Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Britain is NOT lawfully any part of the EU


With the following Daily Express announcement on Monday 26 January, two gravely serious and consequential facts are being conveniently overlooked.
1.  Britain is NOT lawfully any part of the EU.
2.  Metrication in Britain is treason.
The following documents are attached.
1.  Britain Is Not Part Of The EU
2.  The Absurdity Of Metrication In Britain
3.  The Treason Of Metrication In Britain
I urge you to read all of these as, according to the Express article, a very serious criminal act upon Britain is likely to be committed.
Surveys consistently show that over 90% of British people object to and refuse to accept metrication in this country.
Please also note that at her Coronation in 1953, Her Majesty the Queen solemnly undertook to uphold and protect English law and custom.  As the current holder of the Office of the Crown, her lifelong obligation under the common law of Kingship, is to protect and preserve the United Kingdom for her successors, as she received it. 
The Queen cannot change those laws or customs as she is herself subject to them.  That means that she cannot interfere with established English law or alter English custom by imposing or allowing to be imposed upon her subjects, foreign rule or any system of (foreign) metric measurement.  Such acts are treasonable contrary to English Constitutional and Common Law, specifically those mentioned below.  They carry very serious penalties.
What the Queen cannot do, her servants in Parliament cannot do.  Neither can public servants in local government, government agencies or major companies acting on Britain’s behalf.  To attempt to do so is to place oneself above the Queen.  That is to imagine the death of Her Majesty.  Both of these are major acts of High Treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act, also the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1848 Treason Felony Act.

Yours sincerely, 

Rex Poulton

Wilts

1
BRITAIN IS NOT PART OF THE EU 
When he signed the European Communities Act in 1972, Prime Minister Edward Heath
knowingly and wilfully tricked, deceived and betrayed
the British people into foreign rule by the EEC/EU under the pretence that they’d be joining a European common trading agreement. The true intention was to surrender Britain’s sovereignty. His was the most calculating and grievous High Treason in British history. He gave away
his country
. Upon signing, his treason instantly removed him from lawful office and his treasonous act failed to become lawfully binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that. His then treasonous government immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government is not lawful and has no legitimacy. No parliament can bind a successor. But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to reinforce Heath’s outrageous pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly consented to foreign rule. As public servants, neither he nor they ever had such authority and their actions are highly treasonous contrary to English law for acting against the nation’s known interests, intention to surrender its sovereignty, using wilful deception to deliberately betray the nation and for acting in the political interests of a foreign power. It is effectively to declare war on the British Crown and the nation and is treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Treason Felony Act 1848. Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly. With no legitimacy and in knowingly committing the most evil act of treason against their own people, each has invited and imposed foreign rule over their own country. Since 1972, not one has acted within the law. Having solemnly sworn lifetime oaths of loyalty and allegiance to serve and protect Britain, each has conspired in this treason and they persist in deceitfully concealing the truth of their illicit activities from the public as it has long been known that the British people would never accept it and would object most violently were they ever to find out. But they are finding out. Parliaments’ history of treason and corruption is a matter of public record with an increasing number of research documents, newspaper and magazine articles, TV documentaries and an overwhelming amount of Foreign and Commonwealth Office documentary evidence released to the public domain. Over 600 pages of it can be downloaded and read at http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-relateddownloads/ and this evidence is also verified in Hansard with a full and complete record of politicians’ statements. No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or intent by an unlawful assembly. English law therefore, stands as it was prior to signing of the 1972 Act. Thus Britain is not and can never have been part of the European Union as every Act, EU Treaty and every statute since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent, is treasonous, unlawful, null and
2 void. Not one has the force of law. In any case, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a signatory power may abrogate any treaty unilaterally where corruption can be demonstrated in respect of procuring the treaty in the first place or in respect of any dimension of it's implementation. This means that the known and proven treason by Heath and his successors and the widely recognized and often reported deep corruption within the EU render every EU Treaty “signed” by Britain, invalid. The European Union has no legitimate influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither does its Napoleonic European Law. Their authority exist only in the minds of certain politicians in furtherance of the European Union political agenda. Britain may walk away at any time without a second thought as she is not a part of it anyway. Moreover, the supremacy of English law in Britain automatically intercedes and strikes down any attempt to repeal, subvert, overrule or replace it. The deceit, pretence and false enforcement of Britain’s “European involvement” is none other than parliamentary make-believe and pure theatre designed at the highest levels to deceive and subjugate the people to foreign rule against their will for others’ political purpose contrary to Common Law. It is WILFUL TREASON.
A succession of unlawful British parliaments therefore, having no legitimacy, illegally
and without mandate, wilfully and criminally import and impose upon their own people,
foreign rule and influence that has no authority in Britain. English Constitutional and Common Law is beyond parliamentary reach to alter or repeal and cannot be ignored. Parts are, in any case, by contract directly between the King and his people. Thus Parliament is not a party to those arrangements and can have no input. Importantly, this English law is immutable and in perpetuity, written specifically to forever protect the British people from despotic governance. Even Her Majesty the Queen cannot change or ignore these laws as she is herself subject to them. She cannot surrender Britain’s sovereignty that she holds in trust from the British people, for her successors. Neither can she relinquish Britain’s independence and freedom of self determination to a foreign power. Her solemn obligation is to protect and preserve the United Kingdom for her successors, as she received it. What she cannot do, her
servants in Parliament ALSO cannot do. A succession of British parliaments has since 1972 attempted to do the very things the Queen cannot. In so doing, each has placed themselves above the Queen which is to imagine her death. Each of these acts is the most serious treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. Thus their treason is compound in plotting and attempting to give away their country and in considering themselves above the Queen whose death they casually assume. The Common Law imposes strict and enduring duties upon every British subject from birth. Every British subject is duty bound in allegiance and loyalty to the nation and in the reporting and prevention of treason. These obligations are absolute and inseparable wherever one may be around the world and cannot be resigned except by renouncing British nationality. They far pre-date the Bill of Rights 1689 which protects Britain from all foreign influence or rule by any power or authority: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath
or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority
Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.” Britain’s pretend EU membership is contrary to (among others) the 1351 Treason Act, the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treason Felony Act
Britain Is Not Part Of The EU3 1848. These laws, remember, are beyond the reach of Parliament to amend, repeal or to disregard and just because modern day lawyers are not trained in these laws does not mean they do not exist or that serious offences against them have not been and are not committed. Under the Act of Settlement 1700 S4, these English Constitutional and Common Laws are the birthright of the people and cannot be taken away. The treason committed by Britain’s politicians is being reported by a growing number of angered people across the country, to the police for prosecution. The police have accepted the evidence as prima facie cases to answer with a view to further action being taken. Under English Common Law anyone who is aware that treason is contemplated or has or is being committed but who do nothing to report or prevent it, commits the equally serious offences of ‘Misprision of Treason at common law’ (knowing of treason committed but doing nothing to report or prevent it) and ‘Compounding (the) Treason at common law’ any act or inaction which effectively condones, supports or allows the treason to continue). These are tried in court as the original treason. The legal obligation to report known treason extends to every British national. Treason continues to be regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon the British nation that it is still a hanging offence. Ignorance of the law is, of course, no defence.
Lawful Britain

