Posts Tagged 'Fifth Column'

EU plan for UK-French military merger inches closer

In September 2010 this blog explained to readers how plans for a Royal Navy aircraft carrier share with French Navy is nothing more than an element of a much bigger Tory idea dating back 14 years. We posed a question:

But what will be Cameron’s excuse when the deeply unpopular plan for the Royal Navy and French Navy to share aircraft carriers and integrate operations is confirmed?  After all, as EU Referendum reminds us, this is nothing more than the realisation of a long standing European military cooperation agreement signed by the Conservatives under John Major in 1996.

The Barclay Brother Beano, for reasons passing understanding, is still the Tories’ rag of choice. And it is there that the latest instalment in the drip feed of confirmation has been positioned…

(Note the date of the piece – 6 June – a typo error, or carefully timed release to fit with an announcement that has gone pear shaped?)

It has long been the EU’s plan for the UK and France to share military hardware in this way.  The article is a measure of the contempt in which the political class treats us, and an underlining of the ignorance/complicity of a fawning media that props up this worthless parasites.

What we are seeing is the end game, the execution of a long standing plan to bring about interdependence between the UK and French armed forces, which means Britain’s capability to undertake unilateral military operations will no longer exist.  We can only act militarily with the permission and active cooperation of others. The next stage will be the gradual assimilation of other elements of armed forces from other EU member states, operating under the blue banner and gold stars of the EU, giving Brussels its dream of a military capability under a unified command structure taking orders from the unelected and unaccountable mandarins who rule over us.

All this has been planned and delivered, hidden in plain sight of the electorate and the media, yet even now many in the media are still unable or unwilling to connect the dots and explain to our population what our political class has done. They are sickening quislings to a man and a woman.

Arc Manche, electioneering and Tory lies

Anyone who has been even remotely interested in how the EU’s institutions are eviscerating this country will be familiar with the Arc Manche.  This is the artificial EU administrative area made up of a number of southern English counties (including Conservative ones as it happens) and French regions that border the English Channel.

The Arc Manche transnational regional network has existed since 1996 – note that date well as it was the last year of the last Conservative government under John Major.  Then in 2003 the Arc Manche became a defined political project ‘resting on an informal and voluntary network of local authorities who can use the network to share best practices, coordinate initiatives and pull together project ideas to draw in EU funding‘.

Two years later, in October 2005, the Arc Manche Assembly was created to improve the visibility of the network.  A French Socialist politician, Alain Le Vern, was elected the inaugural President of the Arc Manche Assembly, though as usual with such EU initiatives none of us actually voted for its creation or for this French placeman.

Why am I providing this potted history?  Because of this piece in yesterday’s Daily Mail, by super scoop Glen Owen, where we are told:

Eric Pickles last night accused the European Union of trying to ‘wipe England off the map’ by developing a new cross-Channel region, complete with its own ‘flag’.

New? Oh piss off.  Our media never fails to plumb new depths of utter incompetence.  It continues:

The Cabinet Minister condemned the EU for ploughing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the ‘Arc Manche’, the name given by Brussels to an ambitious attempt to merge Northern France and Southern England.

Mr Pickles, the Local Government Secretary, says he is incensed to have discovered that Eurocrats are planning to roll out a new Arc Manche ‘transnational emblem’ across England.

So what is happening here?  Is it possible that a man who has been an MP since 1992 and is now a Cabinet Minister could have failed to notice what was happening just south of his Essex constituency, something of major national importance?  Or is Eric Pickles only incensed because this largely anonymous but lavishly funded (with our tax pounds) entity is about to become much more visible to people thanks to its new emblem?

Perhaps the answer here is provided by Glen Owen.  Having breathlessly delivered his scoop that Arc Manche is ‘new’ he seems to have engaged in some afterthought research to round off his non-story with background information that demonstrates it is anything but.  It just isn’t feasible that Pickles knew nothing of Arc Manche or that his ire has been summoned up because of a frankly dismal and meaningless logo.  So that leaves just one thing – naked electioneering ahead of Thursday’s local elections.

