Pages

Friday, 13 September 2013

WHO AM I?





I have recently been through the trials and tribulations of tracing my ancestral roots. Many years ago my wife and me did the same for her side of the family. It turned an already spectacular holiday into something magical. We met people whom her father had grown up with, we visited the church where he received his first Communion, the river where he caught his first salmon, the house in which he grew up and the town where he spent the latter part of his teenage years.
Her father was still alive when we made the trip and he gave his full blessing for our fact-finding mission. It soon became apparent to us both that some of the stories her father had related to us about his home town and the escapades that he and his friends were party to, were in fact, not the embellished tales that we thought but truthful tales of triumph over hardship and a talent which was recognised at an early age but never taken to its true potential.
Most of all, we both came away with an understanding as to why my wife’s father would not go back to the land of his birth, the land which had shaped him and the people who had walked, talked and laughed with him in his youth. He did not want to lose the essence of that time before he left nor, did he want to see change in the town or the people. All had become treasured memories, like a pristine cake expertly covered in icing which becomes too precious to cut. 

Soon all of that will be lost. The government want to abolish the National Census a practice established over two hundred years ago because, ironical given today’s figures,  the powers that be of the time thought that the population was rising too quickly (16,000,000) and were afraid of a French-style revolution. One of the proposals is to replace it with information gathered from stores, banks, and estate agents. The official line  is that the census costs too much. (£500m)
That is the official reason and, given Osborne’s penchant for austerity measures one could believe that there is an element of truth in it. However, I think that it is obvious that a statement such as that can only be a lie. Or, at the very least, an economy of the truth. Given the surge in population in this country over the past ten years because of a deliberate policy of open borders by the insidious Labour Party and the equally insidious Coalition, is it any wonder that the government want to hide the true extent of this mismanagement of the UK population? 

The census is much more than a tool for chasing down your family roots.To quote from nidirect government services:

‘With statistics from the census, central and local government can allocate funds, decide future policy and plan important services such as:
  • population - knowing how many people live in an area helps central government allocate funding - local government also uses this data to plan what is needed in their local areas
  • health and disability - health services and policies are planned around the census data so that the necessary services are provided where they are needed
  • housing - housing needs can be much better planned if we know what the demand is now and likely to be in the future
  • employment - by establishing how many people work in different occupations and industries, census information can be used to help plan jobs and training policies
  • ethnic groups - census information can be used to help allocate resources and monitor policies to ensure that all groups are treated equally
  • transport - identifying how and where people travel to work and study will help us understand the pressures on our transport systems and improve planning for roads and public transport
  • education - census information can be used to help plan for education resources, such as schools and teachers’


Call me a cynic but I just do not trust this government. They have already proved that they cannot guarantee the safety and security of our citizens. Gangs from Eastern Europe control large parts of our major cities, carrying out their illicit dealings with impunity. The Coalition have cut Front-Line services to the bone, meaning that the Emergency Services are stretched to the limit. The police can no longer police our streets effectively and data held on the public by government departments is being sold off to the highest bidder.
Is it any wonder then that they want to cut out the one quality assurance process which really works? 
If, as the government wants, computerised records of people, which are held by banks, petrol companies, major retail outlets and utility companies, are used then surely this is a breach not only of our Human Rights but, illegal under the Data Protection Act?

We will all be well and truly into the Orwellian nightmare whereby the government can track you from birth to death and all stops in between. It is, in my opinion, a step too far!
One of the arguments put forward by the government through the Office of National Statistics  (ONS), apart from the cost factor, was that because of mass immigration the census as we know it has become too complex and cumbersome. They argue that many immigrants simply do not fill in the census and / or, because we have a migratory population, it is increasingly difficult to pin people down at the time of the census. I would argue that everyone with a National Insurance number be required by Law to complete a census either hard copy or online every time one is due. I would also suggest that the Border Agency (or whatever it is called nowadays) be made to track down all immigrants, legal or otherwise and make them fill in a census form.
Hard work, difficult work but, a necessity if we are going to get a realistic figure to determine the true population of this country.
I do not ascribe to the theory that migrant workers should be exempt from a National Census, If they are living and working in this country then they are using this country’s resources. Because the local authority in which they are working is responsible for those resources it is only fair that they know exactly how many people are using them. Without that knowledge, how are they going to allocate money and resources through their local budgets sufficient to meet the needs of the local community?