THE ABSURDITY OF BRITAIN’S METRICATION 
This is a matter of national importance. Of serious criminality and of law. Surveys show that 90% of British people are angry at Britain’s metrication against their will. For centuries, Britain led the world with well thought-out imperial measurements. Their convenient size, simple whole numbers and instantly relatable measures however, are being energetically derided by Europhiles as clumsy and old fashioned when the world has itself far preferred imperial’s better qualities and refused to adopt the metrication political agenda unless enforced by tyranny and despotism. Contrary to law we are being forced, to our detriment, to accept poorly conceived, inferior foreign standards. It is as consequential as being compelled to give up our English language and what is not realised by many is that Britain’s metrication is not about “easing trade with
Europe”
as we are expected to believe. That is a conveniently contrived lie. Told we must be metric in order to trade with Europe, we have successfully traded with the world for centuries (and the world with us) using imperial measurement which many nations have preferred and benefited from and continue to choose. The real purpose of metrication is to remove imperial measurement as yet another step in eliminating the English as a people. Just as mass immigration, it is part of a covert programme of genocide against the British by attacking our cultural structure, indoctrination of our young and destabilising the nation by dividing and setting rival groups. It is part of the calculated destruction of our English society because it obstructs subjugation and total foreign rule. Just like immigration, it is planned cultural replacement by stealth. Britain’s metrication also has to do with the purposeful dumbing-down of society. Where for centuries, man has successfully worked with nature’s multiples of 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16, his mental capacity is being intentionally degraded to a primitive aptitude with multiples only of 10. As one headteacher put it, “It is a serious insult to our children and abuse of their
thinking capability to deliberately limit their mental agility by imposing such a restricting
system of measurement as metrication”(Daily Mail).
Many parents, apparently, agree. Does it not occur to you that Britain’s metrication was never offered for public consideration? It is imposed with a religious fervour by public servants presuming to be lord and master, conspiring in an illegal agenda against their own people. That in itself is treason quite apart from metrication being treasonable contrary to English law as we shall see below. At her Coronation in 1953, Her Majesty the Queen solemnly undertook to uphold and protect English Constitutional and Common Law and the customs of the United Kingdom and the then Empire. The Queen cannot change those laws and customs as she is herself subject to them. What she cannot do, her parliament as her servants also cannot do. That a succession of parliaments since the early 1970’s has sought to impose metrication in Britain
2 contrary to those protected laws and customs means that besides acting criminally contrary to law and custom, each of those officials has placed themselves above the Queen. That in turn means that they imagine the death of the Queen. Both of these are acts of the most serious treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. Britain’s metrication is thus treasonable on two counts. Treason contrary to the laws themselves and treason in the manner of its introduction beyond those officials’ authority. Imperial weights and measures for all purposes protected by English Constitutional and Common Law were expressly authorised years earlier by Parliament in Westminster. No amending Act has ever been introduced. British industry refused to adopt metrication until criminally threatened with prosecution and certain imprisonment. Now, industry is forced to act illegally and to oblige its British customers to do so as well. The Metric Martyrs (
http://www.metricmartyrs.co.uk/) lost their court battle to use imperial weights and measures solely because of treasonous governmental chicanery and manipulation.Britain will never be a “metric” nation Despite the proclaimed importance and necessity for metrication, Britain is never likely to become a metric nation. Critically, the people do not consent. Survey results repeatedly show they reject metrication as “inferior, restricting, inflexible, problematic, unfit for daily
purpose”
and “of limited utility”. Ask any person on the street. They instinctively know their height, weight and approximate distance from home in English imperial measurement. A vast majority of those taught metrication in school even, do not know what those are in metric units and choose imperial measurement over metric anyway. Our roads, distances and road signs will never become metric. The financial and political cost of conversion is far too colossal for any government ever to consider risking its electoral reputation for such an unpopular matter. The United States, too, will never be metric for all the same reasons and American people reject metrication just as strongly. In Canada, metrication proved so unpopular that the Government backed down and reinstated people’s freedom to choose imperial measurement. Australian and other English speaking peoples also choose imperial despite governments’ claims otherwise. Many “metric” nations use metric units in imperial quantities because only those suit life’s needs. Metric units do not. The argument that Britain must adopt international measurement standards is unfounded. There is no international standard. Every metric nation uses a slightly different version while many of their people use imperial instead. So while nations in their nationalism reject the international principle, their populations for reason of practicality still choose imperial. The world-leading German optics industry, for example, pay lip-service to metrication as European law demands but they convert all their calculations into imperial units for greater utility. International law, moreover, demands that all aviation and sea going measurements be imperial. The metre can never replace altitudes in feet as radio communication dictates the simple clarity of whole round numbers and practical flying height above ground level cannot be divided into the necessary range of safely separated altitudes, quadrantal cruise levels and flight levels when the metre is much too cumbersome for such precision. All air and sea distances are in nautical miles, yards, feet and inches and quantities are in ounces and pounds, tons, pints, quarts and gallons. Note the generally monosyllabic nature of these for radio communication clarity. Aviation fuel is measured in pounds compatibleThe Absurdity of Britain’s Metrication3 with aircraft weight and balance calculation and all aircraft instrumentation is in imperial as is air traffic control. Cloud cover is quantified in oktas (eighths). Imperial units are chosen universally for their practicality and application. The metric accounting system is unsuitable as it is workable only in 10s. The majority of those in Britain who use metric measurement terms do so not out of conscious choice but because they have been deceitfully made to believe it fashionable or obligatory by law. What they do not realise, is that fashions are often impractical and short lived frequently for some arbitrary frame of mind, that the nation as a whole rejects metrication and that there is no law that requires it. If the metric system offered the claimed improvement over traditional measurement, then it will have been eagerly adopted across the world long ago. But it has not. The millions of the world’s people have consistently rejected it. Why ? Because it offers only obstruction in people’s lives.Problems with the metric system An arbitrary construct arising from anxiety during the French Revolution, the metre was conceived by the very people who tried to abolish the Christian calendar and even Christianity itself. In their obsession to reduce every quantity to ten, they have never succeeded in decimalising time, angles or the degrees in a circle. Metrication as a system did not receive the depth of serious consideration for its practicality as did imperial measurement. Nature does not conform to man’s contrivances and even space and the planet we inhabit have from time immemorial, been measurable in multiples of six squared. For its base 10 principle, metrication is a system of accounting not measuring. Life’s dimensions, unfortunately, do not obey this strict principle of measurement in 10s and there is even doubt as to its suitability in science where many regard it prone to disastrous error and purely a political expedience to progress bureaucratic meddling. Metrication suffers intractable problems. Unlike imperial, it offers too few units each of ill conceived, impractical size. This involves unduly complex numbers frequently necessitating decimal fractions for accuracy whose decimal point is easily misplaced (catastrophic in medicine and science), unseen or omitted altogether. Long number strings are in any case, off-putting and far from easy to scale or mentally calculate. Unlike imperial, its units have no readily identifiable reference in the world or relationship with man’s existence on Earth. This means their dimensions are unrelatable unlike imperial’s instantly recognised parts of the human anatomy or commonplace articles for immediate assessment, appreciation and ease of communication. Whether one accepts the metre as being one ten-millionth part of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator along the Paris Meridian at sea level (how did they ever measure that precisely ?), or the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second, it is actually meaningless. Neither can be visualized much less offer any kind of perception. The most recent incarnation of the metre as declared by the International Committee for Weights and Measures is as a “unit of proper length” whose definition is restricted to “lengths ℓ which are sufficiently short for the effects predicted by
general relativity to be negligible with respect to the uncertainties of realisation”.
But still the metre cannot be readily identified. The imperial foot can - and has for millennia. As standard divisions on scales and rulers, the inch is divided into 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 48, 50 and 64 for instant application and accuracy. The metre offers only 10thsThe Absurdity of Britain’s Metrication4 (centimetres) and 100ths (millimetres). Ask yourself which is more useful. These metric terms are not just excessively wordy, but 10ths and 100ths are not particularly practical with life’s countless sizes. So for fine measurement, you invariably end up with decimal fractions because the metric scale does not lend itself to the task. Perhaps not surprisingly, some modern rulers and scales offer inches only in 10ths on one edge and centimetres and millimetres on the other as if this choice satisfied every possible measuring requirement. It cannot and rarely does. The two are entirely incompatible so one is left struggling with imagined parts of either. This would suggest an ill-considered political decision as the frequently used 1/32 of an inch is finer than the millimetre and would more practicably associate directly with the inches edge as a workable system. When using imperial, how sensible is it to base every measurement from several miles down to a matter of inches, on the yard (3 feet) ? Did you assess every weight as a decimal fraction of not quite two and a quarter pounds and did you measure liquid in multiples of less than a quart (quarter of a gallon) ? How practical was it to use (say) “0.762 yard” (30 inches, the standard door width) instead of simply saying “2 foot 6” or even “2-6” ? A standard door is 2-6 by 6-6. When did you ever measure empty space (oven size, car boot size) in gallons ? We used width, breadth and depth which gainfully conveyed something to us, or maybe cubic measure. The metric procedure quantifies volume by liquid equivalent - which conveys little and cannot be visualised. Just how big is a 20 litre oven ? How often did you consider that your airliner was flying at the standardised flight level of 10666.6 yards (32,000 feet) ? Why are imperial measurements the international choice ? Because they are practical, appropriately sized, use simple whole numbers, are easily to mentally calculate and have considerable utility. Metrication’s few measures are all impractical. A kilo of produce is far more than people want. The English pound was designed to be well suited. There is no viable metric unit in use between centimetres and metres. We usefully have inches, feet and yards, all interrelating, designed for a variety of purposes and identifiable yet distinct for life’s ranges of size. There is nothing between metres and kilometres. We benefit from yards, furlongs (traditionally in horse racing) and fathoms at sea and very conveniently, standard simple quarters or halves of a mile. And there is nothing between kilograms and tonnes. We have ounces, pounds, stones, hundredweights and tons for every conceivable range of weight. All imperial units offer instant application in simple whole numbers for any size or purpose. Metrication involves large and anomalous complex numbers in too few units often requiring a decimal point easily omitted, misplaced or unseen. It is not so simple or instant to work with. What is so telling, however, is that many metric sizes and quantities in use throughout the world are in complex part units that approximate to the imperial sizes that life demands. So the imperial measures were right all along then - and they use simple whole numbers. Another frequent decimalisation problem is that it cannot use imperial’s simple whole round numbers. Has it ever occurred to you that the imperial system was conceived to provide a measure size suited to every quantifying need while allowing simple whole round numbers for instant comparison, mental calculation and communication ? You cannot do these things with metric units. Though metrication has been taught in schools to satisfy the pro-metric lobbyists, it is interesting to note that even the Prime Minister has recognised and demanded the importance of our children learning the imperial measures as the lawful and most sensible system of measurement.The Absurdity of Britain’s Metrication5 Unbelievably, we now find the “apolitical” BBC and other TV companies and producers using their unthinkable and unlawful political influence to improperly sponsor and impose metrication upon unsuspecting viewers in public broadcast and websites. Not only that, but they presume to instruct independent TV producers in this illegal activity and the general public as to the metric measures they must customarily, and illegally, use. As the British people reject metrication, this is outright treason. Yet such is the BBC’s understanding of British measurement that we are told