In this what we see is that Pickles is like the rest of his egregious ilk in the political class.  Having merrily plodded along within the EU’s status quo, he now seeks to suggest the Conservative party has been led up the Arc Manche path by Labour and will ‘fight these plans’ to ‘wipe England off the map’.  Sorry Pickles old ‘chum’, some of us can see past your bullshit, for the records show it was the Conservatives who helped give birth to Arc Manche and similar regional carve ups and since coming into office again they have done the sum total of diddly squat to reverse the position.

As for stopping England being wiped off the map, perhaps Pickles has memory deficiency. After all, wasn’t it Pickles’ Cabinet colleague Ken Clarke who managed to kill off even the pathetically inadequate Tory concept of an English Grand Committee?  The reason for Clarke’s position, that we should allow Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs to continue dictating laws that will never apply to their own constituencies, is that because giving the English any form of national democratic structure would undermine the very concept of EU regionalisation that brought Arc Manche into being in the first place.

What this shows us is that if you believe anything the Conservatives say about EU governance, structures, financing through taxation, repatriation of powers etc, you are a gullible fool.  The Conservatives are a pro-EU party and they will not ever honour any promise made to we voters to loosen Brussels’ control.

The media is past its Use By date

One of the biggest (of many) problems with the UK news media is the laziness and lack of curiosity of most journalists.  Today provides us with a case in point with a story that was splashed last night by Patrick Hennessy in the Barclay Brother Beano.

The sub editors worked their supposed magic by putting the following title on Hennessy’s piece: ‘Best before labels reach their sell-by date in food waste crackdown‘.  The subs then add some apparent context for readers with the by-line that: ‘The “best before” dates on food packaging are set to be scrapped in a drive by ministers to stop millions of tonnes of perfectly edible produce being thrown away each year.

These excitable headlines have spawned from what Hennessy writes in his piece:

New guidelines are expected to be unveiled which will provide better information for shoppers and make them far more reluctant to chuck out food before it is even opened, potentially saving households hundreds of pounds a year.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that the coalition wants an end to the confusing proliferation of instructions on food labelling which have greatly expanded over the past decade.

Instead of marking food “best before” a certain date, retailers will in future have to produce labels which give details of the health risks associated with individual foods that remain on shelves or in the fridge for a lengthy period before being consumed.

So something is now ‘expected’ on the basis of someone in the coalition saying they ‘want’ to change food labelling.  And this has then been turned into the current labelling being ‘set to be scrapped’.  You see how the piece gets increasingly sexed up?  But not only is it a load of rubbish, it provides clear evidence of the laziness of hacks who wait to been spoonfed tit bits like this (presumably prior to their own ‘best before’ date, or elections as they are more commonly known).

Where does the lavishly remunerated Hennessy show any curiosity?  Where is his research into the origin of the food labelling standard and the laws or regulations that govern it?  We know he hasn’t been curious or looked into the origin of the rules because if he had he would have learned that the standard is imposed upon us by the EU – and the UK government (if you can call it that) has no control over the rules and therefore cannot simply dispense with them.

For that background information, which demonstrates the story to be a pile of horseshit, you need to turn to so called citizen journalists toiling away on their blogs – in this case Dr Richard North at the always excellent EU Referendum.  As Richard points out:

“The ‘best before’ dates on food packaging are set to be scrapped in a drive by ministers to stop millions of tons of perfectly edible produce being thrown away each year”. So says the Sunday Failygraph today, in a pathetically inadequate report which misses out two absolutely crucial words: “European Union”.

The point is, of course, that the “best before” dates are not going to be scrapped. This is because food labelling is an exclusive EU competence and the provisions are set out in Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 on “the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs” (pictured on his blog).

The Directive is transposed into British law by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 as amended (several times), and there are absolutely no plans to amend the Directive, or change the Regulations.

So what is the point of paying to buy the Telegraph or Sunday Telegraph, or trying to inform yourself of what is happening on its website, when the news it publishes is unresearched propagandist nonsense?  But this story then goes on to highlight another miserable failing in the UK news media, the problem of derivative reporting of inaccurate cant.  For Hennessy’s piece has been picked up and published by the Mail on Sunday and by the Sunday Mirror. In their desperation to appear in the know and up to speed with events, they are happy to report the same fallacious rubbish that Hennessy was allowed to print by his incompetent editors.

