One child sex attack was reported every 20 minutes last year, equivalent to 444 attacks a week, according to shocking police figures released today. About 23,000 CHILDREN WERE REPORTED VICTIMS IN ENGLAND AND WALES DURING 2010/11 BUT FEWER THAN 10 PER CENT OF CASES ENDED IN A CONVICTION.

There were 4,973 alleged victims aged ten and under, including 1,472 younger than six. And six times as many reported offences were committed against girls as against boys.”



On 3 April 2012, Mario Ledith told us this in The Daily Mail:

“The UK has been placed behind the likes of Costa Rica, Israel and the United Arab Emirates in a global league table of happiness. Despite being one of the richest nations in the world, the UK has been ranked as only the 18th happiest in an authoritative United Nations report, behind much poorer countries.

Britain was placed six places behind Costa Rica – a country where average income levels are less than one quarter of those in the UK. The relatively high level of family breakdown in the UK is one reason why we may have been pushed down the list.

The table was topped by wealthy Scandinavian nations – with Denmark, Finland and Norway ranked as the three happiest respectively. Impoverished and war-ravaged nations in Africa, including Sierra Leone and Togo, came at the bottom of the table.”



In the 3 April 2012 edition of The Daily Mail, Senior judge, Lord Justice Ward, expressed his astonishment that a terrorist deported by the French had been living unmolested in Britain for eleven years.

He said:

“It may seem astonishing to many that the French courts were able to seek to exclude this appellant, but that the United Kingdom may be obliged to tolerate his presence in our midst. How could that come about?”

Andrew Percy, Tory MP for Brigg and Goole, added:

“This just goes to show what many of us say about the immigration system in this country. WE FOLLOW THE RULES WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES JUST IGNORE THEM. Why have we taken this man when he has been kicked out by France, and why can we not send him back?”

The Mail explained:

“The 49-year-old migrant – named only as AH because of fears for his safety – faces the death penalty in his homeland for his involvement in a bomb attack on Algiers airport in August 1992...

A French court imposed a prison sentence and deportation order for another terror charge… The French court also ruled he must leave the country at the end of his sentence. It is not clear how he entered Britain where he lodged an asylum claim in October 2001. The following month the Algerian authorities launched extradition proceedings.

The Home Secretary ruled there was not enough evidence against AH and he was released from custody and entered the asylum system.”



On 2 April 2012, Max Hastings opined thus in The Daily Mail:

“Almost no pundit or historian disputes that Margaret Thatcher was right to go to war after the Argentines seized Britain’s Falklands dependency 30 years ago yesterday. To be sure, she acted for partisan political motives. HER OWN GOVERNMENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SERIES OF DIPLOMATIC AND STRATEGIC BUNGLINGS WHICH CAUSED THE MILITARY DICTATORSHIP IN BUENOS AIRES TO CONCLUDE THAT WE WERE NO LONGER EITHER WILLING OR ABLE TO DEFEND THE ISLANDS.

Thatcher knew that the Falklands had nothing to do with the huge economic and industrial problems of this country in 1982. Losing them would not affect our national circumstances, save in one small but vital matter: self-respect.

Britain’s pride in those days had fallen wretchedly low. Most of us remember the Seventies as a ghastly decade, in which we seemed doomed to perpetual decline. We could do nothing right as a nation, and the first three years of the Thatcher government had done little to raise our spirits…

Before the war she was the most unpopular Prime Minister since polling began.

The first test of the political transformation wrought by the war came at Beaconsfield, where a by-election was held on May 27, in the midst of the fighting. The Tories, who had feared defeat, won by a landslide. The Labour candidate, who opposed the conflict, lost his deposit. He later told fellow Labour politician Robin Cook that he learned from the experience that the British people like war prime ministers.

His name was Tony Blair, and I think he got the wrong message. The British people like wars only if we can understand their causes and win them quickly…

By the time the First Gulf War came around in 1990, in her last weeks in Downing Street she strongly advocated fighting to liberate Kuwait. But it proved necessary to cannibalise the whole of the Rhine Army’s armoured vehicle inventory to send a weak division to the desert, so threadbare had the forces become on her watch.

In the last years of the 20th century, however, both Britain and America came to believe that wars could deliver foreign policy objectives quickly, and at small cost in lives. First in Kuwait, then in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, Western planes and troops achieved their purposes. The public was not much enthused — there were no victory parades for returning heroes to match 1982 — but did not seem to mind.

Iraq and Afghanistan changed everything, of course. Blair’s and Bush’s wars since 2003 have taught us bitter and expensive lessons. Although the Falklands seemed a tough campaign, defeating Argentina was much easier than winning public support for war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Falklands victory had also made some generals dangerously over-confident about what the Armed Forces could achieve.

DURING THE PAST DECADE, OUR TOP SOLDIERS HAVE BEEN TOO READY TO ACQUIESCE IN ILL-CONSIDERED AND UNDER-RESOURCED CAMPAIGNS. THE BRITISH ARMY’S ‘CAN DO’ SPIRIT HAS BEEN SHOCKINGLY MISUSED…

The 1982 war also taught painful lessons about the limits of the absurdly hyped ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the United States… Most of the Reagan administration rooted for the fascist junta in Buenos Aires, which they considered vital to their crusade against the Left in South America.

If the president had thrown his full support behind Britain, told the Argentines to quit the Falklands and sounded as if he meant it, it is most unlikely the war would have had to be fought. The declassified transcript of a hotline telephone conversation between the British and American leaders, a few days before the end of the struggle, reveals Reagan imploring Thatcher to accept a diplomatic compromise rather than impose military humiliation on Argentina.

She scornfully rejected such an idea, ‘when we have lost so many of our best men and best ships’, but a fudge was what Reagan wanted… The essential message of 1982 was that the ‘special relationship’ abruptly stops being special when Washington sees its own interests differently from ours...

Before 1982, no British government recognised a significant strategic commitment in the South Atlantic. In the 30 years since, we have spent £5 billion to defend them, to justify having fought the war.

A few Falklands families have grown vastly rich from the dumper-trucks of British cash unloaded upon them since 1982. The Islands Council now says cautiously that if serious oil is recovered offshore, it will ‘consider making a contribution’ towards the cost of its own defence.

It seems to me that it will be grotesque if 3,000 Falkland Islanders reap any oil profits, when the money should properly come straight to the poor old British taxpayer…

Today — irresponsibly, I believe — successive governments have slashed the Armed Forces below the point of critical mass.

We could not again mount a campaign remotely on the scale of 1982. We sent 30,000 men to recover the Falklands, but when the current defence cuts are complete the army will be able to deploy only a single brigade group of 7,000-8,000 men for sustained operations overseas. We have no aircraft carrier; when the Royal Navy does eventually take delivery of the two new carriers now being built at Rosyth, it cannot afford suitable planes to fly off them.”



On 23 March 2012, the Israel, the Church and the Middle East Crisis conference began at Biola University in California.

During this event, New York Times journalist and author, Joel Rosenberg, pointed out that, in Ezekiel 38, ‘Gog’ (of Gog and Magog fame - Vladimir Putin, according to Rosenberg and co.) would lead a coalition of nations in an attack on Israel, prompting God’s intervention.

Rosenberg then said this to the audience of 2,300:

“The question for the Israeli leadership is, ‘Have we tried everything short of war to stop Iran?…

The stakes are, IF IRAN GETS ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS, IT COULD DO IN SIX MINUTES WHAT IT TOOK ADOLPH HITLER SIX YEARS TO DO AND THAT’S TO KILL 6 MILLION JEWS… (Putin/Gog) could tell the Israelis, ‘If you launch an attack on Iran it will be regarded as an attack on the Russian Federation…

THIS WILL BE A DAY OF GREAT JUDGMENT WHEN GOD TURNS HIS SUPERNATURAL FURY AGAINST THE ENEMIES OF ISRAEL… It will also be a day of great spiritual awakening… We’re not living in normal times… The things that are happening now have never happened in all of human history, but they are happening now…

We know IT’S GOING TO BE BAD IN THE LAST DAYS, all kinds of shaking. But we also know that God uses the shaking as a way to prepare people’s hearts to hear the gospel. Ezekiel 38 and 39 will be one of the most dramatic shakings in all of human history, and I’m not speaking metaphorically. There is going to be AN EARTHQUAKE AT THE EPICENTER IN ISRAEL THAT IS GOING TO AFFECT THE ENTIRE PLANET… We are moving dramatically toward the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38 and 39...

Jesus said, ‘No one knows the day or hour’… So we just have to stick with what Jesus said. THE POINT IS NOT WHEN. THE POINT IS ARE WE READY?”

Mitch Glaser, President of Chosen People Ministries, which sponsored the conference, said Ezekiel 36 and 37 predicted the rebirth of Israel and the return of Jews to their homeland, events that are precursors to the ‘war of Gog and Magog.’ He added:

“So now the stage is set. Israel is in the land and there is a lining up of powers against Israel. YOU’D HAVE TO BE BLIND NOT TO SEE THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES… It’s critical for us to see the end-times through the lens of scripture… Yeshua, Jesus Himself, told us to study the end-times. We don’t want to be ignorant of what God is doing in the last days.”

We don’t want to be ignorant of what folks like you are doing either, Mitch.

Dr. Walt Kaiser said this at the conference:

“Look at the scenario in Israel now. the Arab nations, plus Persia, which changed its name to Iran, lined up against Israel. THE BATTLE OF ARMAGEDDON INVOLVES ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.”

Oh yes, Walt, it will involve us all, alright.

The Glasers, the Rosenbergs, the Neocons, the bought-and-paid-for Presidents and Prime Ministers and the fundamentalist Christian Ayatollahs of Yankee-land will see to that.

The nuts have been running the asylum for a long time now. The upshot of our allowing this, firstly, to happen and then, secondly, doing nothing to wrest control back from the loonies, is that they now have the power to bring on the end of the world.

Rosenberg and Glaser are Jewish. Kaiser is one of those good ole Christian Ayatollahs.



On 20 March 2012, Jennifer Lipman reported thus in The Jewish Chronicle:

"Nearly half of Britons question loyalty of Jews...

In 2009 only 37 per cent of British respondents deemed the suggestion that Jews were more loyal to Israel to be accurate, 48 per cent found it to be 'probably true' this year...

The 2012 survey showed that a fifth of Britons believed it was 'probably true' that 'Jews have too much power in the business world' and 22 per cent agreed that 'Jews have too much power in international financial markets.' Just 15 per cent of British respondents supported those statements when asked about them three years ago...

More British respondents this year than in 2009 – 24 per cent, up from 20 per cent - agreed that Jews 'still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust'."

The sheeple are waking up, it seems.



On 20 March 2012, Fiona Macrae reported thus in The Mail Online:

"GENDER-BENDING CHEMICALS IN MOBILE PHONES, TOYS AND SUNGLASSES MAY BE FUELLING THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC, a report warns today. The chemicals – WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE IN THE MODERN WORLD – may also help trigger diabetes…

Some are found in mobile phone cases and tin cans, others in shampoos and shower curtains.

The report’s authors called for urgent action to reduce exposure – particularly among pregnant women and those planning to start a family… The warning comes from a report commissioned by campaign group CHEM Trust. It was put together by Spanish and South Korean researchers after they sifted through more than 240 studies on obesity, pollution and type 2 or adult-onset diabetes…

The link between environmental chemicals and diabetes in people was first made more than 15 years ago and that the volume and strength of evidence has been ‘particularly persuasive’ since 2006...

Dr Tim Lobstein, of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, said: ‘People trying to lose weight will be undermined by these chemicals which they cannot see, cannot taste and do not know how to avoid. This alarming report highlights the need for government action,’ he added.”



On 17 March 2012, Simon Walters told us this in The Mail Online:

“The male partners of peers and knights who take part in gay marriages may be given courtesy titles to put them on a par with wives of titled men. It could lead to Sir Elton John’s partner David Furnish being known as ‘Sir David’...

In a consultation document published last week, Home Secretary Theresa May and Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone declared: ‘If commitment and marriage is a good thing, we should not restrict civil marriage only to opposite-sex couples’…

To ensure full equality, the Government will either have to grant courtesy titles to the partners of married gay peers and knights – or remove them from the wives of their heterosexual counterparts…

To add to the complications, male spouses of female peers and dames are already discriminated against. They are not granted courtesy titles, and remain plain ‘Mr’…

Even if a courtesy title for gay partners were to be decided, there remains the question of which surname to use. Wives with courtesy titles have to use their husbands’ surnames, but gay couples often keep their own surnames.