the imperial yard (36 inches) is greater than the metre (39.370 inches). From wherever around the world they report, TV companies insist upon giving every measurement in metric units presumably to emphasise the “foreignness” of the location completely ignoring that British people do not understand, indeed refuse to understand, these foreign terms so glibly foist upon them. In TV programmes and films we are now given dimensions in metric units even though few people understand them and they convey nothing to us. Just so long as it is in metric, is all that matters. It is not beyond the wit of man to realise that British viewers (and indeed many others) expect imperial units they understand and which will convey something of meaning. To convert metric to imperial for people’s comprehension is a very simple act for producers to undertake and is surely part of the broadcasting service they are paid for. Why not otherwise do away with English and broadcast programmes from other countries in their native tongue ? Many viewers, apparently, simply change channels as programme value has gone and all trust and confidence in the broadcasting companies’ service is thereafter lost. We also find that TV companies ridiculously believe it shrewd to use miles for large distances in Britain but metres for everything else. First, two entirely incompatible systems cannot work together. There is no correlation or continuity. Assessing metric measurements with miles becomes impossible. Second, it demonstrates a gratuitous determination to pursue the metric political campaign regardless of sense or logic, with no thought for the confusion and hostility it causes, or the obscuring of information offered and loss of public trust. In this manner, moreover, companies unmistakably advertise themselves as serial law breakers.NOW THE LEGAL PART. Lawyers these days are not trained or versed in English Constitutional and Common Law. Thus few comprehend that these laws actually exist, remain in force as written or that crimes against them are routinely committed. Such crime therefore goes unrecognised, unheeded and consequently becomes “acceptable” behaviour. This is why society is so insensible and lawless and it is why foreign (European Napoleonic) law is so casually imported and allowed to freely prevail in Britain’s judicial system. Treason is historically an important part of English law. It is why many laws were written in the first place. These English laws, importantly, are immutable and in perpetuity. They cannot be altered, repealed or ignored by Government and they were written specifically to forever protect British people from despotic governance. Even the Queen cannot change these laws as she is herself subject to them. What she cannot do, her servants in Parliament also cannot do. Treason is betrayal or breach of faith against the will or the interests of the person or the nation. In speech, intent or action, it is disloyalty or to violate one’s allegiance or obligationThe Absurdity of Britain’s Metrication6 to another, to one’s own people and thus to one’s country in support of any other principle, state, power or authority. It carries very serious penalties. To use or represent the metric system in Britain as the accepted legal standard British units of measurement is to undermine and mislead the British public mind. Most commonly found in government services and British TV broadcasting, its use is to influence the nation into believing that Britain has accepted and adopted this alien system of measurement when in fact, the people flatly reject it. To undermine or mislead the British nation against its will is a serious offence. It is TREASON. Imperial weights and measures for all purposes are protected by English Constitutional and Common Law. They have been expressly authorised in law by the British Parliament in Westminster. No amending Act has ever been introduced. No law, ruling or edict exists that requires Britain’s metrication. No White or Green Paper, political party manifesto, Queen’s speech, parliamentary legislative programme or popular mandate has ever suggested that Britain should or would adopt the metric system. The imperial scales therefore remain the lawful standard British measurement system in official and exclusive use in this country, required and protected by law. BY LAW. Nothing else is legal or permitted. The government inspired mantra “The UK took the decision to adopt the metric system in
1965
” has been clearly exposed as the deliberate lie that it is. It was contrived for political purpose and is widely known as “the Myth of 1965”. The UK has never “decided” to adopt metrication. The public have never been consulted. Their agreement or consent has never been sought, let alone given and metrication has never been debated in Parliament. The myth arises solely from the personal hope of two 1960’s pro-Europe civil servants and Harold Wilson’s failed sop to the French who refused UK admission to the EEC anyway. These do not justify, legalise or authorise Britain’s metrication against people’s will. Britain is not and has never been part of the European Union. Metrication therefore has no claimed purpose. When he signed the European Communities Act in 1972, Prime Minister Edward Heathknowingly and wilfully tricked, deceived and betrayed the British people into foreign rule by the EEC/EU. His was the most calculating and grievous treason in British history. He
gave away his country.
Upon signing, his treasonous act instantly removed him from lawful office and it failed to become legally binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that. His then treasonous government immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government is not lawful and has no legitimacy. No parliament can bind a successor. But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to reinforce Heath’s outrageous pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly consented to foreign rule. As public servants, neither he nor they ever had such authority and their actions are highly treasonous for conspiring against the nation’s known interests, intention to surrender its sovereignty, using wilful deception to deliberately betray the nation and for acting in the political interests of a foreign power. It is effectively to declare war on the British Crown and the nation which is treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Treason Felony Act 1848.The Absurdity of Britain’s Metrication7 Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly. With no legitimacy and in knowingly committing the most evil act of treason against their own people, each has invited and imposed foreign rule over their own country. Since 1972, not one has acted within the law. Having solemnly sworn lifetime oaths of loyalty and allegiance to serve and to protect Britain, each has conspired in this treason and they persist in deceitfully concealing the truth of their illicit activities from the public as it has always been known that the British people would object most violently were they ever to find out. But they are finding out. Parliaments’ treason and corruption is a matter of public record with an increasing number of research documents, newspaper and magazine articles, TV documentaries and an overwhelming amount of Foreign and Commonwealth Office documentary evidence released to the public domain. Over 600 pages of it can be downloaded and read at http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-relateddownloads/ and this evidence is also verified in Hansard with a full and complete record of politicians’ statements. No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or intent by an unlawful assembly. English law and supremacy of the imperial system of measurement therefore, remain as they were prior to signing of the 1972 Act. That means that just as before 1972, metric measurements have no place whatsoever in Britain. It also means that Britain is not and has never been part of the European Union as every Act and EU Treaty since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent is treasonous, unlawful, null and void. So too, is any attempted standard use of the metric scales in Britain, even as metric equivalents to imperial quantities. It is illegal. As a further consequence, the European Union has no lawful influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither does its Napoleonic European Law. Their authority exist only in the minds of certain politicians of whose criminal actions the public are already very well aware. In any case, the outright supremacy of English law automatically intercedes and strikes down any attempt to repeal, subvert, overrule or replace it. The pretence of European authority and influence and of metrication is pure theatre and make-believe designed at the highest levels of Westminster to deceive and subjugate Britain to foreign rule against the people’s will for others’ political purpose contrary to law. It is WILFUL TREASON.A succession of unlawful British parliaments therefore, having no legitimacy, illegally
and without mandate, wilfully and criminally import and impose upon their own people,
foreign rule and influence that have no force of law in Britain. This criminality includes such unlawful documents as the Weights and Measures Act 1985, the Metric Regulations 1994 and all EEC/EU Regulations and Directives, all of which are null and void so far as Britain is concerned. Not one has the force of law as each was brought by an unlawful assembly of government ministers having no legitimacy (thus could not enact legislation) in the clear parliamentary knowledge that it was treasonable contrary to English Constitutional and Common Law. Though the Weights and Measures Act 1985 was relied upon as the authority in the metric martyrs case and others, such legislation while held to be rightful at the time, never had legitimacy or force of law. And as Chief Justice Beresford of the Common Pleas ruled,
“There is no such thing as a bad law for if it is bad it is not law”. Metrication in Britain then, is based solely upon the deliberately contrived lie that “The UK
took the decision to adopt the metric system in 1965”
when in fact the people knew nothingThe Absurdity of Britain’s Metrication8 about it, would never have consented and have been knowingly and purposely deceived and betrayed by those paid to serve them and who have each solemnly sworn oaths of loyalty and allegiance to serve and to protect the security of the British nation. For the avoidance of any doubt, all of the above is historical fact. It is evidenced in public documentary record and is acknowledged by the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and others. This knowledge also exists in living public memory, press and TV coverage recorded for all time in public archives and much of it has been referred in treason reports by members of the public to numerous police forces that have accepted the evidence as prima facie cases to answer with a view to prosecuting action being taken. Britain’s metrication is directly contrary to the 1351 Treason Act, the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treason Felony Act 1848 among others. These laws are beyond the reach of Parliament to amend, repeal or to disregard and just because modern day lawyers are not trained in these laws does not mean they do not exist or that serious offences against them have not been and are not, committed. Under the Act of Settlement 1700 S4, these major Constitutional and Common Laws are the birthright of the people. Supremacy of imperial measurement in Britain, protected and required by these laws, is thus the birthright of the people and cannot be removed. Acknowledged in law for all purposes by Parliament, no amending Act has every been introduced. Only imperial measurement may be used in Britain.Realising the truth Not only is Britain’s metrication entirely contrary to law, but the people flatly refuse to accept it. It serves no gainful purpose and is far from any improvement over imperial. It is a political intent criminally and enthusiastically imposed by uncompromising Europhiles not seeing that the true purpose of this Frankfurt School subversion technique is to remove yet another part their own culture for ulterior motive not in our interests - the collective consequences of which even their own families will have to live with. They ardently pursue its adoption and are quick to put down anyone who disagrees. Thus they wantonly encourage the commission of treason against the British nation - their own children’s rapidly diminishing inheritance. If metrication had offered the advantages claimed, then it will have been eagerly adopted around the world without need for such tyrannical imposition and ongoing attempts to convince of its benefits. Hundreds of millions of the world’s people cannot all be wrong in their rejection of it. Born of the 18th Century French notion that everything on Earth should unworkably conform to units of 10, it ignores nature’s laws of 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16. Is the structure of crystals decimal ? Is the structure of snowflakes decimal ? Imperial measurements were conceived specifically to relate directly with nature and man’s existence on Earth using practical everyday measures of relatable dimension in instantly scalable simple whole numbers. Metrication’s 10’s can do none of those things. Even worse than its few impractical units, its greatest unforeseen downfall perhaps, is its decimal point so catastrophic if lost, left out or disastrously misplaced. With no physical reference, metric measures convey nothing relatable. They are arbitrary and imaginary. Ridiculed by metriphiles as “awkward and antiquated” on the other hand, imperial measurement given the world by Britain, has single-handedly enabled man’s every
The Absurdity of Britain’s Metrication
9 refinement in life including construction, manufacture, industry, scientific progress, micro electronics, internet technology, medical advancement and manned exploration of space. It brings considerable advantage over metrication’s poorly conceived inadequacies. Why, then, should we ever need the nonsense of an inferior measurement system that conspicuously offers less utility? Rather than for Britain’s advancement, metrication is to help accomplish a dark political agenda - Britain’s subjugation, destruction of her English sophistication and culture and elimination of the English as a people. To reduce everybody to one primitive level.
Lawful Britain
Select further reading Protecting the interests of British weights and measures - http://www.bwmaonline.com/ Caution, metric signs are illegal. Keep it imperial - http://www.activeresistance.org.uk/ You should earnestly read this http://www.freedom2measure.org/Our%20Units.html#right Truthful views about metric - http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/estatopia/inch.htm#intro The benefits of English weights and measures - http://home.clara.net/brianp/ametric.html Metrication is unnecessary, unwanted and undemocratic http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/iaml/