The reality is comments left on those stories are far more informed than the journalist hacks who wrote them, partly because they have the good sense to check this kind of stuff on EU Referendum.  We must also mention which also tilts at the story, and almost gets it right when it reports that:

Ministers have shied away from changing the law when it comes to a review of food waste.

The government is set to change guidelines affecting the ‘best before’ date on food and could require retailers to outline the health impacts of eating food which have not been consumed quickly, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said there would not be any change in existing legislation, however.

A spokesperson said: “By law pre-packed food must show a best-before date, even though many foods are still safe to eat after that date.

However even though that site broadly gets it right, it also failes to explain where that law is made or examine why Parliament doesn’t simply change it.  Although readers are given slightly more accurate information, they are left without any substantive explanation or any meaningful context.

If you want the full story forget the mainstream media. Its owners have their own an agenda and its hacks prize maintaining their shoulder rubbing access to talking heads in the political class above their remit to report the full, factual story to their readers. The UK’s news media is past its ‘Use By’ date.

A man without conviction, belief or substance

(A thank you to those kind people who have been emailing to ask how things are going.  The job is going well and I’m getting into a routine, so hopefully I can start to get some more posts up.)

When looking at Conservative Home one can’t help but be struck by the volume of anti Cameron pieces in the media that are being trailed in the Newslinks. Just take today’s offerings as an example…

Ken Clarke reportedly accuses Cameron of treating Andrew Lansley badly…

…as the Telegraph reflects on a “week of compromises”…

…and others identify Cameron’s style of government as a problem

…and the Treasury select committee condemns the leaking of the Budget

For a moment I had to check I wasn’t on Labour List.  But what is notable about these pieces is that the attacks are not ideological.  They are not about policy.  These have been spawned by the abject failure of leadership. And there is a lack of leadership because the leader, David Cameron, has no principle or clear political direction.

It is dawning on people who supported the Conservatives in the hope Cameron would reveal an inner conservative after assuming residence in Downing Street, that Cameron is not a conservative. What is more worrying is that it’s becoming apparent that Cameron is nothing. He is not a conservative, he is not a liberal, he is not a social democrat and he is not a socialist.  In fact he stands for nothing – apart from the desire to attain office – and he has successfully deceived people  by pretending to hold their political convictions when he holds none.

Government is like any business or organisation.  At the top there has to be a clear dirction and a sense of purpose or else it flounders.  In the case of a business it loses customers, money and ultimately fails or gets broken up by another that does have a sense of purpose. In the case of an organisation people lose interest and drift away leaving an ineffective rump that can achieve little if anything, then finally closes down.

In the case of a government it loses authority – it fails to honour promises central to its election campaign thus treating its supporters with contempt; it twists and turns in an effort to appease the immediate audience even when that appeasement contradicts pledges and commitments that have been made; it abandons those who believed the direction was set even if that was unpopular with some people; it operates in exactly the same manner as previous governments it criticised; and ultimately it leaks support because no one of any stripe can trust anything that comes from the mouth of the leadership, as the leadership believes in nothing that it is saying.

Expedient government quickly turns into lame duck government and the country suffers as a result.  The only person responsible for this is the autocratic meglomaniac, David Cameron.  Devoid of conviction, belief or substance , he is not only continuing the decline of this country overseen by Labour, he is accelerating it under this insipid coalition of the self interested.

While the used-to-be-Conservative party will suffer for this and enable a resurgence of the undeserving and incompetent Fabians, the ultimate casualty will be the country, followed by democracy itself.  We find ourselves in troubling and difficult times and the political class has no answer.  We need to find another way or there will be nothing left worth preserving.

Update: Dr Richard North of EU Referendum references this piece on his blog and corrects an assertion I have made. It’s a valid point he makes and his piece is a must-read posting.

Britain’s humiliation

The pathetic David Cameron on the Libyan evacuation farce:

“I’m incredibly sorry that people have had a difficult time. This is not an easy situation”

And it isn’t made any easier by the arrogance and incompetence of people who are paid to do jobs they are singularly incapable of carrying out effectively or properly.  Sorry, it seems, is now the easiest word.  Sorry is what is offered up readily in place of properly carrying out the basic functions of a government.