Then there is the issue of lesbian married couples, where one is a baroness or dame.”

"If commitment and marriage is a good thing, we should not restrict civil marriage only to opposite-sex couples."

A matter decided, at the highest level, by two women and the Prime Minister then.

And you can be sure Mr Cameron's Lib Dem deputy did not raise any objections.

Lynne Feathestone is Jewish. David Cameron's great-great granddad was a Jewish immigrant who made a pile in banking. Nick Clegg is 75% foreigner.

As for Theresa May, well, I guess she's just one of the many bought-and-paid-for folk who think more of their onward slither up the greasy, political pole than they do of the wants and needs of the British majority.

THEY will never stop taking the p***, you know. THEY will carry on as they do until Whitey is completely neutered or disappeared altogether. In an uncertain world, that's one thing you can be one hundred per cent sure of.



On 15 March 2012, Leo McKinstry said this in The Daily Express:

“IN ITS REMORSELESS DRIVE TO BRAINWASH US INTO SUPPORTING THE EU, BRUSSELS SPEWS OUT A BARRAGE OF HOLLOW CLAIMS AND DISTORTED STATISTICS. So we are constantly told that EU membership is the key to our national prosperity and that if we withdraw we will suffer a catastrophic loss of trade and jobs. All this is nonsense, nothing more than bullying and blackmail dressed up as economic analysis.

The truth is that, far from boosting our national fortunes, the EU has been a disaster for Britain. The vast, bureaucratic leviathan of Brussels has undermined employment, loaded huge extra costs on to businesses and worsened debts.

The inflammatory chaos on the streets of Athens is a graphic symbol of the EU’s spectacular failure in economic governance. Contrary to all the empty propaganda from Brussels, BRITAIN WOULD BE A MUCH RICHER COUNTRY IF WE WERE FREED FROM THE SUFFOCATING EMBRACE OF THE EU. We would be able to pursue our own destiny in the global economy instead of being shackled to this motor of accelerating decline...

If we left the EU tomorrow our trade with the rest of Europe would not suddenly dry up, as Brussels pretends. European businesses would still want to sell us their goods and services because it would be in their own financial interests to do so. Indeed we have a significant trade deficit of £48billion with the rest of the EU because they sell more to us than we sell to them. European commerce will not be so foolish as to close itself off from the lucrative British market.

The very idea that trading relationships are dependent on membership of a political institution is absurd. THE TWO MOST PROSPEROUS NATIONS IN EUROPE, NORWAY AND SWITZERLAND, ARE NOT IN THE EU but have extensive trade links throughout the continent. Similarly the EU has no fewer than 53 free trade agreements with other countries across the globe. We could easily reach just such a deal if we were to liberate ourselves from Brussels…

But then the EU has never really been about spreading prosperity. IT IS ESSENTIALLY A POLITICAL PROJECT, USING ECONOMIC INTEGRATION TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF A FEDERAL SUPERSTATE. In its obsession with political unification it has deluged businesses with excessive regulation and made job creation prohibitively expensive… According to the British Chambers of Commerce, compliance with EU red tape alone costs British companies at least £8billion-a-year.

In March 2000 European leaders promised to make the EU ‘the world’s most competitive economy by 2010’. As the eurozone limps from one crisis to another those words now sound like a sick joke.”



On 15 March 2012, The Mail Online quoted a ‘source’ from the Joint Committee on Lords Reform, thus:

“THE BISHOPS HAVE GOT TO GO. I expect us to recommend that in a reformed Lords there cannot be a place for Church of England bishops. We think Clegg will accept our recommendation.”

The Mail explained:

“Bishops look set to lose their seats in the House of Lords after 700 years following the intervention of an influential group of MPs and peers. The joint committee on Lords Reform is poised to decide that the 26 bishops who sit in the Upper House should be expelled, because THEY NO LONGER REFLECT MULTICULTURAL BRITAIN. NICK CLEGG, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM, IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE BEHIND THE PROPOSALS.

The Deputy Prime Minister is leading calls to bar Bishops from the House of Lords in Parliament. But opponents - who include many on the Conservative backbenches - will see the move as ANOTHER ASSAULT ON CHRISTIANITY BY MILITANT SECULARISTS…

The Lords Spiritual, as they are known, represent the Church of England, which is the established church… Reformers say the bishops’ presence no longer reflects the make-up of religion in the UK…

Committee members are divided on the issue, but the pro-reform is confident its votes will carry the day. Lib Dem members hold the balance of power, and they are in favour of getting rid of the bishops.”



On 14 March 2012, Anne Widdecoble reported thus in The Daily Express:

“For weeks now the media has been in a frenzy about whether or not the Prime Minister rode a particular horse… There are vastly more important matters to which we should be drawing attention and THE ABJECT SURRENDER OF OUR CHRISTIAN HERITAGE IS ONE, AS IS THE GROWING PERSECUTION OF ANYONE WHO HAPPENS TO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL IS TRUE.

I wore a cross or crucifix throughout my time in Parliament and sometimes the Christian fish as well. I represented atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims and doubtless pagans as well and not one complained. Yet the coalition fights two ladies who are seeking the legal right to display a discreet Christian cross when THEIR MUSLIM AND SIKH COLLEAGUES CAN WEAR MUCH MORE VISIBLY INTRUSIVE RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS.

Certainly the responsible minister is a Lib Dem, the church-bashing Lynne Featherstone, but that is neither here nor there as the advice being proffered to the court is from the Government.

There are professing Christians in the Cabinet. What are they doing about it? What are those who, while not adhering to a faith prate of liberty and diversity, doing about it? Oh, silly me, CHRISTIANITY ISN’T PART OF DIVERSITY IS IT?

Presumably the PM would quite like a few Conservatives to stay on in the party that has put him in power? So can somebody please explain why he is busy trying to alienate them, along with every believer in the electorate?”



On 14 March 2012, Jonathan Brown told us this in The Independent:

“A teenager who admitted killing a pensioner in the most serious crime committed during last summer's street disturbances had previously taken part in a school trip to watch a police training exercise combating petrol bomb-throwing rioters.

Darrell Desuze… then 16-year-old was part of a mob which smashed and stole from shops during violence in Ealing, west London, last August… The youth, who admitted the manslaughter of Richard Mannington Bowes by punching him to the ground as he tried to put out a fire in his dustbin, had watched the riot simulation the previous year at a training centre in Gravesend, Kent. Desuze was said to have been impressed by the sight of officers dodging flaming missiles and bricks.

THE TEENAGER WAS AMONG A GROUP OF BOYS CONSIDERING A FUTURE POLICE CAREER…

Mr Mannington Bowes, 68, suffered fatal brain injuries when he was punched. The emergency services struggled to reach the retired accountant who was bleeding and unconscious by the time help arrived. He died three days later in hospital...

Desuze, who will be sentenced next month, also pleaded guilty at Inner London Crown Court to violent disorder and had previously admitted burglary at William Hill, Tesco Express, Blockbusters and Fatboys Thai restaurant during the riot. His mother, Lavinia Desuze, 31, will stand trial on Monday accused of perverting the course of justice by destroying the clothes he wore."

Lavinia Desuze, 31.

Her murderous son is 17.

Here is the enrichment the race laws were designed to protect. Here is the diversity the PC Crowd aggressively promote and encourage. This is the golden future our all-seeing, all-knowing parliamentarians sold us down the river for.



On 14 March 2012, Nina Lakhani said this in The Independent:

"Revelations about the shocking scale of sexual violence against women and girls have triggered an impassioned debate on Twitter, with hundreds of women sharing personal stories about shame, guilt and the fear of not being believed.

The microblogging site has been inundated with moving disclosures trending under the #Ididnotreport. The posts support the findings of the Mumsnet research, published by The Independent on Monday that THE VAST MAJORITY OF VICTIMS DO NOT REPORT THE CRIMES TO AUTHORITIES AND MANY ARE TOO ASHAMED TO TELL ANYONE AT ALL. Post after post reveals victims who say they stayed silent because of fears about not being believed or being blamed…

The Mumsnet survey of 1,600 women found ONE IN 10 HAD BEEN RAPED AND ONE IN THREE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED. JUST OVER 80 PER CENT DID NOT TELL THE POLICE AND 29 PER CENT HAD TOLD NOBODY. The survey also revealed that 70 per cent feel the media is unsympathetic to women who report rape. During a live webchat on Mumsnet yesterday, Keir Starmer, director of public prosecutions, said both the CPS and police had now been trained to focus ‘only on the facts’…

Katie Russell from Rape Crisis, which is backing the Mumsnet campaign, said: ‘Many of the women we see in our centres are adult survivors who have never told a soul about abuse that happened many years ago, seeking support for the first time’.”



On 14 March 2012, Lee Moran reported thus in The Mail Online:

“A 16-year-old girl killed herself after being forced to marry her rapist… Amina Filali… swallowed rat poison on Saturday in protest at her marriage to the man who raped her a year earlier.

Article 475 of the Moroccan penal code allows for the 'kidnapper' of a minor to marry his victim to escape prosecution, and it has been used to justify a traditional practice of making a rapist marry his victim to preserve the honour of the woman's family…

The marriage is then pushed on the victim by the families to avoid scandal, said Fouzia Assouli, president of Democratic League for Women's Rights. 'It is unfortunately a recurring phenomenon,' she said.'We have been asking for years for the cancellation of Article 475 of the penal code which allows the rapist to escape justice.'

The victim's father said in an interview with an online Moroccan newspaper that it was THE COURT OFFICIALS WHO SUGGESTED FROM THE BEGINNING THE MARRIAGE OPTION WHEN THEY REPORTED THE RAPE. ‘The prosecutor advised my daughter to marry, he said 'go and make the marriage contract', said Lahcen Filali in an interview that appeared on goud.ma Tuesday night…

In many parts of the Middle East, there is a tradition whereby a rapist can escape prosecution if he marries his victim, thereby restoring her honour. There is a similar injunction in the Old Testament's Book of Deuteronomy…

In cases of rape, the burden of proof is often on the victim and if she can't prove she was attacked, a woman risks being prosecuted for debauchery…

According to the father's interview, the girl was accosted on the street and raped when she was 15, but it was two months before she told her parents. He said the court pushed the marriage, even though the perpetrator initially refused. He only consented when faced with prosecution. The penalty for rape is between five and 10 years in prison, but rises to 10 to 20 in the case of a minor…

Amina complained to her mother that her husband was beating her repeatedly during the five months of marriage but that her mother counselled patience… THE INCIDENT THROWS MORE LIGHT ON THE WAY WOMEN ARE TREATED IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES.

Last year a woman in Afghanistan, 21-year-old Gulnaz, was jailed for 'adultery by force' after she was brutally raped by her husband's cousin. Her attacker was jailed for seven years for the crime that left her pregnant.”



On 14 March 2012, Greg Smith, head of Goldman Sachs' equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, said this in The New York Times:

“Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm… I can honestly say that THE ENVIRONMENT NOW IS AS TOXIC AND DESTRUCTIVE AS I HAVE EVER SEEN IT.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, THE INTERESTS OF THE CLIENT CONTINUE TO BE SIDELINED in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money…

I no longer have the pride, or the belief… I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work… I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

Over the course of my career I have… always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs…

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence…

I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them… It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I HAVE SEEN FIVE DIFFERENT MANAGING DIRECTORS REFER TO THEIR OWN CLIENTS AS ‘MUPPETS’…

Integrity? It is eroding… will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.

These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, ‘How much money did we make off the client?’… Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about ‘muppets,’ ‘ripping eyeballs out’ and ‘getting paid’ doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.”

Greg Smith also said this:

“When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch.”

Lloyd Blankfein and Gary Cohn are Jewish.

As were Messrs Goldman and Sachs. Greg Smith is also Jewish.



On 14 March 2012, after architect Amy Bodiam had her iPhone snatched when boarding a train to London Bridge, The Evening Standard quoted her thus:

“I couldn’t believe that nobody reacted. There were about eight people in my carriage. I had just been mugged and was confused. I asked other people if they saw what had just happened. They nodded their heads but nobody got off their phones to advise me what to do…

I was sitting in an aisle seat and was looking down at my phone. It all took my by surprise. He walked quite quickly, almost skipping along the aisle.He went for my phone and hit my eye in the process…

When I looked behind me he was hopping off the train, the doors shut and the train started moving off… Nobody wanted to get involved.”