THE TREASON OF BRITAIN’S METRICATIONTreason is treachery, a betraying or a breach of faith and in law denotes the grave crime of treachery
toward the Sovereign as head of the State
and any betraying of the State itself. (Moriarty’s Police Law.
17th edition, page 202.) Treason is to betray or violate one’s duty of allegiance to one’s own people and
thus to one’s country in support of any other intention, state, power or authority. It is disloyalty,
duplicity and to undermine your own country. Regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon
the British nation, treason is still a hanging offence. To use or represent the metric system in Britain as the accepted legal standard British units of measurement is to undermine and mislead the British public mind. Most commonly found in British TV broadcasting and government services, it is to influence the nation into believing that Britain has accepted and adopted this foreign system of measurement when in fact, the people are flatly opposed to it and reject it outright. It is a serious offence to undermine or mislead the British nation against its will. It is TREASON. Since 1897 the people of Britain have consistently rejected the metric system as
“inferior,
restricting, inflexible, problematic”
and “of limited utility”. They have also refused it as a second rate foreign influence prone to considerable, sometimes disastrous, error (misplaced or omitted decimal point), having too few units each of impractical size and as an accounting system unsuited to measuring needs. These views also extend to the sale of commodities in metric quantities all of which are illegal under English law and are considered far less practical in use. It is a fallacy that the British public use metric terms willingly. Surveys repeatedly show that more than 90% of British people refuse to accept or adopt the metric system. Much more serious still however, is that Britain’s metrication is not about “easing trade with
Europe”
as we are expected to believe. That is a conveniently contrived lie. Britain has never needed the metric system in order to trade with the rest of the world. The real purpose of metrication is to remove imperial measurement as yet another step in eliminating the English as a people. Just as mass immigration, it is part of a covert programme of genocide against the British by attacking our cultural structure, indoctrination of our young and destabilising the nation by dividing and setting rival groups. And just like immigration, it is planned cultural replacement by stealth. Imperial weights and measures for all purposes are protected by English Constitutional and Common Law. They have been expressly authorised by the Parliament in Westminster. No amending Act has ever been introduced. No law, ruling or edict exists that requires Britain’s metrication. Indeed, no White or Green Paper, political party manifesto, Queen’s speech,
2
The Treason of Britain’s Metrication parliamentary legislative programme or popular mandate has ever suggested that Britain should or would adopt the metric system. The imperial scales therefore remain the lawful standard British system of measurement in official and exclusive use in this country, required and protected by law. BY LAW. Nothing else is permitted. The government inspired mantra “The UK took the decision to adopt the metric system in
1965
” has been publicly exposed as the deliberate lie that it is. It was contrived for political purpose and is widely known as “the Myth of 1965”. The UK has never “decided” to adopt metrication. The public have never been consulted, their agreement or consent has never been sought let alone given and metrication has never been debated in Parliament. The myth arises from the personal hope of two 1960’s pro-Europe civil servants and Harold Wilson’s failed sop to the French who refused UK admission to the EEC anyway. These do not justify, legalise or authorise Britain’s metrication against the people’s will. Britain is not and has never been part of the European Union. Metrication therefore has no claimed purpose. When he signed the European Communities Act in 1972, Prime Minister Edward Heathknowingly and wilfully tricked, deceived and betrayed the British people into foreign rule by the EEC/EU. His was the most calculating and grievous treason in British history. He
gave away his country.
Upon signing, his treasonous act instantly removed him from lawful office and it failed to become legally binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that. His then treasonous government immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government is not lawful and has no legitimacy. No parliament can bind a successor. But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to reinforce Heath’s outrageous pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly consented to foreign rule. As public servants, neither he nor they ever had such authority and their actions are highly treasonous for conspiring against the nation’s known interests, intention to surrender its sovereignty, using wilful deception to deliberately betray the nation and for acting in the political interests of a foreign power. It is effectively to declare war on the British Crown and the nation and is treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Treason Felony Act 1848. Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly. With no legitimacy and in knowingly committing the most evil act of treason against their own people, each has invited and imposed foreign rule over their own country. Since 1972, not one has ever acted lawfully. Having solemnly sworn lifetime oaths of loyalty and allegiance to serve and protect Britain, each has conspired in this treason and they persist in deceitfully concealing the truth of their illicit activities from the public as it has always been known that the British people would object most violently were they ever to find out. But they are finding out. Parliaments’ treason and corruption is a matter of public record with an increasing number of research documents, newspaper and magazine articles, TV documentaries and an overwhelming amount of Foreign and Commonwealth Office documentary evidence released to the public domain. Over 600 pages of it can be downloaded and read at http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-relateddownloads/ and this evidence is also verified in Hansard with a full and complete record of politicians’ statements.
3 No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or intent by an unlawful assembly. English law and supremacy of the imperial system of measurement therefore, remain as they were prior to signing of the 1972 Act. That means that just as before 1972, metric measurements have no place in Britain whatsoever. It also means that Britain is not and has never been part of the European Union as every Act and EU Treaty since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent is treasonous, illegal, null and void. So too, is any attempted standard use of the metric scales in Britain, even as metric equivalents to imperial quantities. It is illegal. As a further consequence, the European Union has no lawful influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither does its Napoleonic European Law. Their authority exist only in the minds of certain politicians of whose criminal actions the public are very well aware. In any case, the outright supremacy of English law automatically intercedes and strikes down any attempt to repeal, subvert, overrule or replace it. The pretence of European authority and influence and of metrication is pure theatre and make-believe designed at the highest levels of Westminster to deceive and subjugate Britain to foreign rule against the people’s will for others’ political purpose contrary to law. It is WILFUL TREASON.
A succession of unlawful British parliaments therefore, having no legitimacy, illegally
and without mandate, wilfully and criminally import and impose upon their own people,
foreign rule and influence that have no force of law in Britain. This criminality includes such unlawful documents as the Weights and Measures Act 1985, the Metric Regulations 1994 and all EEC/EU Regulations and Directives, all of which are null and void so far as Britain is concerned. Not one has the force of law as each was brought in the clear knowledge that it was treasonable contrary to English Constitutional and Common Law. Though the Weights and Measures Act 1985 was relied upon as the authority in the Metric martyrs case and others, it and other such legislation while held to be rightful at the time, never had legitimacy or force of law. The 1985 Act was brought as part of a political agenda by an unlawful assembly of government ministers having no legitimacy (thus could not enact legislation) due to their own acts of treason and their failure to rectify the treasonous acts of others as explained above. They acted illegally and without authority in wilful support of foreign rule and influence against Britain’s interests. The Metric Regulations 1994 are equally as unlawful and EEC/EU Regulations and Directives have no legitimacy here anyway. Not only has the 1985 Act never had lawful authority, but it is ‘bad law’ having been brought for treasonable purpose by deceitful and unauthorized officials through illegal means. It was therefore never possible for it to become legitimate law and as Chief Justice Beresford of the Common Pleas ruled,
“There is no such thing as a bad law for if it is bad it is not law”. The 1985 Act and 1994 Regulations while known to be High Treason from the outset, are null and void. In any case, English Constitutional and Common Law (Higher Law) immediately interceded and struck them down. Statute law cannot amend or impliedly repeal constitutional law and as the imperial scales of measurement are protected by that Higher Law, their supremacy remains unchallenged. Britain is not a metricating nation. The law prohibits it. Metrication in Britain then, is based solely upon the deliberately contrived lie that “The UK
took the decision to adopt the metric system in 1965”
when in fact the people knew nothingThe Treason of Britain’s Metrication4 about it, would never have consented and have been knowingly and wilfully deceived and betrayed by those paid to serve them and who have each broken their sworn oaths of loyalty and allegiance to Britain. For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all of the above is historical fact. It is a matter of public documentary record not just in the evidence mentioned above but is acknowledged by the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and others. Much of this knowledge is also in living public memory, press and TV coverage recorded for all time in public archives and much of it has been referred in treason reports by members of the public to numerous police forces that have accepted the evidence as prima facie cases to answer with a view to prosecuting action being taken. In committing the most unimaginable treason against their own people, every parliament since 1972 has consciously and purposefully contravened English Constitutional and Common Law. This includes inter alia, the 1351 Treason Act, the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. These laws are immutable and in perpetuity. They are beyond the reach of Parliament to amend, repeal or disregard. Just because modern day lawyers are not trained or versed in these laws does not mean they do not exist or that major offences of treason against them have not been and are not, committed. Under the Act of Settlement 1700 S4, the laws of England are the birthright of the people. Exclusive use of the imperial measurement system in Britain as required by law, is thus the birthright of the people and cannot be removed. Imperial measurements are the international standard legally required for air and sea use around the world. Worldwide distances are measured in nautical miles, yards (sea depths are also in fathoms) and feet and inches. Quantities are in ounces and pounds weight, tons, pints, quarts and gallons. This is because imperial units are chosen universally for their design practicality and application in all uses over the metric accounting system that is workable only in multiples of 10. The British Government confirms that transportation and road use are never likely to become metric in view of the financial and political cost of conversion, far too colossal for any government ever to consider risking its electoral reputation for such an unpopular matter. Though some people mistakenly believe that centimetres, metres, kilometres, kilos and litres are the politically correct units to use, their use in public is a criminal offence at law. Some even believe that centimetres and metres should be used for small dimensions and that imperial miles be used for large distances. While unworkable, this too is contrary to law. The two scales are entirely incompatible. Metres do not relate to miles in any way. The legal and official units in Britain are the inch, foot, yard, mile, ounce, pound, pint, quart and gallon that the law requires. Despite political intention to mislead and disinform, the imperial system of weights and measures has never been replaced. Though metrication has been taught in schools to satisfy the pro-metric lobbyists, it is interesting to note that even the Prime Minister has recognised and demanded the importance of our children learning the imperial measures as the lawful and most sensible system of measurement. British industry and retailing have been purposefully deceived and compelled into metrication under political false pretence and threat of imprisonment. They have been forced to act illegally and to oblige their British customers to do so as well. The British Government’sThe Treason of Britain’s Metrication5 stance that business supports compulsory metrication is in fact, a contradiction in terms. If business wanted to go metric, the unlawful regulations enforcing it would not be necessary. Had the metric system been as beneficial or expedient as claimed, it will have been adopted readily by nations around the world, most particularly in North America and Britain. Some 400 million people in the U.S. and Britain alone cannot all be wrong in rejecting metrication and their exclusive choice of imperial measurement. In Canada, metrication proved so unpopular that the government backed-down and restored freedom to choose imperial units. No nation in the world has willingly accepted the metric system. Its adoption has necessitated corrupt or dictatorial enforcement and it is universally associated with totalitarianism. Yet despite such obligation, a great many of the world’s people still choose imperial units for their flexibility, ease of use, practicality and immediate application. The majority of those in Britain who use metric measurement terms do so not out of conscious choice but because they have been deceitfully made to believe it fashionable or obligatory by law. What they do not realise however, is that fashions are often impractical and short lived frequently for some arbitrary frame of mind, that the nation as a whole rejects metrication and there is no law that requires it. With no popular support or basis in UK law, metrication offers less practicality. Many consider it an insult. Britain already has the world class imperial system of measurement emulated around the world and designed for every quantifying need using simple whole numbers. The metric system has failed spectacularly even to replace Sumerian measurement of time, angles or the degrees in a circle and is far less viable because nature’s dimensions and weights do not conveniently obey ready assessment by 10. The metric accounting system is just that. With no ready physical reference of any meaning, metric measures convey nothing relatable. They are arbitrary and imaginary. Ridiculed by metriphiles as “clumsy and old
fashioned”
on the other hand, imperial measurement given the world by Britain, has singlehandedly enabled man’s every refinement in life including construction, manufacture, industry, scientific progress, micro electronics, internet technology, medical advancement and manned exploration of space. It brings considerable advantage over metrication’s poorly conceived inadequacies. The Common Law imposes strict and enduring duties upon every British subject from birth. Every British person is duty bound in the reporting and prevention of treason and in allegiance and loyalty to the nation. These obligations are absolute and inseparable wherever one may be around the world and they cannot be resigned except by renouncing British nationality. They far pre-date the Bill of Rights 1689 which protects Britain from all foreign influence or rule by any foreign power or authority: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate,
hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority
Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.” The Common Law remember, is immutable and in perpetuity. The treason of Britain’s unwanted metrication is being reported by a growing number of angered people across the country, to the police for prosecution. Under English Common Law anyone who is aware that treason is contemplated or has or is being committed but who do nothing to report or prevent it, commits the equally serious offences of ‘Misprision of
Treason at common law’ (knowing of treason committed but doing nothing to report or prevent
The Treason of Britain’s Metrication
6 it) and ‘Compounding (the) Treason at common law’ any act or inaction which effectively condones, supports or allows the treason to continue). These are tried in court as the original treason. The legal obligation to report known treason extends to every British national. Not so long ago, William Joyce was convicted and hanged for treason for just such misleading and undermining broadcast against the British people’s interest as described above. Today’s media personalities, government officials and line managers (directing minds) who endorse metrication are no different. The treason laws have not changed. They are as effective today as the day they were written despite certain politicians’ personal attempts to repeal or change them. Treason continues to be regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon the British nation that it is still a hanging offence. Ignorance of the law is, of course, no defence.
Lawful Britain