No, the good old census is more than just a head count. It is a valuable tool and one which must not be lost to fiscal foolery. It is also a thorn in the side of the EU. In their ‘Federal Bubble’  there is no place for an accurate head count from within Member States. It causes them problems, it shows up their appalling lack of respect for Sovereign Territory. It also lays bare the calculated trafficking of cheap labour from country to country within the EU. I would suggest this to be a major cause of economic instability within the Union and one which was orchestrated by the faceless suits in Brussels and Strasbourg.
We must send a message to the Coalition detailing why the census must stay. It isn’t out of any sense of nostalgia that I suggest this, more from a position of anger and frustration at a government which uses the people it is supposed to protect as tools in a dodgy EU experiment.

I will be writing to my MP to demand that he do something about this mass auction of private data which will surely take place when the government calls time on the census. I would hope that many more will follow my lead and bombard the ONS and their MP’s with letters of complaint. 
I will also be reminding my MP that next year is crunch year for LibLabConDem and the following year could see the nail go into their collective coffins. For too long they have ignored a somewhat apathetic electorate but now that the apathy has reached many a wallet, people are waking up to the fact that they are being led by conmen and that a change is needed. A change which will come a lot sooner than the present incumbents of the HofC think!








Friday, 6 September 2013

A MAN FOR THE WRONG REASONS.


Prologue

Writing a blog should, I am told, get easier. The more you write, the more you want to write and words will cascade from fingertips to the page. Of late I have found this to be false. Why? Mainly because my interests go deeper than just one subject and, therein lies my problem. I sit down, fingers poised over my keyboard, ready to rant about the latest injustice to break the tranquility of Philbo Towers when; wham! Another shot across the bows! 
It is not a paucity of subject matter which is preventing me from posting what was once a weekly blog but a paucity of concentration. The past month has been alive with controversy both home and abroad and I ought to have been able to sift at least four or, maybe five decent posts from it. For not doing so, I apologise and offer this humble post as a gesture of contrition.

________________________________________________________________________
"I wonder if its small man's syndrome"

It would appear to some in the great Russian Republic that we, in Britain, are not only ‘Little Englanders” but ‘Little Islanders’, as well. Apparently we have become so insignificant on the World stage that we no longer afford the attention of such luminaries as  Vladimir Putin, Francois Hollande or even the diminutive Barak (that’s my real name) Obama.
Our beleaguered, thin-lipped Prime Minister sits in his designated chair at the G8 Summit in St Petersburg, face reddened by days of  bad press and International ridicule, hopelessly scanning the room for someone to talk to. The media, ever ready to kick one of their own when they are down, pounced upon Dave at the earliest convenience and asked:
“Would you like to comment on what Mr Putin said about Great Britain?”
Dave screwed up his well-scrubbed face in order to get the correct shade of indignant red upon his Eton cheeks and replied:
“I refute that!”
What no-one came back with was, refute what? The fact that Putin said it or, the fact that in his (Dave’s) opinion the statement was untrue.