The Standard added:

“Rhiryd Richards, 18, struck her on the face as he grabbed the phone before stepping off the train at St John’s station in Lewisham. But her appeals for help were ignored by other passengers… Richards, a skunk cannabis addict with previous convictions for assaults and robberies, was sentenced yesterday to 28 months in a young offender institution for a string of muggings.

His other victims included a musician, a hospital doctor, a journalist, a teacher and several students. Most of the robberies took place on Overground trains between central and south-east London and Kent… The only person to help was a mother, with her child, who called the police.”

Richards is black.

Those who ‘ignored’ Amy were yellowbelly LibLabCon voters. Or paid up members of the PC Crowd.



In March 2012, internationally famous cook, Delia Smith, posted this statement on her website, www.deliaonline.com

“There is a running battle going on... and militant neo-atheists and devout secularists are busting a gut to drive us off the radar and try to convince us that we hardly exist… Atheists have been saying that Christianity is dying. 'He [Richard Dawkins] did a survey which said we were not a Christian country, which was cheeky – and not true.”

The above followed a statement by Dawkins which said:

“It is clear that faith is a spent force in the UK and it is time our policy-makers woke up to that reality and stopped trying to impose beliefs on society that society itself has largely rejected.”

Keith Porteous Wood of the The National Secular Society, responded thus:

“Delia Smith has fallen for a myth in imagining secularists and atheists are somehow endangering her faith. It is the Church that is destroying itself with its inhumane pronouncements and unwillingness, in some cases, to admit its own evil-doing. When crimes against little children are denied and covered up, people are repelled and walk away. Delia Smith can try to displace blame on to atheists and secularists, but in the end it is callous clergy that are turning people off religion.”

“Inhumane”, “evil-doing”, “crimes against little children”, “repelled”, “callous clergy.”

Hmm. If Porteous Wood is a typical ‘secularist and atheist’ NOT ‘endangering her faith’, God help Christianity.



On 14 March 2012, Jenny Hope reported thus in The Mail Online:

"Profit-chasing care homes are condemning elderly residents to spend their final months or years having ‘value’ food and squash, a report warns. Severe funding problems are putting at risk the dignity and safety of those in privately run care homes, according to the Royal College of Nursing.

It found one in four nurses cannot get adequate medical supplies or equipment – including bed linen – while almost one in ten says a healthcare assistant often takes charge of the home…

The RCN report, which includes responses from almost 600 nurses working primarily in private care homes in England last year, paints a ‘worrying picture’. Most damningly, it reveals how people who have already lost their health, home and independence must accept cheap ‘value range’ food and drink.

The report says many problems were flagged up in a survey in 2010 – but have got worse...

Errors by assistants are being overlooked by managers to stop staff from leaving, it claims…

Almost half of nurses said care homes are accepting residents in a bid to fill vacant places, despite the fact they might not be able to look after them properly. One manager said there were pressures from councils and inspectors to provide a ‘Harrods-quality service for Woolworths prices’.
A senior staff nurse said managers are trying to keep up profits by cutting corners, adding:

‘It isn’t fair that an elderly person who has lost so much ... has to spend their final months or years given value food and squash, and at the mercy of homes using, at times, inappropriate methods and broken equipment.’

RCN chief executive and general secretary Dr Peter Carter said… ‘Following years of underinvestment these issues have now significantly worsened.’

The report warns of ‘appalling’ examples of care such as at Winterbourne View home, Bristol, and the ‘alarming’ failure of Southern Cross Healthcare – the UK’s biggest care home provider before it collapsed last year.”



On 14 March 2012, Leon Watson reported thus in The Mail Online:

“The Metropolitan Police has tried to stop 'very serious' allegations about two of its former chiefs being aired at the Leveson Inquiry tomorrow. The claims about ex-commissioners Sir Paul Stephenson and Lord Blair are made by the force's former director of internal audit Peter Tickner...

Scotland Yard today accused him of trying to 'settle old scores' by airing 'unproven' allegations in a written statement at the public hearing.”

After Home Secretary Theresa May signed an order authorising the extradition of the founder of the TVShack.net web site, Richard O’Dwyer, to America, on 13 March 2012, Richard’s mother Julia was quoted thus by The Mail Online:

“The U.S. is coming for the young, the old and the ill and OUR GOVERNMENT IS PAVING THE WAY. If Richard appears to have committed a crime in this country then try him in this country. Instead the Home Secretary wants to send him thousands of miles away and leave him languishing, just like Chris Tappin, in a U.S. jail, before he has a chance to demonstrate his innocence, under British law, of the allegations made against him.

IT’S DISGUSTING. NEXT TIME IT MAY BE YOUR SON. I urge everyone who cares about unfair extradition to write to their MP and insist this disreputable law is changed.”

The Mail added:

“Despite not downloading any of the illegal material himself, the ‘quiet and vulnerable’ son of a GP was arrested and charged. In January a court ruled there was no reason not to send him overseas. Critics say it is the latest example of how the ‘lopsided’ 2003 Extradition Act is hurting Britons WHO LACK THE SAME RIGHTS AS U.S. CITIZENS IN THE SAME SITUATION.

(Gary) McKinnon, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, faces being sent to the U.S. on charges of computer hacking, despite experts warning he is a suicide risk. He claims he was searching for evidence of ‘little green men’ when he hacked into U.S. military computers.”



On 14 March 2012, Nina Lakhani said this in The Independent:

"Revelations about the shocking scale of sexual violence against women and girls have triggered an impassioned debate on Twitter, with hundreds of women sharing personal stories about shame, guilt and the fear of not being believed.

The microblogging site has been inundated with moving disclosures trending under the #Ididnotreport. The posts support the findings of the Mumsnet research, published by The Independent on Monday that THE VAST MAJORITY OF VICTIMS DO NOT REPORT THE CRIMES TO AUTHORITIES AND MANY ARE TOO ASHAMED TO TELL ANYONE AT ALL. Post after post reveals victims who say they stayed silent because of fears about not being believed or being blamed…

The Mumsnet survey of 1,600 women found ONE IN 10 HAD BEEN RAPED AND ONE IN THREE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED. JUST OVER 80 PER CENT DID NOT TELL THE POLICE AND 29 PER CENT HAD TOLD NOBODY. The survey also revealed that 70 per cent feel the media is unsympathetic to women who report rape. During a live webchat on Mumsnet yesterday, Keir Starmer, director of public prosecutions, said both the CPS and police had now been trained to focus ‘only on the facts’…

Katie Russell from Rape Crisis, which is backing the Mumsnet campaign, said: ‘Many of the women we see in our centres are adult survivors who have never told a soul about abuse that happened many years ago, seeking support for the first time’.”



On 14 March 2012, Lee Moran reported thus in The Mail Online:

“A 16-year-old girl killed herself after being forced to marry her rapist… Amina Filali… swallowed rat poison on Saturday in protest at her marriage to the man who raped her a year earlier.

Article 475 of the Moroccan penal code allows for the 'kidnapper' of a minor to marry his victim to escape prosecution, and it has been used to justify a traditional practice of making a rapist marry his victim to preserve the honour of the woman's family…

The marriage is then pushed on the victim by the families to avoid scandal, said Fouzia Assouli, president of Democratic League for Women's Rights. 'It is unfortunately a recurring phenomenon,' she said.'We have been asking for years for the cancellation of Article 475 of the penal code which allows the rapist to escape justice.'

The victim's father said in an interview with an online Moroccan newspaper that it was THE COURT OFFICIALS WHO SUGGESTED FROM THE BEGINNING THE MARRIAGE OPTION WHEN THEY REPORTED THE RAPE. ‘The prosecutor advised my daughter to marry, he said 'go and make the marriage contract', said Lahcen Filali in an interview that appeared on goud.ma Tuesday night…

In many parts of the Middle East, there is a tradition whereby a rapist can escape prosecution if he marries his victim, thereby restoring her honour. There is a similar injunction in the Old Testament's Book of Deuteronomy…

In cases of rape, the burden of proof is often on the victim and if she can't prove she was attacked, a woman risks being prosecuted for debauchery…

According to the father's interview, the girl was accosted on the street and raped when she was 15, but it was two months before she told her parents. He said the court pushed the marriage, even though the perpetrator initially refused. He only consented when faced with prosecution. The penalty for rape is between five and 10 years in prison, but rises to 10 to 20 in the case of a minor…

Amina complained to her mother that her husband was beating her repeatedly during the five months of marriage but that her mother counselled patience… THE INCIDENT THROWS MORE LIGHT ON THE WAY WOMEN ARE TREATED IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES.

Last year a woman in Afghanistan, 21-year-old Gulnaz, was jailed for 'adultery by force' after she was brutally raped by her husband's cousin. Her attacker was jailed for seven years for the crime that left her pregnant.”



On 14 March 2012, Greg Smith, head of Goldman Sachs’ equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, said this in The New York Times:

“Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm… I can honestly say that THE ENVIRONMENT NOW IS AS TOXIC AND DESTRUCTIVE AS I HAVE EVER SEEN IT.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, THE INTERESTS OF THE CLIENT CONTINUE TO BE SIDELINED in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money…

I no longer have the pride, or the belief… I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work… I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

Over the course of my career I have… always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs…

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence…

I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them… It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I HAVE SEEN FIVE DIFFERENT MANAGING DIRECTORS REFER TO THEIR OWN CLIENTS AS ‘MUPPETS’…

Integrity? It is eroding… will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.

These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, ‘How much money did we make off the client?’… Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about ‘muppets,’ ‘ripping eyeballs out’ and ‘getting paid’ doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.”

Greg Smith also said this:

“When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch.”

Lloyd Blankfein and Gary Cohn are Jewish. As were Messrs Goldman and Sachs.

Greg Smith is also Jewish.



On 12 March 2012, The BBC reported thus:

"Man, 19, accused of Kimberley Frank and Samantha Sykes' murders The teenagers were found dead at a flat in the Eastmoor area of Wakefield. A 19-year-old man has been charged by police with the murders of two teenagers who were found stabbed at a flat in West Yorkshire.

Ahmad Otak is also accused of kidnap and false imprisonment in connection with the deaths of Kimberley Frank and Samantha Sykes. Miss Frank, 17, and Miss Sykes, aged 18, were discovered with fatal knife wounds in Wakefield, early on Saturday.”



On 12 March 2012, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was quoted thus in The Telegraph:

“THE CROSS HAS BECOME A RELIGIOUS DECORATION… I believe that during Lent one of the things we all have to face is to look at ourselves and ask how far we are involved in THE RELIGION FACTORY.”

The Telegraph’s Peter Mullen commented, accurately, thus:

”He sees the cross as part of that ‘religion factory.’ It is an infelicitous phrase, for a factory is where objects are merely churned out, as from a production line. Is that what the cross, the supreme Christian symbol, has become?…

I am reminded of T E Hulme’s saying: ‘An institution is only finally overthrown when it has taken into itself the ideas of its opponents.’ This seems to me to be a good description of the response of the Church of England to the pernicious assaults of militant secularism. The Church has been thoroughly penetrated by the mindset of its enemies.”

Four days after Williams spoke as he did, he told us that he would resign by the end of the year

He’s a decent bloke, I guess. But, boy-oh-boy, he ain’t no defender of the faith. I’ve spoken out on behalf of Christianity and Christians a hell of a lot more than he ever has.

And I’m an Agnostic.



On 12 March 2012, Fiona Macrae reported thus in The Mail Online:

"Drinkng one sugar-laden soft drink every day could dramatically increase the odds of having a heart attack. A study of more than 40,000 men suggested that A DAILY SUGAR-SWEETENED DRINK RAISED THE CHANCES OF HAVING A HEART ATTACK, INCLUDING A DEADLY ONE, BY 20 PER CENT…

The study also found that the more sugary drinks someone had, including still fruit squashes to which sugar is added during manufacturing, the more the risk rose.

Frank Hu, the study’s lead author and a professor of nutrition, said: ‘This study adds to the growing evidence that sugary beverages are detrimental to cardiovascular health. Certainly, it provides strong justification for reducing sugary beverage consumption among patients and, more importantly, in the general population’…

Separate U.S. research published last year linked diet soft drinks with bulging waistlines, even when drunk in small quantities. The researchers said they were not a healthy alternative to sugar-laden versions and warned they may foster a sweet tooth, distort appetite and even damage brain cells involved in feelings of fullness…

The results of the study were firmly rejected by the British Soft Drinks Association.”