Monday, 26 January 2015

The very essence of TREASON


   The headline: What David Cameron just proposed would endanger every Briton and destroy the IT industry

Excerpt:
——————————
David Cameron says there should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" -- and no doubt many in his party will agree with him, politically. But if they understood the technology, they would be shocked to their boots.

What David Cameron thinks he's saying is, "We will command all the software creators we can reach to introduce back-doors into their tools for us." There are enormous problems with this: there's no back door that only lets good guys go through it. If your Whatsapp or Google Hangouts has a deliberately introduced flaw in it, then foreign spies, criminals, crooked police (like those who fed sensitive information to the tabloids who were implicated in the hacking scandal -- and like the high-level police who secretly worked for organised crime for years), and criminals will eventually discover this vulnerability. They -- and not just the security services -- will be able to use it to intercept all of our communications. That includes things like the pictures of your kids in your bath that you send to your parents to the trade secrets you send to your co-workers.

But this is just for starters. David Cameron doesn't understand technology very well, so he doesn't actually know what he's asking for.

For David Cameron's proposal to work, he will need to stop Britons from installing software that comes from software creators who are out of his jurisdiction. The very best in secure communications are already free/open source projects, maintained by thousands of independent programmers around the world. They are widely available, and thanks to things like cryptographic signing, it is possible to download these packages from any server in the world (not just big ones like Github) and verify, with a very high degree of confidence, that the software you've downloaded hasn't been tampered with.
——————————
Read the full story here:
http://boingboing.net/2015/01/13/what-david-cameron-just-propos.html

        Understand here that ~what~ the No.10 Downing Street dullard is proposing, would EXPOSE virtually =ALL= private communications via the Internet to just =EVERY= DATA PIRATE.

        Yes: If YOU conduct ~any~ online banking, or other related commercial activity which requires a user ID, & Password, then =ALL= OF YOUR DETAILS, including log-in passwords will become known to EVERYONE!!!!

        And —DO— think about this: If you use either a debit card, or credit card to make a purchase at whatever business, ALL OF THAT INFORMATION also becomes TOTALLY OPEN to anyone with the ability to tap the method of communications.

        And hey: THAT would ALL be =TOTALLY= legal!!!!! When ALL communications are MANDATED to be public, then NO communication is allowed to be private.
     
        "When everyone is guilty, it thence becomes a crime to be innocent." Anon.

        Finally, attempting to use secure search engines such as StartPage would be blocked, effectively blocking you from reaching ANY URL which has been blackballed otherwise, regardless of its content.

        You boys, and girls in the U.K. =DIRELY NEED= to STIFLE that crap POSTHASTE!!!!

        Next, we really must remove this idiot from power the soonest.
Regards,
John
 
 
--

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.,
In both instances, there is a twilight, when everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must become most aware of a change in the air, however slight,-lest we become unwitting victims of the Darkness".
Justice William O.Douglas

Thursday, 22 January 2015

Are the Greens dangerous?



Have just gone onto the Green party website to try and find info.  Sure enough it is all there - although I have yet to read a lot more about what they are essentially saying it is that they want to eradicate Britishness (see under Nationality NY100 ). 

Over the decades, British nationality law has been used to restrict the number of black people having the right to live in the UK, while maximising the opportunities for white non-residents, with British ancestors to retain this right. The Green Party believes that such nationality laws must be reformed."   

So according to the Greens it is to hell with the rights of the indigenous peoples of this island.  

Secondly, on the point of abolishing the monarchy and the church - yes, they intend to do that.

"The Green Party believes that the heredity principles should have no place in government" and advocates "the monarchy shall cease to be an office of government and that legislative, executive and judicial roles of the monarch shall cease"   

It also says that "A settlement for property held by the current royal family shall be made, to divide between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property".   

Furthermore under their article "PA601   There shall be a complete separation of church, and state. Society shall not interfere with the individual's freedom of belief, but it may by law regulate conduct arising out of that belief.  In a multicultural society a privileged position for the Church of England is inappropriate. "    

Under PA602  "The Church of England shall be dis-established. It shall become self governing, and the government shall cease to have any powers and responsibilities peculiar to that church. No person shall hold office in the state, or be excluded from any such office, by virtue of their spouse's membership or non-membership of any religion or denomination of religion."
 
In my humble opinion, The Green Party policies are a blatant attempt to destroy everything which is British, from Monarch, to nationality, to church and as they are so ingrained into the EU, it doesn't totally surprise.   

I will write to them and tell them what I think of their policies at the same time letting them know that they will get more than they bargained for with the British people, if they start to strip away their very identity.     

My keyboard is now smoking !!!
 
Rosemary
Rosemary

Sunday, 11 January 2015

WON AT TOURS 732 AD - LOST IN PARIS 2015.