This is now a nation on its knees.  We have been dragged here by successive governments, staffed by over rated managerialist incompetents, that have intentionally allowed the proper functions of a nation state to decay into uselessness because they don’t believe this country should punch above its weight.  They have the ‘small island’ mentality. The one that recites the narrative that it isn’t our place to be important on the world stage. Never mind the globally significant achievements of this country and its people over the centuries, they believe we must not be a world power and they sneer at anyone who disagrees.  Instead they say we must scale down our capability and our influence to match the small geographical area of these islands because anything else constitutes some kind of arrogance.

Theirs is an artifical construct.  Only a fool would argue that a nation’s influence should be constrained because of its physical size.  What matters is not the amount of land a nation covers, but what the people of that nation can do, what challenges they can overcome, what great strides they can take for the betterment of everyone and what great examples they can set.  Britain earned its place at the world’s top table because of the entrepreneurial and daring mindset of many of its people.

The rush for mediocrity and the guilt complex of the self loathing has seen us replace our can-do attitude and sense of self worth with incompetence and failure.  And the self loathing celebrate this.  That is where we are today and that is, in a nutshell, how we were led here.  It is why our self reliance has been supplanted by reliance on the state. It is why every measure of this country’s capability has declined, from the standard of our education to the quality of our goods and services, from the strength of our armed forces to the ability of our public servants.

It is a nauseating disgrace. It is a national humiliation.

The first consideration of any government is the protection and security of the people it serves.  The government failed spectacularly to do that in Libya. While the governments of other countries were busy providing a means of exit in the absence of commercial travel, arranging transit to ports and airports in convoys, generating lists of people to be extracted, and putting on the ground a visible organising presence by embassy staff to manage the operation at the airport, the oh-so-grand United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office was telling Britons to stay put if they wished or leave on commercial flights.

Listening to the accounts of Britons who had made it out of the country yesterday – before the FCO had shaken itself from its laser like focus on surrendering this country’s interests to the European Union – we heard the humiliating tales of Portuguese and Argentine embassy staff providing assistance to Britons while our embassy staff were nowhere to be seen.

A nation that once governed effectively and ran competently a global Empire in the challenging days of ships and horse mounted couriers, has found itself incapable in the digital age of communicating clearly and mounting a cohesive evacuation operation for several hundred of its citizens stuck in a country only a few hours flying time from London.

That the first aircraft chartered by the FCO to fly people out of Tripoli developed a technical fault and sat on the ground for 10 hours, without anyone having the wit to source another without delay, was truly symbolic.  It was a working example of this nation’s decline and the extent to which our character has been eroded by handwringing wimps.

So it was no surprise that the Foreign Office’s failure should provoke a typically pathetic response from David Cameron that the government must ‘learn the lessons’ from it. What utter bullshit.  This isn’t the first time.  It is code for doing nothing and trying to dodge the deserved contempt of the yet again let down public.

Where are the lessons that have been learned from previous failures?  Anyone can learn from their own mistakes, but wise people learn from the mistakes of others. But not in this country.  With our useless stuffed suits wandering aimlessly around Whitehall we continue to make them and are condemned to continue making them.  These are the kind of people who have transformed Britain into third rate country deserving of scorn.  They did not want us to have a nation of which we can be proud and even now actively play down moments in our history of which we should be proud and that should be inspiring the next generation.

The people of this country have been lulled into a virtual coma by those who want to undermine it. The political parties, the establishment, the media, all of them have conspired actively or through silence in this evisceration of our nation.  It will continue until some people have the courage to take this country back from the quisling, defeatist bastards and make it something we can be proud of again.

Mehdi Hasan – what an unpleasant piece of work

Watching Mehdi Hasan on television has long given me a sense of the man’s intolerance for anyone who disagrees with him.

But that intolerance has previously manifested itself in a different way, something I was unaware of.  The clip below demonstrates Hasan’s casual bigotry and disdain for non Muslims, and his misplaced sense of moral superiority.  What a thoroughly unpleasant individual.

He may use his frequent BBC appearances spout the usual buzz words such as ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘multi-culturalism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ but we can now see what exists behind the carefully moderated public face. No wonder he is the pride of the New Stateman.