Ah, the many myriad ways THEY find to shuffle off the multitudes. Whilst profiting handsomely to boot.



On 12 March 2012, Julian Gavaghan reported thus in The Mail Online:

"The shocking scale of rape in Britain was exposed today after a study suggested that 80 per cent of victims are too scared to report attacks. ONE IN TEN WOMEN SAY THEY HAVE BEEN RAPED WHILE A THIRD CLAIM THEY HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, according to a new poll.

But MORE THAN FOUR IN FIVE OF THE VICTIMS DID NOT REPORT THE ATTACK TO POLICE DUE TO CONCERNS OVER LOW CONVICTION RATES, EMBARRASSMENT AND SHAME, the figures showed.

Last year, just 13,000 rapists were convicted – representing attacks on just 0.05% of the female adult population.

The 1,600 women responded to the poll by Mumsnet felt that neither police not society took rape seriously enough… In response to the survey, Mumnet have launched its We Believe You campaign.

Co-founder of the social website Justine Roberts said: ‘We simply shouldn't accept that we live in a country where one in 10 women are raped and over one third sexually assaulted. Things are made worse by the feeling among many women that they can't talk about these crimes for fear of being treated unsympathetically, denying them access to practical and emotional support when they need it most.’.”



On 12 March 2012, Steve Doughty and Nick Fagge reported thus in The Mail Online:

"A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MINISTER HAS ORDERED GOVERNMENT LAWYERS TO OPPOSE THE RIGHT OF CHRISTIAN WORKERS TO WEAR A CROSS.

ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF EQUALITIES MINISTER LYNNE FEATHERSTONE, THEY WILL CALL ON EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGES TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIAN WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM DISPLAYING THE SYMBOL OF THEIR FAITH AT WORK.

The move means that David Cameron’s Coalition is now lined up against the Christian churches on a second battleground – the Prime Minister is already at loggerheads with both Anglican and Roman Catholic churches over same-sex marriage…

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said: ‘The irony is that when governments and courts dictate to Christians that the cross is a matter of insignificance, it becomes an even more important symbol and expression of our faith’.”

Lynne Featherstone is Jewish.



On 12 March 2012, Lyle Brennan reported thus in The Mail Online:

"ONE IN FIVE BRITISH ADULTS DON’T KNOW WHICH COUNTRIES MAKE UP THE UK, according to new research… MORE THAN 50 PER CENT THOUGHT THAT EVEREST, IN THE HIMALAYAS, WAS THE UK’S TALLEST MOUNTAIN.

In the survey of 2,000 people, 20.6 per cent could not list England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the four countries comprising the United Kingdom.

Some of the howlers included more than a third of the nation saying they believed the Home Counties of south-east England circle Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow. And more than half of British adults - 58.6 per cent - confessed they thought Ben Nevis and Snowdon are actually in England, rather than Scotland and Wales… And almost a quarter of Brits think Ayers Rock is in Britain, while one in 20 confessed they had no clue that Wiltshire's Stonehenge is also in Britain.

Almost a third of the nation, 32.3 per cent, don’t know that Canterbury, home to the world famous Canterbury Cathedral, is based in the county of Kent.”

Dumbing-down is how THEY keep control.

The stupid are much more likely to believe the mainstream lie.



On 12 March 2012, Martin Samuel reported thus in The Mail Online:

"Hypocrites, xenophobes, plastic patriots, we’ve been called a few names this week for daring to question Great Britain’s competitors of convenience. UK Athletics says we’re banned. Although they didn’t say it directly to us, at first. They told the cheerleaders. Almost dropped their pom-poms, some of them.

We’re ranting and raving, according to one newspaper. We have a right-wing agenda. And all for saying it would be better if international sport had meaning, and the Great Britain team reflected the true standards of British athletes and coaches, shorn of false achievement…

The Plastic Brit debate… will not go away because it cuts directly to the spirit and meaning of competitive sport at national level and addresses ITS DECREASING WORTH IN AN AGE OF NAKED OPPORTUNISM.

IF EVEN INTERNATIONAL SPORTING BODIES REFUSE TO EMBRACE THE PRINCIPLE THAT NATIONALITY MATTERS, THAT EVENTS SHOULD COMPOSE THE BEST OF YOURS AGAINST THE BEST OF THEIRS, THEN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?

Many of these enterprises are government-funded. They are financially supported because international competition is perceived to have significance, to make a statement about the sporting strength of a people. Yet if Yamile Aldama can win medals for three nations, country of birth (Cuba), country of convenience (Sudan), and country of residency (Great Britain)— then WHY BOTHER WAVING FLAGS? Admire the athlete, but don’t claim the reflected glory. The country is a vessel, no more.

Tiffany Porter, who became British only after finding her professional ambitions thwarted in America, can be accused of narrow-eyed resourcefulness in a way that Mo Farah, who progressed through the British system having arrived in this country from Somalia at the age of eight, cannot…

Now take the case of Shara Proctor, who is British because her native country, Anguilla, a dependent territory, does not possess an Olympic committee and is not recognised at the Games. Nobody is saying Proctor should be made unwelcome. Use the facilities of Team GB, train with Team GB, live with Team GB if you like. And, while you are here, Britain will use its influence as hosts, and the status of several of its senior figures within the Olympic movement to lobby for your inclusion as an athlete from Anguilla…

Is that not preferable to just greedily gobbling up an athlete who says her heart will be with her Caribbean island, even if she is performing a lap of honour wrapped in a Union Flag?

Much of this extreme pragmatism is the work of administrators. Since government funding for individual sports was linked to success, the need for medals and elite performances has greatly increased. If Charles van Commenee, Great Britain’s head athletics coach, has the opportunity to adopt several world-class athletes, HE WILL, BECAUSE THEIR PERFORMANCES MAKE HIM LOOK BETTER. He is in a symbiotic relationship with sprint hurdler Porter, who was not getting the support to match her ambition in her native America. She gets the status of an elite British athlete, with all the encouragement and investment that entails, meaning her times improve; VAN COMMENEE GETS A NICE SERIES OF PODIUM FINISHES TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF HIS COACHING OPERATION MERITS CONTINUED OR ADDITIONAL FUNDING. His figures are built on a basic falsehood, because the groundwork on Porter was done in the United States, but the system demands it.

That is what British Wrestling was attempting with all those dubious Ukrainian acquisitions: increase their funding through success, increase their slice of the pie. Yet, take the Plastic Brit phenomenon to its logical conclusion and THE WEALTHIEST BRITISH SPORTS WILL BECOME LITTLE MORE THAN COLONIALIST ENTERPRISES.

When the outstanding Whitgift School in south London has £5million to spend on scholarships and bursaries, what is there to stop scouts of various competing independent educational establishments scouring the Pacific Islands for the best teenage rugby talent, and tempting the boys to Britain with the promise of free private education? A whole front row of Manu Tuilagi brick-outhouse types, imported almost to order.

This is not just about rejecting America’s second tier, like Porter; there is also a duty to protect the rights of smaller countries. There is no room for a national equivalent of Manchester City. Lists of similar instances in other sports or protests that Britain is not alone in taking advantage are more gormless equivocation…

The business of nationality will become more complex generation to generation. Yet that is why it is important to differentiate between cases of human circumstance and commercial or professional opportunism; we risk sacrificing the whole concept of international contest, without proper controls.

Dai Greene, world champion 400 metres hurdler, put this most succinctly. ‘I can understand and sympathise with athletes who are trying to make teams, and all of a sudden they have new people ahead of them,’ he said.

Perhaps hinting at the added motivation of association with the home team at an Olympics in London — after all, why didn’t Aldama try to declare for Britain prior to the Beijing Games — he added: ‘It is going to be interesting to see how many switch allegiances in the next few years. I’d like to think we won’t be saturated. IT WOULD BE NICE TO TURN UP TO CHAMPIONSHIPS WITH BRITISH ATHLETES WITH BRITISH ACCENTS.’

If this makes him a xenophobe, a hypocrite or a plastic patriot, so be it. Actually, I think it makes a few other people sound like dopes or dupes. And not for the first time, either.”

On 11 March 2012, this videotaped article was seen on Channel 4 News.

UK athletics coach = immigrant. UK captain = immigrant. Sneering presenter of the piece = non-native. British athletics team (as portayed in the video) notable for the lack of Whitey.

Charles van Commenee, the UK coach who wanted to 'make a statement' certainly did so. Not just by choosing an American black to captain the British team at the World indoor championships but also by having two immigrant blacks and a British born half-caste represent team GB at the press conference.

Commenee was born and raised in Holland. His mother is, herself, mixed race.

They do love to take the p*** out of us, don't they? Thing is, it seems that just about everyone who revels in and benefits from political correctness is incapable of subtlety. They do not seem to realise that, the more they take, the more they gloat and the more they rub it in, the more the indigenous outrage mounts.

Perhaps they think we will never go bang. No matter what they do.

Perhaps they're right.

But I doubt it.



On 11 March 2011, Andrew Levy, Louise Eccles and Jon Mcevoy reportes thus in The Mail Online:

"Athlete Yamile Aldama has changed nationality twice in her pursuit of sporting glory. Her undoubted talent allowed her to hop into the team of her home country, Cuba, before she skipped into the Sudanese squad. Now she has jumped into Team GB.

Astonishingly, it means the 39-year-old evergreen triple jumper will have competed on the world stage for three nations – fuelling the outcry over ‘Plastic Brits’…

Concerns were raised last week over Tiffany Porter, who was born and resides in the U.S. and has declined to recite the words of God Save the Queen, yet was appointed captain of the British athletics team at the World Indoor Championships in Turkey over the weekend…

Speaking after winning the first major gold medal of her career in Istanbul, Aldama said she hoped Britain would ‘properly embrace’ her. ‘It’s not only because of the medal,’ she insisted. ‘I’m here for good, so hopefully people will stop talking about ‘Plastic Brit’ and this and that. Because there’s different cases. My case, I don’t think, is a case.’

So what is Aldama’s case? Born in Havana in 1972, her first major competition was the 1997 World Indoor Championship in Paris. In 2000 she was one place off the bronze medal at the Sydney Olympics.

In November 2001 she moved to London with her husband, Scotsman Andrew Dodds, who, THE FOLLOWING YEAR, WAS JAILED FOR 15 YEARS FOR TRAFFICKING £11MILLION OF HEROIN INTO THE COUNTRY…

It was when Aldama applied for British citizenship that the seeds of today’s controversy were sown. Under rules that required three years’ residency, she faced missing the Olympic Games in Athens.
Her solution was to become Sudanese… Aldama went on to represent Sudan at more than a dozen major championships until 2010. Now, with London 2012 around the corner, critics have accused her of cynically changing nationality again to take advantage of a ‘home’ Olympics.

Although she has spoken of her pride at representing Britain, in some quarters it is felt the interviews she gives suggest her heart lies elsewhere. Speaking before Christmas, she said: ‘I come to Havana once a year to recharge. I’m Cuban after all. It’s where I was born. I have it in my blood – I’m proud to be Cuban.’

More recently, commenting on her post-London plans, she said she wanted to go ‘home’ to celebrate her 40th birthday. After breaking the over-35s world record for the triple jump on Saturday, however, she said: ‘Of course I am British. I’ve been in this country for 11 years, my kids are British, 60 per cent of my friends are British.’

Around 50 of the 550 members of Team GB ARE FOREIGN-BORN ATHLETES WITH DUAL NATIONALITY WHO PLEDGED THEIR ALLEGIANCE AFTER LONDON WAS SELECTED TO HOST THE GAMES.

Among the sports heavily populated by competitors born outside the UK are wrestling, handball, basketball and volleyball. Much of the athletics fraternity have started closing ranks on the subject in the run-up to the Olympics. But one insider said: ‘There’s a FEELING IT’S BEEN OPEN SEASON FOR PARACHUTING IN PEOPLE TO BOOST OUR MEDAL CHANCES’.”



On 11 March 2012, Michael Pinto-Duschinsky told Sunday Politics’ host, Andrew Neil, that he was resigning from a commission set up to examine the need for a British bill of rights.

He explained:

"After one year it is now clear that it HAS BEEN INTENDED ALL ALONG TO ISSUE A REPORT IN FAVOUR OF THE STATUS QUO. We have actually considered the question of parliamentary sovereignty only once in the whole year that we have been in existence…

The commission answers to Ken Clarke. He and Nick Clegg set it up and selected the chairman. His civil servants run the commission and staffing. His hands are everywhere… HE (CLARKE) IS FOLLOWING THE AGENDA OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ESTABLISHMENT, which is well represented on the commission. In doing so he is sidelining not only parliament but also the prime minister, and I consider that disloyal.”