As good a politician as he may be, Cameron is like a fish out of water when it comes to the big stage. The problem he has and, the problem that previous British Prime Ministers have, is that they try too hard to emulate Margaret Thatcher. They forget the axiom that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. By that I mean, men and women tackle problems in a totally different way. 
She, (Mrs Thatcher) got out her favoured blinkers and tackled problems head on. Men, to her, were a weak link in her chain of command but, being the woman she was, she would not allow any other woman to share her vision so she went where instincts lead.   
Blair, to the disgust of many in his party, traded on her legacy mistaking the folly of a woman scorned for warmongering and Cameron is trying to do the same. 
Sadly, they both lacked, (lack in Cameron’s case) the dedication to the UK that she had. Blair has made his vast fortune out of the misery of others, his fortune being where his true focus always lay. Cameron is dedicated to the EU and no matter how many lies he tells or facts he spins, the transparency of his quest is open for all to see. Pity then that his clarity was flawed when he attempted to get Parliament to agree to go to war against Syria. 
Rarely have I seen a leading politician orchestrate and then talk his way into defeat in the manner upon which Cameron did. 

His problem now that he has alienated the United States and given Russia cause for scorn is that he has nowhere to go and no-one to turn to. By sucking up to the EU and the USA he has all but severed relations with the Commonwealth and he will have the Queen to thank when these wounds are healed and good relations are restored. 
If, as he says, his passion is Human Rights and redressing the suffering caused to others, why isn’t he advocating sending troops to Zimbabwe? Or, Myanmar (formerly Burma)? He is willing to send money, which only serves to prop up the despots ruling these countries but is not so keen to either criticise or condemn the vile practices and atrocities inflicted upon the people under the brutal boot of these regimes.

Zimbabwe used to be known as the ‘bread basket’ of Africa. It is now one of the poorest nations in the World. The leader of this once rich nation is amongst one of the richest people in the World. Mugabe and his gang of thugs have raped, pillaged, plundered and murdered in order to keep power. Cameron says he deplores what is going on there but refuses to do anything about it except, that is, flood the accounts of Mugabe with hard earned British taxpayers money.
In South Africa, white people are being sadistically tortured and murdered by the indigenous people while the South African government turns a blind eye. Is Cameron advocating British intervention there? I think we all know the answer to that.

In Britain we have a lot to be proud of, we have a proud history and have helped shape the modern World. What we do not have a lot of is wealth. The Empire brought this country immense wealth, most of which was squandered on war. Another lesson not learned from history. I am not in any way a pacifist and I realise that sometimes you have to stand up and say enough is enough when you see blatant injustice. Gassing your own people is a blatant act and it is right that the World condemn such an act but to go to war for it; that is a whole new ball game. 
There is probably a hidden agenda in this battle of wills between East and West. The Russians hold a monopoly in natural gas distribution to Europe. A project that brings in billions in revenue to the Russian Exchequer. The small Arab Kingdom of Qatar is sitting on probably the largest  field of natural gas in the World and has plans for a pipeline to Turkey. If this goes ahead Mr Putin will have lost his leverage over Europe. Obama will become the saviour of the West while American companies will reap a rich reward from the gas fields.
Apart from his inherited hatred of the British and all things British, this gives a clue as to why Obama was so keen to bankrupt BP over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Notice that Exon is still flourishing, a company with a record for environment safety and welfare as good as Obama’s promises on health reform.

However, back to Cameron. Here is a man who, in his head at least, is on a mission. His whole term in office has been a delusion, one perpetuated by him and fuelled by the sycophants he has put around himself. His mission, as he sees it, is to save the World from itself and in doing so build a better future for our offspring. All very noble if you have the tools with which to carry out your dreams.
When Cameron came into Office the country was, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt! Insidious Labour had emptied the piggy bank and retired, laughing, to the Back Benches. One of his first acts as Prime Minister was to declare that he and his Chancellor would put the economy at the forefront of his priorities and then promptly borrowed billions of £s in order to give it away to foreign despots. In the name of fiscal unity, after all, lets face it, we are all in this together, he and his Cabinet have systematically beggared the poorest in our society whilst making the rich richer. A lack of vision and policies which were not well thought out have ensured that Britain has taken longer than was necessary to gain economic growth. He would have made an excellent Labour Prime Minister.