Alvechurch Bugle 5 – 005           ( 11 – 1 – 15 )
WON AT TOURS 732 AD  -  LOST IN PARIS 2015.
So did Islam’s shooting war on Judeo Christian Europe begin on January 8th 2015 ?
One could be excused for thinking that it did, as events in France unfolded in full view of Europe’s broadcast media.
Damage limitation, for us, was entrusted to the British Bullshit Corporation and the Dimbleby clone Huw Edwards, who was hastily dispatched to Paris to anchor their coverage.
His softly enunciated Welsh delivery, deemed the ideal soothing medicine to placate the simmering anger of British viewers, to whom Gunner Lee Rigby’s murder is still a very recent memory.
From the off, the tone was predictably straight from the Frankfurt School textbook and used the phoney premise that 99.9% of Muslims are decent peace loving people, dedicated to the English way of life and with no time at all, for the fanatical jihadist killers, who give all the others a bad name. 
Less and less of us buy this anymore and are coming rapidly to the realisation, that we have been conditioned over the last fifty years into believing that Islam is a religion, when it is actually a violent political system aimed at the destruction of all other democratic political systems, a Trojan Horse in sheep’s clothing - - sorry !.
Today’s  gathering of world leaders in Paris in a hastily convened show of solidarity, had a distinctly hollow ring to it and it’s object was undoubtedly an attempt to hide their collective embarrassment as they have been well and truly caught with their trousers down by the leaders of Islam.
One TV crew interviewed a : veiled, French, Moslem lady, who was  appalled by the atrocities that had occurred in the prophet’s name and who proclaimed her undying allegiance to France and its liberte, very touching and totally unconvincing !
  The Sunday Times’s front page, tested everyone’s credulity, by leading with :  Muslim saves 15 Jewish hostages,  more clear indisputable proof that they’re on our side of course !
Islam’s leaders,  have known for a long time, that Christian political leaders are in the main stupid, lack any form of street wisdom and have wishbones where their spines should be.
Every western European nation has allowed the tide of Islam to sweep unhindered into its major cities, and then forbidden its own citizens, under pain of prosecution, to express their doubts and fears .
We are now reaping the whirlwind and today’s posturing by Cameron and others, convinces no one .
We will defend our values – one vehemently proclaimed.
  Well, what a pity they didn’t do that 40 years ago, when their citizens first began to express their concerns, as whole inner city districts were occupied, benefits began financing the radical preachers and the mosques were granted planning permission, despite local objections.

Ed. ..   ..   ..   Bromsgrovia.

Wednesday, 19 November 2014

'Selling off NHS for profit'

Many tell you they have your best interests at heart and have no intentions of privatising the NHS - The fact is, they have already begun the process some time ago, and the only thing they seem interested in is money and future positions in big business.

1. David Cameron - Prime Minister

Handed a peerage to nursing and care home tycoon Dolar Popat, who has given the Tories more than £200,000 in donations.

2. Andrew Lansley - Former Health Secretary & architect of privatisation

Received a £21,000 donation in Nov 2009 from John Nash, the former chairman of Care UK.

3. Harriet Baldwin - Tory whip

Former executive at JP Morgan, a major player in private healthcare.

4. Greg Barker - former Energy Minister

Held shares in Quester VCT 5 plc ,a venture capital firm with multiple investments in healthcare companies.

5. Henry Bellingham

Former director of Lansdowne Advisory Ltd, which has shares in private healthcare company Circle.

6. Jake Berry

Has registered interests in legal firm Squire Patton Boggs, which workd with multiple NHS trusts on PFI and PPP programs.

7. Graham Brady

Former advisor to PA Consulting, a management consultancy company which has worked with the NHS's new Clinical Commissioning Groups.

8. Simon Burns - former Health Minister

Attended an oncology conference paid for by Aventis Pharma - a five-day trip to the US funded by a leading drug firm.

9. Nick de Bois

Was the majority shareholder in Rapier Design Group, an events management company heavily involved with the private medical and pharmaceutical industries.

10. Steve Brine

Received almost £15,000 in donations from James Lupton, the chairman of investment bankers, Greenhill Europe which has a global network of corporate relationships in the healthcare sector.

11. Aidan Burley

Received six bottles of wine from Hitachi consultants for a speech in 2011. Hitachi Consulting UK built an online 'portal' for NHS commissioners to help them monitor performance.

12. Damian Collins

Spent almost a decade working for marketing agency M&C Saatchi, whose clients include PPP healthcare, AXA insurance, Astrazeneca, Pfizer and Merck

13. David Davis - former shadow home secretary

Received a payment of £4,250 for a six-hour speaking engagement for private health insurance company Aviva.

14. Jonathan Djanogly

Received £1,900 from Huntleigh Healthcare Ltd, which manufactures medical and orthopaedic equipment and instruments.

15. Richard Drax

Received £14,000 in a series of donations from Derek Luckhurst, chief executive and owner of care home group Agincare.

16. Iain Duncan-Smith - Work and Pensions Secretary

Has shares in hygiene technology company Byotrol plc, which sells products to the NHS.

17. Philip Dunne

Was a non-executive director for investment firm Baronsmead VCT 4 plc, which had multiple investments in private healthcare companies.

18. Michael Fallon - Defence Secretary

Former director of Attendo AB, - a Swedish private health company.

19. Mark Field

Was a board advisor to Ellwood and Atfield; a recruitment firm which recruit for NHS positions and private healthcare.

20. Liam Fox - former Defence Secretary

Received £5,000 from investment company IPGL Ltd, who purchased healthcare pharma company Cyprotex.

21. George Freeman

Has shares in Hill House Assets Ltd, formally private health firm 4D Biomedical Ltd.

22. Mike Freer

Provided marketing advice to Care Matters, a financial planning company for care homes.

23. Richard Fuller

Worked for L.E.K consulting, which has six 'partners' in European healthcare.

24. Richard Graham

Received £3,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

25. William Hague - Leader of the Commons

Received a £20,000 donation from MMC Ventures, which parts owns The Practice plc which runs 60 GP surgeries.

26. Philip Hammond - Foreign Secretary

Beneficiary of a trust which owns a controlling interest in healthcare and nursing home developer Castlemead Ltd.

27. Mark Harper

Received £5,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

28. Nick Herbert

Received £15,000 in donations from Caroline Nash, wife of former Care UK chairman John Nash.

29. Jeremy Hunt - Health Secretary

Received £32,920 from hedge fund baron Andrew Law, a major investor in healthcare firms.

30. Margot James

Had a key role at marketing giant WPP Group, which had a long list of healthcare clients.

31. Sajid Javid - Culture Secretary

Received £11,000 from Moundsley Healthcare Ltd last year.

32. Jo Johnson - Downing Street policy adviser

Received £6,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

33. Kwarsi Kwateng

Worked as an analyst for for Crispin Odey's hedge fund Odey Asset Management.

34. Mark Lancaster

Former adviser to property venture capital firm Company Palmer Capital Partners Ltd, a funder of Danescroft Commercial Developments, which has worked in the healthcare sector.

35. Dr Phillip Lee

Has worked as a freelance or Medical Solutions Ltd, which provided medical cover for events.

36. Oliver Letwin - former shadow chancellor

Was a non-executive director of N.M. Rothschild Corporate Finance Ltd, which invests heavily in healthcare.

37. Peter Lilley

Non-Executive director of management software firm Idox plc, which provides services to the NHS Health Libraries Group and NHS Education for Scotland.

38. Tim Loughton

Received £350 for training sessions with Cumberlege Connections, a political networking firm that works "extensively" with the pharmaceutical industry.

39. Mary Macleod

Was a senior executive at Andersen Consulting/Accenture, which has profited from big PFI deals.

40. Francis Maude - Cabinet Office Secretary

Was a director of PR firm Huntsworth plc, which was part of lobbying group Healthcare Communications Association.

41. Maria Miller - former Culture Secretary

Former director of Grey's Advertising Ltd, an advertising and brand company which worked extensively with clients in the healthcare sector.

42. Andrew Mitchell - former International Development Secretary

Was a strategy adviser to global management firm Accenture, which has worked extensively with private healthcare companies and the NHS.

43. Penny Mordaunt - Communities Minister

Worked for lobbying firm Hanover, where she had a range of healthcare clients.

44. Brooks Newmark - former Charities Minister

Partner in the Allele Fund, which invests in healthcare startups.

45. Jesse Norman

Received £5,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

46. Stephen O'Brien

Received payments totalling £40,000 from Julian Schild, whose family made £184million in 2006 by selling hospital bed-makers Huntleigh Technology.

47. George Osborne - Chancellor

Received donation through Conservative Campaign Headquarters from Julian Schild - see above.

48. Priti Patel - Treasury Minister

Worked for lobbying firm Weber Shandwick, which does PR for big healthcare and pharmaceutical firms.

49. John Redwood - former Cabinet Minister

Advised the private equity company which runs Pharmacy2u, the UK's largest dedicated internet and mail order pharmacy.

50. Jacob Rees-Mogg

Partner of Somerset Capital Management LLP, which has healthcare investor Redwood Emerging Markets Dividend Income Fund as a client.

51. Sir Malcolm Rifkind - former Foreign Secretary

Chairman of advisory board at L.E.K. Consulting LLP, which helps private healthcare firms identify "new business development" and "opportunities with the Government".

52. Amber Rudd - Energy Minister

Received £3,000 from hedge fund baron Andrew Law, a major investor in healthcare firms.

53. David Ruffley

Received £10,000 in donations from Caroline Nash, wife of former Care UK chairman John Nash.

54. Mark Simmonds - former Foreign Minister

Was paid £50,000 a year as a "strategic adviser" to Circle Health.

55. Chris Skidmore

Received £3,500 for speeches to STAC Consultancy, which specialises in the launch of pharmaceutical products.

56. Julian Smith

Received a £2,500 donation from Principle Healthcare Ltd in September 2014.

57. Nicholas Soames

Received £2,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

58. John Stanley

Consultant on financial services to FIL Investment Management Ltd, which invests in healthcare.

59. Andrew Tyrie - select committee chairman

Attended the Ryder Cup as Secretary of the Parliamentary Golf Society, with travel and accommodation paid for by U.S. healthcare services company Humana Europe.

60. Robin Walker

His office received a £2,000 donation from Redwood Care Homes, which owns multiple care homes.

61. David Willetts - former Universities Minister

Has shares in Sensortec, a company that owns Vantix which was working on a contract for a new product to detect MRSI.

62. Rob Wilson

Had registered shares in Vital Imaging, a private screening company.

63. Tim Yeo

Also attended the 2008 Ryder Cup, courtesy of Humana Europe.
64. Nadhim Zahawi

Non-executive director of recruitment company SThree, which specialises in the Ppharmaceutical and biotechnology sector.

65. Menzies Campbell - former leader

Non-executive director of Scottish American Investment Company plc, which took over one of the care homes when Southern Cross collapsed.