This followed Pinto-Duschinsky’s revelatory article in The Mail on Sunday which said:

“I know what the abuse of human rights really means. It is certainly not the kind of nonsense we hear so much about today, parents smacking children, the eviction of travellers from illegal encampments or the deportation of foreign criminals in breach of their supposed ‘right to a family life’.

Yet these are the conflicts that have occupied debate over human rights law in recent years, with the British Parliament endlessly accused of defying the European Court of Human Rights.

The conflict was seen at its most stark over the question of voting rights for prisoners, something which has been demanded by Strasbourg but overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons. It was in February last year after a Commons vote on the matter that David Cameron set up an eight-strong commission which was asked to examine the implementation of a British Bill of Rights, which would reconcile human rights legislation with British law.

As a political scientist with a long record in studying the development of democratic institutions, I was asked to be part of this commission, whose chairman is the former civil servant Sir Leigh Lewis.
Initially, I had high hopes, believing we could achieve a synthesis between human rights and the democratic will of Parliament. But it has become obvious that SOME OF THE PREDOMINANT MEMBERS ON THE COMMISSION WERE NOT REMOTELY INTERESTED IN SUCH AN OUTCOME. ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS UPHOLD THE STATUS QUO AND ENSURE THAT THE INFLUENCE OF PARLIAMENT CONTINUED TO BE IGNORED.

Effectively, THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AND THE GRANDEES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE. The views of the Prime Minister and his senior Tory colleagues count for almost nothing. The truth is that the body has taken little trouble to be in touch with the impulses of the British people…

It even refused to include a question about the role of the Strasbourg court in our questionnaire. It also wouldn’t ask the public about the Prime Minister’s statement that decisions should be made in Parliament rather than in the courts. That is why my position has become intolerable and I have taken the most difficult decision in my life: to resign from the commission.

I had tried strenuously to ensure that the commission gave heed to the views of Parliament, but I HAVE FOUND MYSELF SIDELINED, BULLIED, MARGINALISED AND IGNORED.

The whole affair has made a farce not only of democracy but also of genuine human rights. It seems that THOSE LEADING MEMBERS OF THE FASHIONABLE HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN TACKLING REAL HUMANITARIAN ABUSES or instances of true political oppression. Instead, THEY REVEL IN DEMONSTRATING THE SUPERIORITY OF THE BRITISH AND EUROPEAN JUDICIARY OVER OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

I find utterly intolerable this perversion of human rights – which treats the issue as nothing more than an arena for political power games. In my work on the commission, I was determined to see that Parliament had the ability to override decisions by the European Court of Human Rights – such as prisoners’ votes or rulings stopping the deportation of foreign criminals. But to my despair, THE COMMISSION WAS MANAGED IN A MANNER THAT ENSURED THE RIGID ORTHODOXY OF SUBMISSION TO STRASBOURG PREVAILED – despite my views and those of other Conservative appointees.

When I tried to raise the question of Parliamentary sovereignty with Sir Leigh, he not only refused but even took me into a basement room of the House of Lords TO WARN ME THAT I WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MAVERICK WITHOUT INFLUENCE IF I PERSISTED IN MY DEMAND.

In the same vein, when the commission, four months after its establishment, put out a paper for public consultation on a British Bill of Rights, it deliberately left out any reference to David Cameron’s statement on the need to uphold Parliamentary sovereignty on key political decisions such as prisoners’ voting rights.

This was typical. The opinions of the Prime Minister were treated with contempt while THOSE OF HIS EUROPHILE CABINET JUNIOR COLLEAGUES, ESPECIALLY KEN CLARKE AND NICK CLEGG, CARRIED MUCH MORE WEIGHT. In fact, in December, MEMBERS WERE SUMMONED TO A MEETING WITH KEN CLARKE AND TOLD TO DEFER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT PARLIAMENT OVERRIDING STRASBOURG AND IGNORE ANY ‘AGITATION’ FROM THE COMMONS ON THE ISSUE.

This meeting was a dramatic illustration of THE LOW PRIORITY GIVEN TO THE BASIS OF OUR DEMOCRACY – THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Similarly, the commission regularly heard evidence from human rights groups, which of course have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, yet proceeded to ignore MPs and peers who wanted to curb the power of the human rights court.

This is why I’ve had enough. I can no longer put up with THE SNEERING, CONTEMPTUOUS ATTITUDE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIGADE TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS NOT A FORM OF TYRANNY OR ‘MOB RULE’, AS THEY CONDESCENDINGLY SEEM TO BELIEVE, BUT IS A BULWARK OF FREEDOM, as is clearly demonstrated by the long, progressive narrative of British history.

Our nation was enjoying real human rights long before the Strasbourg court was convened. And, crucially, those rights will only be weakened if AN UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE ELITE HOLDS SWAY OVER DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.”

The Bill of Rights Commission was launched by Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg and Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke on 18 March 2011.

A statement accompanying the ‘launch’ said:

“The Commission, to be headed by former Permanent Secretary, Sir Leigh Lewis, fulfils a pledge set out in the Coalition Agreement and forms part of the Government’s strategy to ensure that our rights, freedoms and liberties are protected in a way that properly reflects our traditions.

In addition to the Chairman, the Commission will include eight human rights experts appointed jointly by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. The Commission members are:

Martin Howe QC; Anthony Lester QC; Jonathan Fisher QC; Helena Kennedy QC; Anthony Speaight QC; Philippe Sands QC; Michael Pinto-Duschinsky; Sir David Edward.

Details of the Commission’s remit were also announced today and include providing interim advice to Ministers on reform of the European Court of Human Rights.”

Pretty straightforward, don’t you think?

The Human Rights brigade was taking the mickey in a major way and Cameron, Clegg and Clarke are going to sort them out. Oh yes, this notoriously Europhilic bunch were definitely going to bat for Britain in this particular instance!

However, a quick glance at the composition of the committee chosen by the aforementioned leaves us in no doubt as to what the eventual outcome will be. The status quo will be maintained. Government from and by Europe was never going to be affected by the findings of such a body.

Let’s take a closer look at the ‘human rights experts’ that comprise the Committee.

Six out of eight are lawyers. That should set the alarm bells ringing for a start. It is chaired by a former Home Office Permanent Secretary in Sir Leigh Lewis. Other members include, the Lib Dem peer and author of Britain's Human Rights Act, Lord Lester; Jonathan Fisher, QC; (a visiting professor at the LSE) Barrister Phillippe Sands and (before he resigned) Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky.

All of the above are Jewish.

Thus, the grouping chosen by Cameron, Clarke and Clegg to oversee the proceedings weren’t just, for the most part, as Eurocentric as them, it had a majority of Jews within it! And, if you know your history, you will be aware that the vast majority of Jewish movers and shakers have always been at the forefront of the pro-world government, anti-nation state debate.

Consider this: in July 2011, the official UK population was estimated to be 62,698,362. The best estimate puts the Jewish population of the UK at around 280,000. In other words, the amount of influence the Jews had upon the lives of the rest of the UK community would, if everything was equal and fair and true democracy held sway in the UK, amount to about 280,000 divided by 62,698,362 of the whole. Or 0.0045 per cent.

But that’s not the case here, is it? If you do the math, in an ‘equal and fair’ world, just one twenty-fifth of a place at this particular constitutional table would have been reserved for the Jew. However, in this quintessentially important matter, our Jewish brethren will have around 125 times more influence upon the final outcome than they ought to have, according to their incidence in the general population.

And the moral of the story is: Situation normal.

Were it not for one small detail. The whistleblower here, the one democratically inclined individual out of the whole sorry posse, is, himself, a Jew.

Fair play to Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. Someone in a high place who appears, for once, to rate our British democracy rather more highly than globalist dictat.

Which leaves four Jews and four non-Jews who do not.

It will be these who decide whether the rights of the immigrant criminal, as determined by the Human Rights Act, continue to trump rights of the indigenous victim.



On 11 March 2012, the opinions of Sir William Patey, the British ambassador to Afghanistan, appeared in The Sunday Telegraph.

The interview was conducted the day before six British soldiers were killed in Kandahar.

“We were too focused on Iraq and we took our eye off the ball. We thought we had won and the Taliban had run away and we just sort of left it to the Afghans to get on with it and we very quickly switched our focus to Iraq. You don’t normally write history so quickly but I’m pretty clear that we won’t have to wait too long for history to make that judgment…

Afghans have never been comfortable with foreigners and there comes a point — no matter how benign the intentions, and how much you explain that this is not an occupying force, that we are here under a UN mandate agreed with the Afghans — when you just outstay your welcome…

It will be very difficult for the Taliban to argue they are fighting a foreign invader when the people on the streets are their own police and army…

AFGHANISTAN WILL BE A MESS FOR MANY YEARS TO COME…

You ask me what the biggest risk to the success of our strategy is? Well, IT’S US. It is the West being diverted somewhere else or the international community not being prepared to ante up the money…

It is important that Afghanistan continues to make progress on reinforcing democratic institutions, having free and fair elections, and there is no regression in human rights. So it’s not just, 'Here’s a pile of money for 10 years’. WE DON’T EXPECT AFGHANISTAN TO HAVE ELIMINATED CORRUPTION, but we do expect to see some improvements.”…

OUR PREFERENCE IS FOR THE TALIBAN TO REINTEGRATE and reconcile. NOBODY HAS OBJECTED TO THE TALIBAN becoming a political party, nobody has objected to the Taliban taking part in politics or holding government positions or district-level positions if that’s how it turns out.”

“We don’t expect Afghanistan to have eliminated corruption.”

So, 404 deaths later, you tell us it will still be a sh*thole when we leave?

"Our preference is for the Taliban to reintegrate and reconcile."

Do you think the 404 dead were aware of your preferences?

“Nobody has objected to the Taliban.”

The lies they tell, eh?

If this lie was ever true, Sir Bill, why did we invade? Why are our young men still out there dying right now?



In March 2012, Sergei A. Karaganov, Dean of the School of World Economics and International Affairs at Russia’s National Research University Higher School of Economics, opined thus at The Projecy Syndicate web site:

“The Arab world has been swept by a revolutionary spring, though one that is rapidly becoming a chilly winter. Indeed, for the most part, the new regimes are combining the old authoritarianism with Islamism, resulting in further social stagnation, resentment, and instability.

Even more remarkable, however, are the social (and antisocial) grassroots demonstrations that are mushrooming in affluent Western societies.

These protests have two major causes. First, social inequality has grown unabated in the West over the last quarter-century, owing in part to the disappearance of the Soviet Union and, with it, the threat of expansionist communism. The specter of revolution had forced Western elites to use the power of the state to redistribute wealth and nurture the growth of loyal middle classes. But, when communism collapsed in its Eurasian heartland, THE WEST’S RICH, BELIEVING THAT THEY HAD NOTHING MORE TO FEAR, PRESSED TO ROLL BACK THE WELFARE STATE, CAUSING INEQUALITY TO RISE RAPIDLY. This was tolerable as long as the overall pie was expanding, but the global financial crisis in 2008 ended that.

Second, OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF JOBS SHIFTED TO ASIA, which offered inexpensive and often highly skilled labor. The West, euphoric from its victory over communism and its seemingly unstoppable economic growth, failed to implement necessary structural reforms (Germany and Sweden were rare exceptions). Instead, WESTERN PROSPERITY RELIED INCREASINGLY ON DEBT.

But the economic crisis has made it impossible to maintain a good life on borrowed money. Americans and Europeans are beginning to understand that neither they, nor their children, can assume that they will become wealthier over time.

Governments now face the difficult task of implementing reforms that will hit the majority of voters hardest. In the meantime, THE MINORITY THAT HAS BENEFITED FINANCIALLY OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES IS UNLIKELY TO GIVE UP ITS ADVANTAGES WITHOUT A FIGHT.

All of this cannot fail but to weaken Western democracy’s allure in countries like Russia, where, unlike in the West or to a large extent the Arab world, those who are organizing the massive demonstrations against the government belong to the economic elite. Theirs is a movement of political reform – demanding more freedom and government accountability – not of social protest, at least not yet.