On the World stage he promises much but in reality can deliver very little. Why? Because he has no money and an under strength Armed Forces with a moral lower than a snakes belly. All his own doing because in his efforts to get the economy back on track he has sold his soul to the Devil. In a case reminiscent of wiping your arse before you have a shit, he sells off our Harrier jump jets and then commissions an aircraft carrier designed to take them with no replacement VTOL aircraft on the horizon for years to come. This has left the Royal Navy in the embarrassing position of having to share an aircraft carrier with France plus spending some of their budget on French lessons.
It is an absolute farce and contributes to the lack of respect shown to Cameron and Britons in general on the World stage.
The ‘Walter Mitty’ of British politics needs to take an early bath along with his cohorts and the entire Opposition. Between them they have flooded the country with foreign nationals, lost control of our borders, given all our power, laws and decision making over to the EU and told lie upon lie in order to cover up their misdeeds.
If the people of this country want to get the pride back that was once abundant in every British person we first have to take control of our country. I do not advocate revolution, I say do it through the ballot box. I have heard and read comment by members of the United Kingdom Independence Party saying that it takes time to change the face of politics in this country. Some also say that you have to support the opposition in some areas in order to keep such and such a Party out. No, you do not! You have to have the courage of your convictions and you have to go out onto the streets, into the communities, into the pubs, on peoples doorsteps and show people that there is an alternative to partisan politics. Sitting back in the hope that someone else will do it is to give Cameron, Clegg and Miliband another term in Office. 
Shrug off the Labour induced apathy, look about you, see what a mess over twenty years of Conservative and Labour policies have done to your communities and to the country. Demand change and if it is not forthcoming, force it through using the ballot box. 

Never again give some jumped up Russian Vodka taste-tester cause to say that we live on a small island of no significance who’s views can be ignored. I blame Cameron for that, his posturing from a weak political position has left this country weak and made us all look stupid.





Tuesday, 20 August 2013

THE FRACTIOUS FAR LEFT!





"Fracking" or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth. Fracking makes it possible to produce natural gas extraction in shale plays that were once unreachable with conventional technologies. Recent advancements in drilling technology have led to new man-made hydraulic fractures in shale plays that were once not available for exploration. In fact, three dimensional imaging helps scientists determine the precise locations for drilling.
Horizontal drilling (along with traditional vertical drilling) allows for the injection of highly pressurized fracking fluids into the shale area. This creates new channels within the rock from which natural gas is extracted at higher than traditional rates. This drilling process can take up to a month, while the drilling teams delve more than a mile into the Earth’s surface. After which, the well is cased with cement to ensure groundwater protection, and the shale is hydraulically fractured with water and other fracking fluids.