66. Vince Cable - Business Secretary

Received a donation of £2,000 from Chartwell Care Services, which is 100% owned by Chartwell Health & Care PLC. It also owns Chartwell Private Hospitals plc, which provide day case surgery to NHS patients.

67. Nick Clegg - Deputy Prime Minister

Received a donation to his constituency office for £5,000 from Alpha Medical Consultancy.

68. Simon Hughes - Justice Minister

Received £60,000 donation to his constituency party from the founder of Alpha Hospitals, a private hospital firm.

69. Robert Smith

Has shares in pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline.

70. Jo Swinson - Business Minister

Received a donation of £2,000 September 2013 from private optician firm, Peter Ivins Eye Care.

Source:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154


To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email" in your profile.

You can view the full announcement by clicking the link below:
http://truth-wars.co.uk/forum/national-health-service/full-list-of-mps-with-links-to-private-healthcare-firms/

Regards,
The TruthWars Community Team

Friday, 31 October 2014

Do NOT accept a new Magna Carta


A NEW Magna Carta proposed by this Government. 

ALL those in that House know-without doubt- that if the people accept the NEW (which is what this is all about) they will over-ride their very own LONG STANDING Common law Constitutional Documents.  Once that is done-this Country may well become just REGIONS of the European Union that Mr Cameron introduced when he came into Government.  Having then thus destroyed their own longstanding Common Law Constitution, yes! Their very own Common Law Constitution by accepting the new-may well find that the NEW Written Constitution or constitutional Documents will be repealed and ALL will/may be under the EU and its Treaties for “all time coming”.  The people will/may have been seen to have chosen to destroy completely their very own Common Law Constitution that so many gave THEIR lives for-in the keeping of it, in that last World War.  Perhaps that was why our Constitution has indeed lasted over so very many years, for Government could not be seen to destroy the people’s Common Law Constitution..  The people had to destroy it for themselves by accepting a NEW Constitution, for the present Constitutional Documents are indeed protected by ‘Acts of Treason’. Certain Laws re Treason state that, “To destroy the Constitution is indeed an “ACT of TREASON” and although on Prime Minister tried to remove a couple of those ‘protecting Acts’-they remain in full for no temporary Government can in truth destroy them, for to do so may indeed be seen as an act of treason in the doing.

Here for you below is perhaps the greatest betrayal a Government can bestow on an unsuspecting people that take the trouble to place their trust in those they elect to sit in that once highly respected House of Commons.

You are all invited to accept a proposed NEW Magna Carta  In accepting the new-will the people be destroying the old, and once that has been done, will the government GET RID OF the new?

Is it indeed Treason to destroy our long standing Common law Constitutional Documents which in this case is our GREAT Magna Carta?   The Treason laws remain so why are they not being used?  See http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/consultation-new-magna-carta/


Consultation on a New Magna Carta-send here for papers

The consultation closes on 1 January 2015.  The Committee will report on the responses from the public in time for them to be taken into account ahead of the general election.
                                ****************************
There is no doubt at all that if the people accept any NEW Magna Carta or any NEW Written Constitutional Documents, in the doing, will destroy the original Common Law Constitutional Documents that two World Wars in recent memory have been fought to protect and keep-FOR ALL TIME COMING. Probably no Government or Members of Parliament would do this for laws re treason would also prevent them so doing, plus, parts of our Common Law are especially for the people, and because it is mostly the people that have to don Amy. Navy, Air-force clothing and fight anyone that starts a war with this Country. As all those in those Houses of Parliament-both houses- that put this forward, even though they so swear a solemn Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown- the present wearer of the Crown, our belovéd Queen, donned a Uniform-and did her bit in fighting for Her Country in the same way the Forces so did in that 1939-1945 World War.  Her father, His Majesty King George V1 along side of Winston Churchill, although most certainly not in the best of Health travelled to many cities and towns to boost the spirits up of the British people whose home towns and cities were being bombed night after night.

People my age were taught about their Constitution and why they were being bombed in that last war-some-time day and night. It makes me wonder why children of TEDAY are not taught about their own once longstanding Common law Constitution TODAY.

Magna Carta Debate  House of Lords 7th November 2013  Debating whether to bring all four remaining copies of Magna Carta together? MY Comments on this- I most certainly do not think it wise to bring all four Copies together-for maybe an accident may happen thus destroying all four copies.  ALL FOUR GONE FOREVER. 


Anne

Saturday, 25 October 2014

Letter to Cameron


This letter has been circulated

Dear Prime Minister David Cameron,
Seeing you sporting the representation of blood spilled in two World Wars, on your lapel sickens me, because it represents sacrificed life to keep our country out of the clutches of the predatory nations we fought against, in order to keep our country able to manage it’s own affairs.
Meanwhile you are still lying to us about what you can do within the EU every day, and trying to keep us in those very same powers clutches, insulting the sacrifices of those men and women, which is grossly hypocritical, rendering your position untenable and the lowest of the low in my eyes. (1.  See the EU Commission’s own enabling clause below – you have no power to change things!)
Those forces fought for you, but you will not stand up to fight for this country by withdrawing from EU, and making sure we can manage our own affairs without interference from our illegal membership of the EU, which is impoverishing this nation.
Your perfidy in maintaining this position when there is legislation to remove us from the EU without penalty, is ignorant at best, and treacherous at worst.
Our parliament has been Null and Void, since the European Communities Act 1972 was entered into illegally, against every Constitutional restraint and under coercion, making the ECA1972 void and of no legal force (2. see Vienna Convention extracts below).
No parliament may bind it’s successors, yet no parliament since 1972 has corrected this treason against Queen and people, while more and more taxpayers' money is  poured into the failed corrupt EU experiment illegally according to the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (3. see extracts below).
1.  Commission’s enabling clause hidden under disingenuous gobbledygook (Who decides what is urgent? Who exactly do they consult? Do they really care about ‘burdens’ on members?):
LISBON TREATY
C 306/150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007
PROTOCOL
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SUBSIDIARITY
AND PROPORTIONALITY

___

Article 1

Each institution shall ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as laid down in Article 3b of the Treaty on European Union.
Article 2

Before proposing legislative acts, the Commission shall consult widely. Such consultations shall, where appropriate, take into account the regional and local dimension of the action envisaged. In cases of exceptional urgency, the Commission shall not conduct such consultations. It shall give reasons for its decision in its proposal.
Article 5

Draft legislative acts shall be justified with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Any draft legislative act should contain a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This statement should contain some assessment of the proposal's financial impact and, in the case of a directive, of its implications for the rules to be put in place by Member States, including, where necessary, the regional legislation. The reasons for concluding that a Union objective can be better achieved at Union level shall be substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators. Draft legislative acts shall take account of the need for any burden, whether financial or administrative, falling upon the Union, national governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators and citizens, to be minimised and commensurate with the objective to be achieved.

____________________________________________________
2. Under the   (If the provisions of the founding treaty ECA1972 are void and have no legal force neither do those that were ratcheted and built up on it )
1969 and 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
PART V 
SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES
Article 49
Fraud

If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
Article 50
Corruption of a representative of a State
If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
Article 51
Coercion of a representative of a State
The expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.
SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES  (extract)
Article 62
Fundamental change of circumstances
1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and
SECTION 5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A TREATY
Article 69
Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty
1. A treaty the invalidity of which is established under the present Convention is void. The provisions of a void treaty have no legal force.
________________________________________________________________
3.   Under
Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000
'Section 6 (1) (a, b & c) and 6 (3) (a & c) Resource accounts scrutiny' and 7 (4) (a,b & c) 'other departmental accounts' of that act which are relevant to the EU accounts not being signed off by auditors and constituting corruption and fraud:


snipped
6. Resource accounts: scrutiny.
(1) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine any resource accounts which he receives from a department under section 5(5) with a view to satisfying himself—
(a) that the accounts present a true and fair view,
(b) that money provided by Parliament has been expended for the purposes intended by Parliament,
(c) that resources authorised by Parliament to be used have been used for the purposes in relation to which the use was authorised, and
(d) that the department’s financial transactions are in accordance with any relevant authority.
(3) Where the Comptroller and Auditor General has conducted an examination of accounts under subsection (1)—
(a) he shall certify them and issue a report,
(b) he shall send the certified accounts and the report to the Treasury not later than 15th January of the financial year following that to which the accounts relate, and
(c) if he is not satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (1)(a) to (d), he shall report to the House of Commons.
7. Other departmental accounts.
(1) The Treasury may direct a government department to prepare for each financial year accounts in relation to any specified matter.
(2) Accounts under subsection (1) shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall carry out his examination of accounts under subsection (3)(b) with a view to satisfying himself—
(a) that money provided by Parliament has been expended for the purposes intended by Parliament,
(b) that resources authorised by Parliament to be used have been used for the purposes in relation to which the use was authorised, and
(c) that the department’s financial transactions are in accordance with any relevant authority.
Information courtesy of Ashley Mote
_______________________________________________________
The evidence and grounds to invoke the above legislation can be found on:
I demand that you restore this country’s Constitutional Royal Law and Common Law enshrined in Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath, and discard Corpus Juris, all and any Acts, laws and regulations, which have been imposed on this country by the EU in any of it’s guises.
Time to take the country back for the people of this country, and close down the sale of the country’s assets to private ownership and foreign buyers, something Edward III tried to guard against in his wisdom.
yours sincerely
Mrs Jane Birkby
15 DN20 0DF
ENGLAND

Thursday, 23 October 2014

Dementia, Targets, £55 per patient – Who benefits?


OPEN LETTER FOR CIRCULATION   
We will all get old one day even those making these decisions. So ask yourselves whether you would wish for what you are proposing or condoning.
 