A few years ago, it was fashionable to worry about the challenge that authoritarian-style capitalism (for example, in China, Singapore, Malaysia, or Russia) presented to Western democratic capitalism. Today, the problem is not only economic. Western capitalism’s model of a society based on near-universal affluence and liberal democracy looks increasingly ineffective compared to the competition. Authoritarian countries’ middle classes may push their leaders toward greater democracy, as in Russia, but WESTERN DEMOCRACIES WILL ALSO LIKELY BECOME MORE AUTHORITARIAN.

Indeed, measured against today’s standards, Charles De Gaulle, Winston Churchill, and Dwight Eisenhower were comparatively authoritarian leaders. THE WEST WILL HAVE TO RE-ADOPT SUCH AN APPROACH, OR RISK LOSING OUT GLOBALLY AS ITS ULTRA-RIGHT AND ULTRA-LEFT POLITICAL FORCES CONSOLIDATE THEIR POSITIONS and its middle classes begin to dissolve.

We must find ways to prevent the political polarization that gave rise to totalitarian systems – communist and fascist – in the twentieth century. Fortunately, this is possible. Communism and fascism were born and took root in societies demoralized by war, which is why all steps should be taken now to prevent the outbreak of war.

This is becoming particularly relevant today, as the smell of war hangs over Iran. Israel, which is facing a surge of hostile sentiment among its neighbors in the wake of their ‘democratic’ upheavals, is not the only interested party. MANY PEOPLE IN THE ADVANCED COUNTRIES, AND EVEN SOME IN RUSSIA, LOOK INCREASINGLY SUPPORTIVE OF A WAR WITH IRAN, despite – or perhaps owing to – the need to address the ongoing global economic crisis and failure of international governance.

At the same time, huge opportunities beckon in times of far-reaching change. Billions of people in Asia have extricated themselves from poverty. New markets and spheres for applying one’s intellect, education, and talents are appearing constantly…

Paradoxically, today’s global changes and challenges offer the potential for both peaceful coexistence and violent conflict. Whether fortunately or not, it is up to us – alone – to determine which future it will be.”



On 10 March 2012, Peter Hitchens said opined thus in The Mail Online:

"I do wish people would realise that the future of Britain is no longer decided at Elections or at Westminster. Instead, AN INTOLERANT RADICAL ELITE IS MOVING RAPIDLY TO ENSURE THAT ANY STRONG CENTRES OF RESISTANCE AGAINST THE POLITICALLY CORRECT ‘EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY’ AGENDA ARE FIRST ISOLATED, THEN INTIMIDATED, THEN CRUSHED…

The father of Amy Winehouse, God rest her soul, is campaigning for compulsory drugs education in schools. He says his daughter might still be alive if she had received such education.

My heart goes out to Mr Winehouse in his loss. But he is terribly wrong. His daughter did not die of ignorance. She died because OUR CORRUPT SOCIETY, WHOSE ELITE IS CRAMMED WITH PAST AND PRESENT ILLEGAL DRUG USERS, NOT TO MENTION LEGAL HEAVY DRINKERS, IS PREPARED TO SACRIFICE A SIGNIFICANT MINORITY OF YOUNG PEOPLE TO DEATH OR MADNESS, TO PROTECT ITS OWN PLEASURE.

Severe and properly enforced laws against drug possession, combined with a restoration of the tough alcohol licensing laws we had until 25 years ago, would save and protect the young. Drug ‘education’, like sex ‘education’, would take the form of amoral propaganda, based on the false assumption that ‘everybody’s doing it anyway’, designed to undermine and bypass the authority of parents…

Our three identical political parties this week praised the six soldiers they had sent to needless, pointless deaths in Afghanistan. Then they expressed regret at deaths they could have prevented and didn’t.

Scorn is not a strong enough word for what I feel about these people. HOW DARE THEY REGRET WHAT THEY COULD HAVE PREVENTED, HAD THEY POSSESSED ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF THE DEAD MEN’S COURAGE.

MR SLIPPERY KEEPS OUR SOLDIERS IN AFGHANISTAN, WHERE MANY MORE OF THEM ARE BOUND TO MEET EQUALLY PURPOSELESS DEATHS, BECAUSE HE IS TOO COWARDLY TO ADMIT THE MISSION IS POINTLESS AND PULL THEM OUT.

He ensures that they are sent out… on terrifying foot patrols on which they may at any moment be blown to pieces or maimed horribly for life – FOR NO REASON AT ALL. Let me repeat that, FOR NO REASON AT ALL, FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

Yet Mr Slippery himself does not dare to make the journey from Downing Street to the House of Commons on foot, but is instead cocooned in an armoured limousine. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr Slippery’s car was better protected against bombs than the obsolete Warrior in which the six met their deaths…

Dr Declan Gilsenan, former Assistant State Pathologist in Ireland, says HE HAS SEEN ‘TOO MANY SUICIDES’ AFTER PEOPLE HAD STARTED TAKING ANTIDEPRESSANTS, and has questioned whether GPs are overprescribing them.”



On 10 March 2012, after the Government did 'absolutely nothing' to prevent the extradition of her husband on arms dealing charges, Elaine Tappin told The Express her faith in 'Britishness' had been destroyed.

She added:

“It’s completely gone. I feel no love for my country any more. It’s not the Britain I was born in.”

Christopher Tappin, 65, a retired businessman, who faces up to 35 years in a US jail if found guilty, has been refused bail because the Yanks deem him a 'danger to the community.'



On 9 March 2012, The Guardian reported thus:

“MORE THAN HALF OF YOUNG BLACK MEN AVAILABLE FOR WORK IN BRITAIN ARE NOW UNEMPLOYED, according to unpublished government statistics obtained by the Guardian…

The new figures, which do not include students, also reveal that the youth unemployment rate for black people has increased at almost twice the rate for white 16- to 24-year-olds since the start of the recession in 2008...

Unemployment among young black men has doubled in three years, rising from 28.8% in 2008 TO 55.9% IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS OF 2011.

Black unemployment rate According to the ONS, in the last three months of 2008 the unemployment rate for black people aged 16 to 24 was 28.8%. In the most recent quarter in 2011, this had risen to 47.4% – an increase of 70% in three years. This is more than double the unemployment rate for young white people, which increased from 15% in 2008 to 20.8% in 2011. Unemployment among young black women, while still higher than any other ethnic group, is lower than the black male percentage, at 39.1%.

Asked to respond, the Department for Work and Pensions stressed the overall proportion of young black people who are unemployed was only 22%. This differs because it includes students and others not available for work, whereas the ONS calculates the official unemployment rate as a percentage of the economically active population.

Sandra Kerr, Race for Opportunity's national director, said… ‘I think it's unconscious bias’.”

If I was the boss, the bias would be conscious.

The reason we now have so many unemployed young men of non-indigenous origin (perfect material for the odd summer riot) simmering resentfully on the margins of society, is entirely down to the immigration policies pursued by generation after generation of treacherous, politically correct politicians.

Of course, the suicidal stupidity of those who keep on voting for them hasn't helped.

The Guardian quoted Iqbal Wahhab, Chair of the ethnic minority advisory group at the Department for Work and Pensions, thus:

"Now that the figures are out in the public domain, what are we going to do about it?"

"What are WE going to do about it?"

Send 'em back. That's what WE would do if WE ever got the chance.

What are THEY going to do? The Iqbal Wahhabs will do their best to turn them into rappers, footballers, X-Factor winners, architects, Benjamin Zephaniahs, Barack Obamas etc. etc. etc.

Or spend twenty years trying not to find them in the likely event that they turn out more like Delroy Grant than any of the above.

Check out The Night Stalker here.

Check out the 'rappers, footballers, X-Factor winners,' etc. here.



On 9 March 2012, the BBC quoted Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, thus:

"This is not a matter of days or weeks. It is also not a matter of years...

I hope that the pressure on Iran will work and we can peacefully convince them to tear down their nuclear programme...

The US is big and distant, Israel is smaller and closer to Iran, and, of course - we have different capabilities. So the American clock regarding preventing nuclearisation of Iran is not the Israeli one. The Israeli clock works, obviously, according to a different schedule...

The result has to be that the threat of a nuclear weapon in Iran's hands is removed. It is forbidden to let the Iranians get nuclear arms. And I intend not to allow that to happen."

It was fobridden to let Israel go nuclear, too.

But Jewish scientists stole America's secrets and here we all are.



On 9 March 2012, Dr David Ison, the Dean of St Paul’s, was quoted thus by The Telegraph:

“You can regard two Christian gay people as wanting to have the virtues of Christian marriage…

I’M ENCOURAGED THAT A GOOD NUMBER OF GAY PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE ON THE VIRTUES OF MARRIAGE. For Christian gay people to model that kind of faithfulness, in a culture which, historically, has often been about promiscuity, is a very good thing to do…

Marriage doesn’t belong to the Church… The role of the Church is to be both INCLUSIVE and challenging… Marriage is an institution but the definitions of that, and how you get into it… have changed over time…

We’ve had a woman Prime Minister, we have a Queen… Why should women not be able to use their God-given gifts in leadership in the Church?… The Church has had gay bishops...

Historically, if the top and bottom of society drift too far apart… with the financiers, politicians and others at the top and people ‘lower down’ feeling that they are not being heard… there comes a point where there’s an explosion. We must get on and deal with the reform of our institutions while we still can, before it turns into a situation of revolution.

We need to develop a way of doing economics which is going to take account of the need for people to care for one another. It’s hard for a person obsessed with riches to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, whether they are rich or poor.”

I like the sound of the ‘bottom of society… financiers, politicians… revolution’ thing, Dave.

Keep it up.

As for the ‘rich or poor… obsessed with riches… Kingdom of Heaven’ bit, well, I just hope those ‘obsessed’ with altering the marriage contract to suit themselves are as unlikely to get to Heaven as the rest of us.



On 9 March 2012, The Mail Online quoted a ‘Cinderella slave girl, 7, smuggled into the UK for a better life,’ thus:

“I can't stand her because she beats me all the time. She was always saying work, work, I was getting dirty, my hands and feet were getting dirty. I would tidy up and I would do all the rooms and they wouldn't do anything.”

The Mail explained:

“Two Romanian gypsies face jail after smuggling a child dubbed 'Cinderella' into the UK and forcing her to work as a servant. The seven-year-old girl was sent to Britain by her penniless mother in the hope of a better life. But in the UK she was beaten, humiliated, and forced to sleep on the floor while carrying out domestic duties.

The couple beat her 'like a carpet' and the abuse was so bad that when she was rescued by police she was dressed in filthy clothes, had scabs all over her head and her teeth were so rotten they had to be removed…

A child psychologist who assessed the child when she was eventually taken into care found she couldn't count to ten in her own language and was unable to express even basic emotions. And it emerged that her tormentors' children had also sexually abused another man who was trafficked over to the UK.

Romanian gypsies Aurel Zlate, 46, and his wife Alexandra Oaie, 43... were found guilty of trafficking the youngster in October 2010 with the intention of exploiting her… The jury were told THE FAMILY HAD A STRING OF CONVICTIONS FOR OFFENCES INCLUDING SHOPLIFTING, GOING EQUIPPED TO STEAL, ATTEMPTED THEFT AND COMMON ASSAULT, dating back to 2003...

The pair, who ran an illegal scrap metal business from their three-bedroom terraced house in Wood Green while claiming thousands of pounds of benefits, were also found guilty of trafficking a 53-year-old man to the UK from Romania. Both sobbed in the dock at Croydon Crown Court as the guilty verdicts were read out. The maximum sentence for trafficking is 14 years…

The court heard that a 53-year-old man was also forced to come to the UK, where he was sexually assaulted and forced to work for no pay… The couple and their son Marian Neamu, 25, were convicted of bringing him to the UK with the intention of exploiting him. Neamu and his brother Florin Zlate, 23, were also found guilty of raping him as he dared to ask for food during a New Year's Eve party...

He told the jury: 'Ferma treated her badly. She hit her, and made her do things a girl of six or seven should not have to do. Sweeping the floor, carrying debris on the building site, she was like a little slave looking after the youngest children. She was changing nappies, feeding them and making up their bottles and feeding the animals. She would be hit on the head and shouted at and sworn at. The other children would beat her like she was a carpet. She was just like Cinderella'…

When police went to the home they found the girl and put her in emergency care. Zlatea claimed he was the father, handing over a fake birth certificate and a court order giving him custody. But a DNA test proved neither were the parents, and when police visited Romania they found the true mum - a cleaner working for the Zlatae family.