Petroleum engineers have used fracking as a means of increasing well production since the late 1940s. Fractures can also exist naturally in formations, and both natural and man-made fractures can be widened by fracking. As a result, more oil and gas can be extracted from a given area of land. 
A few weeks ago I wrote condemning Friends of the Earth, (hitherto known as 'Fiends of the Earth) for their opposition to the shale fragmentation process known as 'fracking'. The main body of which I have included in this post.
It never ceases to amaze me that the 'Greens' and organisations such as Fiends of the Earth know better than the rest of us. Perhaps I need to hug a few trees to feel empowered or, take a trip to the countryside and mingle with the methane being emitted by farmer Giles herd of Jersey cows in order to feel justifiably enraged by this rape of natural resources.
The recent criminal activities of these unwashed, middle-class warriors down at the sleepy West Sussex village of Balcombe beggars belief. The BBC, ever ready for a headline which will disparage any organisation or legitimate company that is not leaning so far over to the left that it is in danger of falling over, made great play of the "peaceful demonstration" propaganda put out by various spokespeople who were, naturally, enraged that a legitimate company like Cuadrilla should be exploring for shale gas in such a peaceful part of the country when their money would be better spent by exploring sites for inefficient, grotesque wind turbines. The point deliberately missed by the hideous BBC, the Greens and the various protest groups is that Cuadrilla are sinking exploratory bores in the search for oil and NOT fracking for shale gas.  
These "peaceful" protesters blocked the B2036 road between Balcombe and Cuckfield. Glued and chained themselves across the emergency exit to the Cuadrilla site, invaded the head office of Cuadrilla in Lichfield causing management to send staff home. Six activists also glued themselves to the London HQ of Bell Pottinger, Cuadrilla's PR company. Yet, not once did the BBC or any other media outlet point out that the protesters were acting illegally. In fact it even took the police nearly a week to do something about these criminal activists.
Yesterday they eventually decided to act like a police force and Officers served a Public Order Act notice, saying the crowd might cause serious damage to property or disrupt the life of the community.They then proceeded to do what they should have done days ago, which was to arrest the more aggressive and plain stupid of the 'great unwashed' and clear the site so that Cuadrilla could get on with their LAWFUL activities. To great media fanfare during this process the police arrested Caroline Lucas, the former leader of the Green Party. Anxious to get her five minutes of fame, this fading light on the political scene, deigned to give her interview whilst in handcuffs and being carried away by the police.
Later, she said, and I quote: "People today, myself included, took peaceful non-violent direct action only after exhausting every other means of protest available to us."
"I'm in the privileged position of being able to put questions to the government directly and arrange debates in parliament, but still ministers have refused to listen. Despite the opposition to fracking being abundantly clear, the government has completely ignored the views of those they are supposed to represent.
"When the democratic deficit is so enormous, people are left with very little option but to take peaceful, non-violent direct action."
As usual Ms Lucas and the minority do-gooders like her are totally missing the point. This country cannot afford to import gas and oil, the EU has made it impossible for us to produce our own energy because of ridiculous emission targets that they have set for carbon fuels. The, so-called, sustainable option is too expensive and only puts tax-payers money into the over-stuffed coffers of the energy companies. Not only that but it is grossly inefficient. The Greens, the far left and the LibDems are against nuclear power so what is the government to do? Loathe as I am to agree with Cameron, we have to look to explore the possibility of reclaiming fossil fuel in order to sustain the energy needs of the country. Both now and into the future. Shale gas and shale oil meet those needs and the scaremongering should be exposed for what it is; scaremongering!
This leads me neatly into my previous post...