Dementia, Targets, £55 per patient – Who benefits?
 
Dear Simon Stevens, CEO NHS England and Dr Michael McBride Chief Medical Officer NICE,
 
Under FOI:
1) Please tell me the origin of this latest edict using targets to diagnose Dementia, and whether the pharmaceutical companies are already offering prescription drugs to ‘treat’ it?
2) Do any of the senior executives and officials involved have any links to funding from Pharmaceutical companies?
3) This decision as badly flawed, especially given the expectation that there WILL BE more people with dementia, and could this be because Geoengineering Aerosol Spraying in our atmosphere (aka Chemtrails), has been bombarding the population with Barium and Aluminium amongst other things?
 
*****
As a patient of 66 years old, who is as old as our NHS itself, I have seen the best and the worst of that service, and the damage that greedy politicians and individuals in various governments have done to it.
It seems to have become Big Pharma and Private Healthcare’s puppet, and totally overrun by unchecked immigration and health tourism.
 
It has been degraded from once excellent and world beating, to impoverished mediocrity, while the loyal and dedicated front line staff struggle to give good service to patients, with managers, executives, and CEOs paying themselves unacceptable salaries and perks in readiness for creeping privatisation of the service.
 
At one time I had a personal view that NICE stood for National Institute for Clinical Euthanasia, as the Liverpool Care Pathway and DNR was enthusiastically adopted on wards for the Elderly, without the public’s knowledge or consent.
In all probability because the elderly have had the affrontery to live too long, and shock horror actually draw the pensions they had paid for, on top of being considered past their usefulness to commerce, and therefore useless eaters.
 
The NHS under greedy ‘Common Purpose’ managers and executives has lacked Common Decency, Ethical Decisions, Care and Compassion, something the essence of the Hippocratic Oath, and our Royal Common Laws enshrined in the Christian Coronation Oath try to uphold.
 
Now the latest wheeze, possibly to make more money for Big Pharma, is to bribe GPs to hit targets in diagnosing Dementia, for which there is probably a harmful drug just waiting in the wings to prescribe, reducing our poor overstretched GPs to little more than drug pushers.
I can tell you now that there are some GPs in certain parts of this country, who will be rubbing their hands with glee, and worshipping Mammon at the prospect of inventing dementia patients just to claim the bribe, because they lack the honest and ethical standards of the majority of decent GPs around the country.
 
I therefore ask that you answer my questions on this issue, and think again about what you are proposing.
The money earmarked for this flawed project, must be ploughed into frontline help and service for those already experiencing dementia, not satisfying useless targets.
 
yours sincerely
Mrs Jane Birkby
15 DN20 0DF
 

Thursday, 2 October 2014

left-wing opinion and the "liberal consensus",


Article written by Kevin Myers

Kevin Myers (born 30 March 1947) is an Irish journalist and writer. He writes for the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, having previously been a columnist for the Irish Independent and a former contributor to The Irish Times, where he wrote the "An Irishman's Diary" opinion column several times weekly. Until 2005, he wrote for the UK Sunday Telegraph.
His articles criticise left-wing opinion and the "liberal consensus", sometimes incorporating hyperbole, sarcasm and parody. This essay recently appeared in The Irish Independent:

Somalia is not a humanitarian disaster; it is an evolutionary disaster. The current drought is not the worst in 50 years, as the BBC and all the aid organisations claim.
It is nothing compared to the droughts in 1960/61 or 73/74.And there are continuing droughts every 5 years or so.
It's just that there are now four times the population; having been kept alive by famine relief, supplied by aid organisations, over the past 50 years. So, of course, the effects of any drought now, is a famine. They cannot even feed themselves in a normal rainfall year.

Worst yet, the effects of these droughts, and poor nutrition in the first 3 years of the a child's life, have a lasting effect on the development of the infant brain, so that if they survive, they will never achieve a normal IQ . Consequently, they are selectively breeding a population, who cannot be educated , let alone one that is not being educated; a recipe for disaster

We are seeing this impact now, and it can only exacerbate, to the detriment of their neighbours, and their environment as well. This scenario can only end in an even worse disaster; with even worse suffering, for those benighted people, and their descendants.
Eventually, some mechanism will intervene, be it war, disease or starvation.

So what do we do? Let them starve?
What a dilemma for our Judeo/ Christian/Islamic Ethos; as well as Hindu/Buddhist morality.
And this is beginning to happen in Kenya, Ethiopia, and other countries in Asia, like Pakistan.
Is this the beginning of the end of civilisation?

AFRICA is giving nothing to anyone outside Africa -- apart from AIDS and new diseases.
Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the Begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us out of Africa, yet again.
It is nearly 25 years since the famous Feed The World campaign began in Ethiopia, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78+ million today.
So, why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country?
Where is the logic? There is none.

To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.
One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of children starving.

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially.
Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a low IQ, AK 47-bearing moron, siring children whenever the whim takes him and blaming the world because he is uneducated, poor and left behind.
There is no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system but I do not know what it is.
There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.
It will win no friends and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous hand wringing,
letter writing wrathful individuals; a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority.
It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously.

So be it.
But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Irish Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30%. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules plane, Ethiopia's population has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness.
Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, AK 47-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts and housing pirates of the ocean.
Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive, illiterate indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world or allowances by the semi-communist Governments they voted for, money supplied by borrowing it from the World Bank!

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or common sense.
Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the president of South Africa being a firm believer in
the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against AIDS infection.
Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.
Broad brush-strokes, to be sure.
But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters.
Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.
They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation.
By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million; the equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today,
but located on the parched and increasingly Protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.
So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them?

Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity!

But that is not good enough.
For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.
It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.
If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts.

Oh good: then what? I know, let them all come here (to Ireland) or America. (not forgetting Australia!)

Thursday, 18 September 2014

This is all hypothetical


but if Scotland Decides ‘Yes’ Today - then Pertinent Questions NEED to be asked of our MP’s and The EU?

After tonight, if Scotland Votes ‘Yes’ for Independence, then The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ceases to exist.
Parliament needs to be dissolved forthwith, and a new English Parliament formed with English MP’s and a House of Lords also Consisting of English Only Peers.
Scotland will be seen as a ‘New Nation’ as will England, because the Welsh and Northern Irish will also decide on their futures and most likely want Independence.
As we know, all things UK and ‘British’ will cease to be legal – therefore the New Country of Scotland with England/Wales/Northern Ireland will need to re-negotiate terms with the EU? If Scotland Falls outside monetary Union with the Bank of England and the EU (The EU has stated that as a new Nation, Scotland will need to eventually apply to join the EU) Will the English/Welsh/NI payments to the EU (£53 Million a week) have to continue?
England/Wales/NI effectively are new nations too, all previous agreements signed to the EU will become null and void as Britain and the UK cease to exist, and therefore the EU will have to decide collectively if Scotland – England/Wales/NI will need to re-apply for membership? It will be down to the UKIP and its 24 MEP’s who will also cease to exist as they no longer represent a country that no longer exits to argue that point and our immediate withdrawal from the EU?
Passports; they are currently UK – GB will cease to be legal. Scottish people living in England effectively will become immigrants and vice versa, therefore it will be down to the newly formed English and Scottish Parliaments to decide if their people will need to re-apply for citizenship within that country and a new passport with their intended status?
Driving Licences; currently UK and EU. As new nations, Scotland - England/Wales/NI will need to re-define their legality? Scottish people living within (England/Wales/NI now to be known as the ‘Group’) will need visas and permission to work within the ‘Group’ and as such, would be treated effectively as those living outside the current UK EU as Scotland would need to decide if it remains within the ‘Commonwealth’ of Nations head of which is the Monarch Queen Elizabeth II. If they decide to remain within the commonwealth (which defeats the object of being Independent as the Queen will still head the country and they will require her approval as head of state, for all new laws so Scotland will still effectively be under the rule of Brittania?
England/Wales/NI do not want/need Scottish people sitting in our parliament deciding on English Laws and also influencing our Parliament in favour of Scotland as much as Scotland will not want English Politicians sitting in on their parliament deciding Scotland’s future (after all this is what the referendum and Alex Salmond is all about.. getting rid of the English Influence and rule from Westminster?
This letter could go on into a book? But I now personally feel, forget all the previous arguments we have been fighting for? This is a golden opportunity to concentrate on the job in hand? We need to question our English MP’s about OUR future within the EU? Previous Prime Ministers have stated that ANY re-writing of our terms within the EU would effectively trigger a referendum?
We don’t need to re-negotiate terms of a contract to the EU if it is now null and void ( our payments without Scotland need to be redressed) The fight must go to the EU? Why did they allow the UK to hold such a referendum which would effectively change the game plan of the EU? The ‘Group’ cannot be seen as being favourably treated by the EU as I’m sure other Nations will have something to say about it and may call for ‘The Groups’ expulsion?
It is down to us now to educate people into these matters and demand our Parliament to dissolve and call an election? If you saw David Cameron in Scotland pleading with the Scottish about leaving the UK and his worried look…. That is because he knows his political career will be over if the vote is yes. He will have to call an election and draw up new lines and rules for an English Parliament and also our legal status as a new Group/Nation like Scotland within the EU? The EU allowed it - the EU need to deal with it and make a decision?
We need to rally the support of all 24 MEP’s and push for our expulsion from the EU.
It’s now an opportunity in our lifetimes to get our country back and rid ourselves of the EU once and for all. We cannot allow the MP’s to do back room dealings to keep their own Political careers in check we have to press for a new Parliament, new English MP’s and a withdrawal from the EU. We let them decide our fate and future many years ago, and sat and did NOTHING let’s put a spanner in the works and get the ball rolling with ideas for draft letters to all MP’s and MEP’s?

Thoughts and ideas on this matter needed!


Best Wishes...... Gerry Gee.