She said she had been approached by Oaie who wanted to adopt the child as she believed she could give her a better life and helped provide the fake documentation. But in his evidence the male victim, who had worked as an electrician in Romania until he fell on hard times, described how her life was miserable from the moment she was taken from her mother. He said that the little girl sat 'like a frightened animal' in the back of a van as she was brought to Britain…

The court heard Oaie was the 'boss' of the house, where 16 people including her own eight children lived and claimed benefits, while running a scrap metal business from the back garden.”

And this is what the Harmans, Straws, Blunketts, Blairs and Milibands ship pver for us to ‘cohere’ with.

This is the ‘diversity’ we are supposed to sympathise with and be ‘enriched’ by.

Time and time again, the dumbed-down, drugged-up, brainwashed British people fall for the politicians’ empty promises, come election time. Time and time again they vote for those who despise them the most. Did it really never occur to them that their own parliamentarians were taking the p*** every bit as much and more than the Gypsy filth described above?

We are a rotten breed now. Everything our ancestors worked so hard for, sacrificed so much for and died the deaths in all the wars for has been given away by the last two useless generations.

Of which I am a part.



On 8 March 2012, Pope Bendict XVI urged Roman Catholics to stand against ‘powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage’ in the UK.

He added:

“The Church… calls for a reasoned defence of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation. Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage…

Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since IT ENTAILS SAFEGUARDING THE GOOD OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN COMMUNITY and the rights of parents and children alike…

All our efforts in this area are ultimately concerned with the good of children, who have a fundamental right to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships.

Children are the greatest treasure and the future of every society: truly caring for them means recognising our responsibility to teach, defend and live by the moral virtues which are the key to human fulfilment.”



On 8 March 2012, journalist, Lisa Brinkworth, reported thus in The Mail Online:

“Walking home from school, my two eldest sons, then aged four and five, were chomping their way through Rice Krispie cakes bought at a school sale, while I pushed their baby brother in a pram beside them. Typically for 3.30pm in the part of North-West London where we live, the pavements were awash with children and pushchairs. This area, with its wide tree-lined avenues, smart family homes and good schools, is hugely popular with young families.

We were almost home when four-year-old Zach pleaded to be allowed to put the rest of his cake money towards his favourite Fireman Sam magazine. We’d just left our local newsagent’s, magazine firmly in my little son’s hand, when we suddenly found ourselves in the middle of a 12-strong gang of hooded youths who were chasing a girl who looked no older than 14. One grabbed her and started battering her with an umbrella, but she managed to get away. Then the youths gave chase, throwing bottles and shouting obscenities. It looked as though they meant to kill her.

As members of a rival gang appeared from nowhere, bottles rained down all around us. When one ricocheted off the pram canopy — waking my one-year-old with a start — I froze. A bottle skimmed Zach’s head, missing him by millimetres, glass smashing around his feet - later I found shards in his shoes,

As a journalist, I’d devoted years to infiltrating London’s violent teenage gangs, and filmed two TV documentaries on the subject. Slowly gaining their confidence, I GOT CLOSE TO SEVERAL OF THE HARDEST GANG MEMBERS, ENTERING DRUG DEALER-CONTROLLED ‘NO-GO’ ZONES WHERE EVEN THE POLICE WOULDN’T VENTURE. I’D WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TRIGGERED THEIR ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND TO HELP THEM ARTICULATE THEIR FEELINGS WITHOUT RESORTING TO VIOLENCE. But as a mother of three vulnerable children terrified by this pack of youths, my overwhelming instinct was to protect my offspring.

Grabbing my sons and frantically pushing the pram with one hand, I rushed to get them home as quickly as possible. Then to my horror, Zach broke free of my grip and blindly ran back into what was now a full-on turf war. He’d dropped his magazine, which had been trampled underfoot, its pages scattered across the pavement. Oblivious to the mayhem, he attempted to gather it up as tears rolled down his cheeks.

Terrified for him, I pulled the pram and my five-year-old back towards where Zach now stood rooted to the spot as more gang members came tearing up a side street. I heard myself scream as a bottle skimmed Zach’s head, missing him by millimetres, glass smashing around his feet — later I found shards in his shoes. Then I did something I never thought I’d do: I ran, clutching my terrified children. In my panic, I lost control of the pram which swerved precariously and almost overturned twice… It was the wrong thing to do, of course. I’d drawn attention to my fleeing family, and a splinter group gave chase after us, calling out ‘GET THE WHITIES’. Seeing this terrifying drama unfold before them, passers-by and locals sped up steps, pounded on front doors or sought protection in porches.

We reached our home and I released my screaming baby from his pram, which I left abandoned with our bags outside, and practically threw my boys inside the front door, locking it behind us — my legs had turned to jelly and breathlessness and searing chest pain convinced me I was having a heart attack.

I called the police, but other than recalling the fear etched in the features of the young girl who was being hunted down like a dog — her repeated, helpless yells of ‘I don’t have it, I don’t have it’, echoing round my head — I realised that I was a useless witness. I was unable to give a description of any one of the perpetrators. My focus had been fixed firmly on my children. In the safety of our home, I was still trembling as I picked tiny glass fragments out of Zach’s socks and tried to calm my three sobbing boys. I could only thank God that none of us had been seriously hurt. If those youths had been carrying knives or guns, the outcome could have been so much worse.

THIS PERNICIOUS GANG CULTURE IS EMBEDDING ITSELF INTO ALL OF BRITAIN’S MAJOR CITIES… In recent years, there has been a spate of stabbings within a half-mile radius of our home in Maida Vale. A 14-year-old pupil from our local secondary school died of a stab wound to his neck. Another pupil at the same school was stabbed four times in the stomach in the street just opposite ours. Then, last summer, a young mother was shot at just two blocks from our home, while holding her young baby. However, bottles seem to be the weapon of choice for many of these thugs — ‘bottling’ a person carries a lesser sentence than a knife attack.

Ironically, we moved to this area six years ago because it seemed safer than our previous address in West London where my husband was knocked unconscious and had his jaw shattered in a vicious, unprovoked assault by youths. But now it seems NOWHERE IN OUR CITIES IS IMMUNE TO THE GANG RIVALRY spilling over from neighbouring districts.

OUR STREET NO LONGER FEELS SAFE — groups of hooded, spliff-smoking youths patrol the pavements as though they own them. Just weeks ago, when late for school pick-up, I challenged a group of teenagers to make way for my pram, asking them if they really expected me to push my child into the busy road. They turned on me, becoming verbally abusive and threatening. Determined not to be a victim for a second time, I pushed my way through them. And then a bottle was thrown in my direction — it smashed into a parked car nearby.

Now, when my children are with me, I’ve decided such bravado is foolhardy. If I see a group of youths in our street, we circle the block before approaching our flat, or go to a nearby restaurant and call my husband to come and collect us. There is not a night that I don’t hear a siren close by.

More than once I have awoken to see the end of our road cordoned off by police after yet another gang-related crime. A year on, my two elder sons still have nightmares. Our walk home from school is once again filled with laughter and stories, but as we turn into our street, one of the boys will usually ask: ‘Are the baddies here today, Mummy?’

WE’VE NOW DECIDED TO MOVE OUT TO THE COUNTRYSIDE… But thousands of other families don’t have that choice. I just hope the police crackdown will enable them to finally sleep soundly in their beds.”

And thus another airhead who 'wanted to understand' gets enriched.

“We’ve now decided to move out to the countryside.”

As the stupid, white liberal does. When reality bites.

If awful stuff has to happen, pray God it happens to the Lisa Brinkworths. Who knows, when enough wide-eyed dopes have experienced ‘anti-social behaviour’ at the sharp end, maybe they'll begin to think about what their gormless, happy-clappy naivety has visited upon those who were never able to ‘move out’ over the course of the last sixty years.

And pigs might fly as well. When the revolution comes, the Brinkworths will be cowering under their middle-class bedsheets well away from the the ‘drug dealer-controlled ‘no-go’ zones,’ the ‘hardest gang members’ and the achingly PC, on-message jobsworths who, even then, will be doing their best to ‘help’ such creatures ‘articulate their feelings.’

Oh no, it will never be those who ‘devoted years to infiltrating London’s violent teenage gangs’ who put an end to the ‘culture… embedding itself into all of Britain’s major cities.’ It won’t be the globalist elite and their bought politicians who foist it upon us either. And, God knows, the Keystone Cops or the media moguls who own them won't be in the vanguard of the fightback.

It will be the ignored and much-maligned British lowly who finally kill off the bestial, Red experiment. It will be those whose unhappiness and disenfranchisement a thousand do-gooders never bothered to document who make the country safe once more for Lisa Brinkworth's children.



On 8 March 2012, Major General Sir Evelyn Webb-Carter, one of the nation’s most senior military figures, was quoted thus by The Express:

“There will be a feeling that THE ARMY WAS BETRAYED. They were made to do all of these things and they were done on a pretty spurious reasoning. I think the case for going to Afghanistan in the first instance was a sound one, but the conduct of the campaign has probably been mishandled and that is probably more at the military political level rather than at the operational level.

It has been an absolute disaster to have two campaigns running concurrently, because it was beyond the resources of the Army. We landed up by doing neither very well… Fighting two campaigns like that at the same time was STRATEGIC LUNACY. These things are DECIDED BY POLITICIANS.”

The General said this BEFORE six British soldiers were killed in one incident in Afghanistan.



On 8 March 2012, Chris Greenwood reported thus in The Mail Online:

"He convinced hundreds of investors to hand over their savings with promises of huge returns. But smooth-talking businessman Kautilya Pruthi was in fact a ruthless swindler, who is now facing up to 14 years in jail for masterminding BRITAIN’S BIGGEST PONZI SCHEME – earning him the dubious title of ‘BRITAIN’S BERNIE MADOFF’.

Fraud squad detectives believe THE CAREER CONMAN FLEECED UP TO 800 VICTIMS OUT OF AN ASTONISHING £115MILLION IN A GLOBAL WEB OF DECEIT. Of that, he received at least £10million personally, which he used to fund a champagne-fuelled lifestyle of fast cars and luxury homes.

The 41-year-old’s clients included Premier League footballers, top cricketers, TV personalities, a 1960s pop star and even the parents of disabled children. Among the celebrities were England cricketer Darren Gough, actor Jerome Flynn – both thought to have lost up to £1million – and Rising Damp star Frances de la Tour. One victim, a 48-year-old woman from Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, lost £50,000 saved for the long-term care of her teenage son, who has cerebral palsy.

Over the three years that he ran the scheme, Pruthi blew millions of pounds renting extravagant properties in Knightsbridge, Chelsea and exclusive areas of Surrey. His fleet of fast cars included two Ferraris, a Lamborghini and several Bentleys. He even bought a private jet and a motor racing company.

Pruthi – A CONVICTED CONMAN WHO HAD BEEN JAILED FOR TEN MONTHS IN THE U.S. – owned a chest of diamond-encrusted watches and showered lovers with gifts worth a total of £375,000.

When police searched bank accounts in Dubai, the Cayman Islands and Thailand, they discovered only £2million was left to reimburse his victims. SOME HAD GONE BANKRUPT, LOST THEIR HOMES OR COMMITTED SUICIDE…

New York broker Madoff was jailed for 150 years for running a similar scheme, which lost $65billion (£40 billion) of investors’ money."

Pruthi is Indian.

Bernie Madoff is Jewish.



On 7 March 2012, Max Hastings said this in The Mail Online:

“We now face a real threat that Israel will launch an assault on Iran’s nuclear sites. The implications of such action are uncertain but assuredly immense. It would precipitate an open-ended conflict between Iran and the West. Oil prices could surge as the vital tanker conduit through the Strait of Hormuz came under attack.

Much of the Muslim world would back Iran… An attack would be seen as new evidence of Western partisanship for Israel: a hated foe — AND ILLEGAL NUCLEAR POWER.

It is wretchedly clear that the decision whether to bomb will be made not by a cool calculation of strategic risk and advantage in Washington and Jerusalem, but INSTEAD BY POLITICS.

President Obama’s message to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Washington this week was not, as it should have been: ‘If you commit this reckless act, you will be on your own,’ but instead: ‘PLEASE DON’T DO IT BEFORE OUR NOVEMBER ELECTION.’

The implications of such action are uncertain BUT ASSUREDLY IMMENSE - IT WOULD PRECIPITATE AN OPEN-ENDED CONFLICT BETWEEN IRAN AND THE WEST.

Some of Obama’s own advisers are cynical enough to urge him to back Israeli action, because they think it would be popular with American voters. He would instantly confound his Republican rivals, who accuse him of being soft on Iran.