With a looming energy crisis just around the corner one would think that everyone would be pulling together in order to avert said crisis. Not so the tree-hugging Friends of the Earth. This country has the potential, not only to produce relatively cheap energy from beneath the ground, but to become a major exporter of gas and oil. We have, so the experts tell us, enough reserves of gas and oil locked in shale deep underground to last for up to one hundred and forty-one years.
It will come as no surprise to readers of "The Lunatics Monthly" that the tree-huggers are using EU Regulations, Global Warming and the threat, (imaginatively conceived) to wildlife as the main thrusts in their argument. They, like Labour, argue for 'renewables'. Ironically it was proved to be the case that Friends of the Earth were no friends to wildlife when a bird - rare to British shores - came upon a wind turbine.
Much to the astonishment and despair of the assembled 'twitchers', who had gathered to witness the arrival of the White-throated Needletail, the poor thing was decapitated by the swirling blades of the wind turbine. Not so renewable wildlife dispatched to the Great Aviary in the sky by one of the tree-huggers favourite methods of renewable energy. Oops, doesn't cut it!
The frightening thing about Friends of the Earth is that, on the surface, their arguments are plausible. However, you only have to dig just below the surface to realise how weak and nasty their case against fracking is. Scaremongering of the very worst order! They say that chemicals used in the fracking process will contaminate the water table. At this point it would be sensible to ask yourselves, 'how many chemicals occur naturally underground'? Too many to list in this blog anyway! These are filtered out by our water companies as part of the process of supplying fresh water to the populace. The next question is, 'what chemicals are the fracking industry using?' Well, we have NaCl, a mixture of sodium and chloride However, don't panic as you are probably sprinkling it on your french fries as you read this. It is common salt. The other is commonly used by wearers of contact lenses to lubricate them. Nothing "TOXIC"  as Friends of the Earth would have you believe and nothing that cannot be dealt with and rendered safe.
Of course there is always the 'biggy,' Global Warming! They base their evidence on their belief that methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, will be spilling into the atmosphere through the fracking process. Again, studies have shown that, yes, methane will be released but not in the amounts spouted by Friends of the Earth and any such leakage can be contained and controlled. Further, shale gas is less of a pollutant than natural gas.
There is another irony to this sorry tale, while the Friends of the Earth are dragging shale gas exploration through the courts, the esteemed George Osborne is giving just under two billion pounds of our money to "climate aid" abroad. This at a time when we need every penny that the Treasury can save. It is utter madness and no surprise to find that, once again, our politicians are bowing to the diktats of a Federal European Union. The Green Policies eschewed and put into Law by the power-hungry elite in Brussels are costing this country billions of pounds and causing the loss of thousands of jobs. It simply cannot go on. When is someone going to have the strength to stand up to these crooks and say enough is enough!?
Remember these words from four years ago? "No party which detaches itself from the EU mainstream can claim to be committed to acting on climate change." Yes, spoken with a straight face by our very own, one-eyed 'Man o' the Manse', Mr Gordon Brown. a Prime Minister so inept that he single-handedly made the Labour Party unelectable. So sold on the idea of Climate Change and Global Warming was this drip that he put into legislation laws which would ensure that four years down the line this country would be facing a serious shortage of energy producing plant.
I will remind you again of this idiots vision: "And at home we are implementing a radical set of climate policies. Our Climate Change Act makes the UK the first country to put our emissions cuts into law – by 34 per cent by 2020, and by 80 per cent by 2050. And the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan we published in July (www.decc.gov.uk) is the first in the world to give every department responsibility for its own "carbon budget". Of course, Labour were too busy congratulating themselves to realise that if you de-commission perfectly good power stations then it is prudent to have new ones on standby.
They like the loons in Friends of the Earth will tell you that wind power, biomass, hydro, wave power and solar power are the future for our energy needs. They haven't told you that we cannot afford these ridiculous, still in development, forms of generating electricity. by the way, Friends of the Earth are no friend to this Planet!  Some facts: - Solar power, photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar thermal panels (CSP). PV takes up 3.5 to 10 hectares of land per megawatt of energy produced. CSP takes up to 4  - 16.5 hectares of land per megawatt of energy produced. This land cannot be utilised for anything other than the production of energy.
PV plant creation involves the use of some very nasty chemicals. HCl - hydrochloric acid. H2SO4 - sulphuric acid. HNO3 nitric acid. HF - hydrogen fluoride. C2HCl3 - trichloroethane. C3H6O - acetone.
Wind turbines take up between 30 - 141 acres of land per megawatt of energy produced. Yes this land can be re-used but the use is limited. Add to this the cost in compensation that the Government is paying to landowners for this land. Not only that, but when the useless wind turbines fail to produce energy because the wind is too strong then the owners of the turbines are compensated to the tune of millions of taxpayers money!
Strange how the tree-huggers look the other way when confronted by facts such as the above. The truth is not in their remit nor, does it follow EU diktat.  If all else fails they will tell you that fracking causes earthquakes. Really? Studies have shown that coal mining causes more earthquakes than fracking.
Until we get strong government in this country we are going to be plagued by minority groups such as Friends of the Earth, with their loony agendas, holding up our economic recovery. It is time we ditched the present crop of useless Westminster incumbents and instead put our faith in sensible politics. Politics with the interests of Britain and the British people at its heart. There is only one Party which can and will deliver sensible politics and I fear that if Britain does not wake up that Party will go the same way as the wretched White-throated Needletail!




THE SILENT MAJORITY!




The ‘Silent Majority’ , never has their silence been more deafening! From politics to environmental issues, from the economy to immigration, the silence is truly frightening. Protest groups abound, purporting to speak for everyone yet rarely doing so as most are double-jointed and speaking from their own sphincters.

Sarcasm aside, we have entered a worrying phase in this country. People would sooner use their mobile phones to take video footage of an elderly Asian gentleman getting verbally and physically abused by a rabid young woman than use it to call for police assistance. There was a time, not to long ago, when this vile individual would have been surrounded by outraged citizens and held until the police arrived. Unfortunately this brings us to another trait of modern Britain, the response time of the police. Not only that but those holding the perpetrator are as likely to get arrested as the victim when the police do eventually see fit to arrive upon the scene whilst the thug walks free.

Now, we have the diabolical spectacle of mob rule coming before the rule of Law. In Balcombe the police have advised the drilling company, Cuadrilla, to scale back their drilling operation because they cannot guarantee the safety of the site. Another example of the Silent Majority allowing the loud-mouthed, ill-informed minority to walk all over them and blight the future of their children. A sensible debate is one thing, mob rule is an entirely different animal and one which we ‘The Majority’  should shout down. 
I must admit that I am confused about the Law in cases like this. I thought that there were rules in place concerning the size of a protest gathering. Isn’t this how pickets were outlawed by the Tories? I may be wrong and, please correct me if I am, but we simply cannot allow a motley crew of ‘Swampies’ and haute couture diva’s to get their own way because they shout louder and push harder.

No surprise that Cameron and his weak entourage of Ministers will eventually side with the Greens and single issue extremists. Of course he will tell us mere mortals that a review of procedures is needed in order to run these exploration sites safely and efficiently. This of course will put the Shale Fracturing Industry back months, if not years.  The ‘Silent Majority’  will be duped into believing that the ‘fat-cat’  bosses of the oil and gas industries have questions to answer on both environmental and safety issues  and that until satisfactory answers are forthcoming, no more drilling will take place.
As usual it will be a complete farce and whitewash. The coalition using their usual tactic of trying to please everyone except where it pleases them to do different.

What of the police? The Chief Constable of Sussex, Martin Richards, certainly has questions to answer. If he isn’t up to the job he should be removed immediately so to the incumbent of the overpaid and completely nonsensical post of Police and Crime Commissioner.
The majority of the population showed their utter contempt for this post by turning out in their 10’s all across the country to vote for these non-jobs. What was the turnout, about 14%? Another case of the ‘Silent Majority’  being totally ignored.

It is this silent apathy which allows our politicians and their paymasters in the Bildberg Group, Common Purpose and the EU to sell this country down the river. Real issues are swept under the carpet because they, the men in suits, are safe in the knowledge that the majority of the people of Britain will suffer in silence.
This apathy is not just a trait in this country, My friends in America tell the same story which is why the worst President in living memory has been allowed to live a lie for the past six years. 

Democracy works on a majority vote arrived at after serious discussion and debate. It also allows for peaceful protest from the minority should they feel aggrieved by the decision of the majority. What it does not allow for or should condone, is violent or intimidating protest because things have not gone the way of the protestors. All too often we see this happening and the authorities caving in to it.

America in the Fifties had McCarthyism and the witch-hunt that ensued because of it. We cannot allow that sort of thing to happen in this country. We have had Leveson and the Hacked Off campaign which tried and succeeded in heavily influencing the outcome.
What was behind this blatant attack on democracy in this country, who bankrolled Hacked Off, what is it that fosters the Silent Majority? 
In my opinion the root of all evil, the most disruptive force against democracy in Great Britain is Common Purpose. We need to bring this vile organisation to the fore and show it up what it really is. A power hungry organisation which trains its graduates to peck away at the very fabric of democracy from the inside. Common Purpose is a registered Charity but, upon investigation, you find that it is a lot more than that. It is a political organisation which is pro EU and its main aim is to destroy democracy in this country. 