Privately, Obama yearns to come down hard on Netanyahu, whom he dislikes intensely. But the U.S. President does not dare do this when HIS OWN RE-ELECTION MAY HINGE ON THE THREE PER CENT OF AMERICAN VOTERS WHO ARE JEWISH…

Gaddafi made a dirty deal with London and Washington, to be allowed to sustain his dictatorship in return for abandoning his nuclear programme. Last year, THE WEST RENEGED ON THIS. OTHER TYRANNIES GOT THE MESSAGE; ONLY A BOMB CAN BUY SECURITY FROM FOREIGN MEDDLING…

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, dismisses the notion of a strike by the Israelis as imprudent, saying that it would be ‘destabilising, and would not achieve their long-term objectives’. I know no one in the military loop on either side of the Atlantic who believes that a bombing operation can achieve decisive results, though IT WOULD BE CERTAIN TO UNLEASH A HIDEOUS INTERNATIONAL CRISIS. So why is Israel still contemplating this step?

ITS PRIME MINISTER IS ONE OF THE MOST RUTHLESS AND INTRANSIGENT POLITICIANS HIS COUNTRY HAS PRODUCED since 1948. NETANYAHU REGARDS ARABS WITH CONTEMPT, AND MANY YEARS AGO IN MY HEARING EXPRESSED THE HOPE THAT, IN A FUTURE WAR, EVERY PALESTINIAN COULD BE DRIVEN FROM THE WEST BANK.

He has repeatedly defied the pleas of President Obama to abandon illegal settlement building and is implacably hostile to Palestinian claims and aspirations. He brushes aside warnings from Western friends of Israel that HIS POLICIES HAVE CRIPPLED THE MORAL STANDING OF HIS COUNTRY: ISRAEL IS PROGRESSIVELY BECOMING A PARIAH.

I suggested in these pages soon after Obama assumed office that his efforts to induce Netanyahu to moderate his behaviour would fail, because the Israelis would outflank the President by enlisting the support of a sympathetic Congress. So it has turned out. The White House has repeatedly warned Jerusalem about its excesses — THEN HAD TO BACK OFF.

Most Americans are instinctively sympathetic to Israel, and since the 9/11 attacks on their country by Muslims have become doubly so. They see their enemy’s enemy as their friend. THEY CARE LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT THE PLIGHT OF THE PALESTINIANS, NOR ABOUT ISRAELI EXPANSIONISM ON OTHER PEOPLE’S PROPERTY. To put the matter bluntly, they see Israelis as clever, successful and culturally sympathetic, while Muslims can seem to them none of those things.

Netanyahu started life as a marketing man, and has remained at heart just that. He knows exactly which levers to pull to win American public and political support. If he launches an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, he knows that many Americans will applaud — at first, at least.

No U.S. president would dare leave Israel hanging out to dry in the long and messy struggle that would follow… THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD HAVE NO POLITICAL CHOICE SAVE TO SIDE WITH ISRAEL, RIGHT OR WRONG.

Once shooting, or rather bombing, started, it would be hard for Obama to resist demands from his own electorate to send American planes to try to finish the job…

We have learned to live with a world in which the Pakistanis, Indians and North Koreans have nuclear weapons — and, of course, the Israelis. However reckless the fanatics in Tehran, it is hard to imagine them launching an unprovoked nuclear assault on Israel, AMID THE CERTAINTY OF ANNIHILATORY RETALIATION. Yet Israel may yet conclude that it should make the attempt to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability.

In recent years, the country has become increasingly inward-looking, in response to global criticism of its treatment of the Palestinians. Even the most informed and SOPHISTICATED ISRAELIS BECOME EVER LESS INTERESTED IN WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS OF THEM...

To a tragic degree, THE U.S. HAS BECOME ISRAEL’S PRISONER. Those Americans who enthuse about the relationship fail to notice the heavy price the West pays, diminishing its global moral authority, for indulging repression of the Palestinians.

If Israel does bomb Iran, I hope David Cameron will display the courage decisively to distance Britain from such action, whatever embarrassment such a stance causes with Washington.”



On 7 March 2012, Nick Enoch reported thus in The Mail Online:

“A change in law that would allow the criminal age of responsibility in Pakistan to be raised from seven to 12 has been hindered by authorities who claim it is unnecessary... because of curry. The Minister of the Interior said that THE NATION'S CHILDREN GROW UP MORE QUICKLY THAN IN OTHER COUNTRIES DUE TO THE HOT CLIMATE AND SPICY FOOD…

The bill - which was drafted three years ago - would also make child pornography, child trafficking and sexual abuse illegal for the first time. But a string of objections has meant it has not yet had official approval…

In a written submission, the ministry stated:

'It can be well understood that attainment of maturity of understanding depends on social, economic, climatic, dietary and environmental factors. That's why A CHILD IN OUR SUBCONTINENT STARTS UNDERSTANDING NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF HIS/HER CONDUCT MUCH EARLIER THAN A CHILD IN THE WEST SPECIALLY BECAUSE OF GENERAL POVERTY, HOT CLIMATE, EXOTIC AND SPICY FOOD WHICH CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS SPEEDY PHYSICAL AND MENTAL GROWTH OF THE CHILD’.”



On 7 March 2012, Phil Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said this in The Telegraph:

“The shocking loss of British lives this week, the worst for many years, understandably raises questions about the continued presence of UK Forces in Afghanistan; about why we are there and what we are achieving?

I am clear about the answers: THE MISSION IS NECESSARY FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.”

Liar!

“UK forces, and troops from 49 other nations, are preventing Afghanistan again being used by al-Qaeda and other terrorists as a base to plan attacks against the UK and our allies. WE ARE FIGHTING THERE TO PREVENT THEM ATTACKING US HERE.

LIAR!

“We have got to make sure that Afghanistan is secure and that the terrorists who thrive in chaos cannot re-establish their pre-9/11 training camps.”

We will NEVER make Afghanistan secure.

Once we leave, the Taliban will return, take over and everything will be back to the way it was before we invaded. Everyone who is anyone in Washington and Westminster knows this. Including this traitorous jobsworth.

“The reinvigoration of campaign strategy in the past few years is achieving our aims – building the capability of the Afghan government to maintain its own security and by extension protecting ours.”

Liar.

“We are not there to impose a Western liberal democracy. But an enduring solution in Afghanistan, that meets the needs of UK national security, must encompass all its different peoples. Security must be linked with progress on development and governance, and crucially, with a sustainable political settlement.”

It’s not going to happen.

Hammond knows this. He’s a liar who would rather lie than save the lives of our finest young men and women.

“To be successful, the Afghan government must be able to negotiate from a position of strength. Building up the strength of the Afghan National Security Forces is a central part of this. We are training them, mentoring them, operating alongside them and then steadily drawing back as their capability improves. As they step up, we can step back. THIS STRATEGY IS DEMONSTRABLY WORKING.“

Which, in the mind of a liar, will be why six of our young lads got blown up in one big hit this month, one supposes.

“The ANSF are now over 320,000 strong and well on course to meet their full strength targets. The capability and quality of ANSF personnel is improving all the time.”

It needs to.

Most of them are drug addicts, reprobates and, beneath the radar, Talibani.

“Central Helmand, where the majority of British troops operate, is a particular success story.”

Bulls*it!

“By mid-2013, the Afghans are expected to be leading security provision across the whole of the country, with ISAF in support.”

Yeah right.

“By the end of 2014 British troops will be able to end their combat role completely.”

And, by the end of 2015, the Mohammed Karzais will all be living it up in St. Tropez and things will, as previously stated, return to the 2001 status quo.

“British troops will remain to train ANSF forces but in much smaller numbers.”

More body bags on the way then.

“We will help to finance the Afghan forces as part of the international effort.”

More of our billions in the Kharzai bank accounts.

“I understand it when people question our continued presence in Afghanistan and want the sacrifice being made by our Armed Forces to come to an end immediately. But our national security requires us to see the job through and we owe it to the all-too-many who have sacrificed their lives to see this mission successfully concluded. This is a volatile region from which threats to Britain and our allies may continue to emerge. Walking away is not an option. I know that our nation will continue to stand by our Armed Forces and the sacrifices they and their families make.”

Those who want 'our armed forces' back now 'stand by' them in a way your sort could never understand.

Bring them home and have them patrol the British street! Let them bring safety back to the towns and cities that your lot have ceded to the immigrant criminal! Have them fight for their country here, where it will do some good, rather than have them die fruitlessly out there in someone else’s land!

To the global warmonger, the deaths of a thosand twenty-year-olds from Huddersfield, Warrington or Bradford matters very little.

To those who truly care, they do.



On 7 March 2012, Joe Curtis told us this in The Chingford Guardian:

“Winston Britton, THE PARTNER OF A FOSTER CARER, HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF CHILD RAPE. Winston Britton subjected his three victims, who were all under the age of 16 and cannot be identified, to ten years of violent abuse…

One girl was raped five times and was the victim of all the indecent assaults. Britton is the registered owner of the company W.B. Heating and boasted on its website that he is a foster carer and was regularly used by the Metropolitan Police to carry out maintenance work…

Britton was found not guilty on two counts of rape of a fourth girl under the age of 16. He was also cleared of one count of rape in 1989.”

Winston Britton is black.



On 6 March 2012, Nadine Dorries, MP, said this in an interview with The Financial Times:

"The problem is policy is being run by two public school boys who don’t know what it’s like to go to the supermarket and have to put things back on the shelves because they can’t afford it for their children’s lunchboxes. What’s worse, they don’t care either."



On 6 March 2012, Conservative MP for the Wrekin, Mark Pritchard, said this in an interview with The Financial Times:

"He (David Cameron) talks a lot about social mobility but in reality he knows nothing about it. Empathy is better than sympathy in politics and it is impossible for him to empathise with people struggling to pay their gas bill or put shoes on the feet at the start of the school term. He has never wanted for anything and that is a problem with the electorate."



On 6 March 2012, The Economist described 'The American-Israeli relationship' thus:

"Crazy co-dependency... doomed... stubborn and unstable... increasingly delusional and dangerous... disastrous... paranoid."

The Economist explained:

During his meeting with Barack Obama on Monday, Bibi Netanyahu said Israel "must have the ability always to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

"I believe that's why you appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself," Netanyahu said. "After all, that's the very purpose of the Jewish state, to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny. That's why my supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains master of its fate.

News flash: Israel is not master of its fate. It's not terribly surprising that a country with less than 8m inhabitants is not master of its fate. Switzerland, Sweden, Serbia and Portugal are not masters of their fates. These days, many countries with populations of 100m or more can hardly be said to be masters of their fates. Britain and China aren't masters of their fates, and even the world's overwhelmingly largest economy, the United States, isn't really master of its fate.

But Israel has even less control over its own destiny than Portugal or Britain do. The main reason is that, unlike those countries, Israel refuses to give up its empire. Israel is unable to sustain its imperial ambitions in the West Bank, or even to articulate them coherently... For over a decade, the tone of Israeli politics has been a mix of panic, despair, hysteria and resignation.

No one bears greater responsibility for the trap Israel finds itself in today than Mr Netanyahu. As prime minister in the late 1990s, he did more than any other Israeli leader to destroy the peace process. Illegal land grabs by settlers were tolerated and quietly encouraged in the confused expectation that they would aid territorial negotiations.

Violent clashes and provocations erupted whenever the peace process seemed on the verge of concrete steps forward; the most charitable spin would be that the Israelis failed to exercise the restraint they might have shown in retaliating against Palestinian terrorism, had they been truly interested in progress towards a two-state solution...

Having trapped themselves in a death struggle with Palestinians that they cannot acknowledge or untangle, Israelis have psychologically displaced the source of their anxiety onto a more distant target: Iran. An Iranian nuclear bomb would not be a happy development for Israel. Neither was Pakistan's, nor indeed North Korea's. The notion that it represents a new Holocaust is overstated, and the belief that the source of Israel's existential woes can be eliminated with an airstrike is mistaken.

But Iran makes an appealing enemy for Israelis because, unlike the Palestinians, it can be fitted into a familiar ideological trope from the Jewish national playbook: the eliminationist anti-Semite."

News flash (2):

Our point of view is now spittal-drenchedly mainstream.

News flash (3):

Unlike Israel, the white world IS the 'master of its fate.' This fact, of course, will not make any difference if the sheeple and lemmings do not wake up.

Chronological Quotations 1

Total Pageviews