Their methods are simple but effective. 
Create apathy.
Create discontent with the Government and within the Government.
Create an active minority
Create an inactive ‘Silent Majority’
Four boxes ticked and we, the British Public, are allowing it to go on because most of it is done in secret. It will be a long and dirty fight if we are to reverse the evils of CP. They have infiltrated everywhere, government, business, banking, law, the police. Every time you turn over a stone you will find Common Purpose.

They are at the heart of Government, the insidious BBC, the Civil Service. In fact, wherever you look you will find a CP graduate. Their influence is everywhere and anyone who opposes them or their practices is labelled with an ‘ism’ or, called racist or, ‘Little Englander’. Sound familiar? It should, the United Kingdom Independence party is in the firing line at the moment and, probably, the only British political Party unafraid to stand up to this vile organisation against democracy.

To give some idea of the tentacles of power I have inserted a graphic which goes some way to show the influence Common Purpose has over us and why we are all  in danger of falling under its eveil spell.






LOOK, LEARN AND BE FRIGHTENED!




Wednesday, 12 June 2013

RUSTLER



Dawn, the strengthening sun tortures the morning mist into submission allowing the reeds to reflect the suns rays across the vast Fenland.

Two men, partially hidden by a chicken coop, smoke leisurely hand-rolled cigarettes. The smoke, rising slowly until caught by the early morning breeze, is whisked away in ever thinning strands of blue.

One of the men, Jake, turns to the other and points in the direction of the horizon.
Jake: “Say, Billybob, is that some fellah raisin’ dust over thar?”
Billybob: “Fellah sure is in a hurry! Jake.”
Jake: “Jumpin Jehosaphat Billybob! That thars Rustler Wharton and he 
                 looks like he’s loaded for bear!”
Billybob: “Shoot Jake! He’s n wearin sandals!”
Jake: “Sandals, ya say? Sheet, maybees we shud hightail it outa here!” 

They move towards their horses but Rustler is too quick for them. He reins in next to Billybob, takes note of his disheveled appearance and pock-marked face. He positions his horse to block their exit and cut them off from their nags.

Rustler: “Howdy Pilgrim. Is that a goose between you pardners legs or is he    
                 just pleased to see me?” 

BillyBob is looking up at Rustler and squinting because Rustler has made sure that the sun is in the poor man’s face.

Billybob: “We aint no rustlers, rustler, rustlers rustle cattle and that aint no 
                 cow!” 
Jake: “Sides, we aint got no beef with you Rustler!”
Rustler: “I’ll be the Judge o’ that Pilgrim.”
Jake: “You think you is  a big man in these parts, dontcha? Well it don't
                  hold no water with me!”
Rustler: “I’m a mind to put a few holes in that saggy belly o yourn, see 
                   how watertight that’ll make you Pilgrim!”
Billybob: “No need fer thait Rustler. Caint we cum to sum sort o 
                  arrangement?”
Rustler: “Make your arrangements with the Devil Pilgrim cos I’m
                  sendin yo both to Hell!”

Boom, boom!.


Two shots ring out and there is blood in the chicken cop!.

Tuesday, 4 June 2013

100 REASONS

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
  1. In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduceCO2 emissions
  2. Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

 49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

 51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

 52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

 53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

 54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics.  Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.  

 56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

 57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

 58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

 59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth. 

 61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

 62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

 63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

 64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

 65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

 66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature. 

 67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

 68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

 69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

 71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

 72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all. 

 73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

 74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

 75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes. 

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

 77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

 78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

 80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

 81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

 82)  Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

 83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.  

 84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

 85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

 86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

 87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

 88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

 89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

 91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

 92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

 93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

 94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

 95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

 96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

 97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

 98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

 99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

 100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”