(Hat tip: commenter in another thread)

HRH The Prince of Wales

The Prince of Wales has again delved into the realm of spin and distortion as he took another opportunity to criticise AGW sceptics.  This time it was in a speech at one of his favourite institutions, the European Parliament (Hat tip: EU Referendum).

After offering some very reasonable observations about the destruction of rainforests, Charles enjoined environmentalists to stop honestly describing the things they want people to stop doing and pointing out that living environmentally-friendly lives means giving up all that makes life worthwhile.

Instead His Royal Highness wants the environmentalists to sell their view of an eco utopia by engaging in spin in the manner of his new initiative called Start, which aims to promote the benefits of supposedly sustainable living.  He is quite open about using PR and marketing techniques to hide the unpalatable truth and focusing on an illusory and contrived vision, as he made clear saying:

“As one advertising executive put it to me, we are ‘making it cool to use less stuff’.

Achieving the environmentalists’ outcome still requires people to give up things that make life enjoyable and worthwhile.  But of course, it is much easier for fabulously wealthy people like Charles, who will still enjoy the trappings of a fantastically privileged and taxpayer funded life of patronage and comfort.  A man whose call for such a vision would have a dramatic negative impact on ordinary people for whom day to day living involves accounting for every last penny and making daily choices such as paying a bill or having something more nutritious than value beans and chips for dinner.  But what else can we expect from a man whose only ambition in life, apart from becoming King, was to be Camilla’s tampon and whose world includes taking a white leather toilet seat with him wherever he travels.

Then it was on to delivering this swipe at AGW sceptics in typically idiotic and cack handed fashion:

I have to say, this process has not exactly been helped by the corrosive effect on public opinion of those climate change sceptics who deny the vast body of scientific evidence that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that global warming has been exacerbated by human industrialised activity. […]

[…] I would ask how these people are going to face their grandchildren and admit to them that they failed their future.

I wonder, will such people be held accountable at the end of the day for the absolute refusal to countenance a precautionary approach? For this plays a most reckless game of roulette with the future inheritance of those who come after us.

Question. If as Charles claims the evidence shows ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ that mankind is stoking global warming, why on earth is he criticising people for refusing to countenance a ‘precautionary approach’? With all due respect, how can we take seriously someone who makes such contradictory comments within moments of each other?

Actually, stuff the respect.  Respect is something that should be earned and the only thing Charles is earning is my enduring contempt.  Small wonder so many people want the Monarchy to skip a generation because the prospect of this doddery old fool being King is just so disturbing.  No qualification other than an accident of birth has provided him with a platform and all he does is spout ideological nonsense from a strange world that is divorced from the real one.

Put the faux Conservative party out of its misery

Stepping back a couple of days, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, Peter Bone, wrote a scathing review on ConservativeHome of the Government’s shenanigans in stifling debate on the insipid European Union Bill.

Bone eviscerates the claims of Europe Minister, David Lidington, who gushed that the Bill would get intense scrutiny and that it was the most radical piece of legislation about the EU since 1973 thus:

Perhaps the Minister for Europe should have said in his ConservativeHome article:

“This week the new European Union Bill will be rushed through the House of Commons, with as little scrutiny as possible by MPs. Its details will not be debated and rightly so. The EU Bill is the most irrelevant and unimaginative piece of legislation on how we handle the EU since Britain joined the then EEC in 1973.”

Bone’s amendment – asking for an in/out referendum on the European Union if certain criteria were met – never saw the light of day as the Whips stifled scrutiny and put up patsies to talk out the time alloted to debating the Bill.  This was David Cameron’s Euroscepticism in action.  Having cast adrift his promise to repatriate powers he is now ramming through meaningless legislation that will do nothing to stem the flow of power from the UK to Brussels.

That there are so few comments on such an important subject on the ‘home of the Conservative grassroots’ should tell people all they need to know about the emasculated state of the party membership.

The Cameron Conservative party will not deliver its promise to repatriate power from the EU and it will cravenly dodge any attempt to ask voters to give a democratic mandate for continued EU membership or withdrawal.

Its members, usually so vocal on important matters, are sitting in embarrassed silence as promise after promise is shown to have been broken. The illusion of power in Westminster matters more than doing the right thing by the people of this country. The Conservative party is led by a fraudulent hypocrite and cannot ever be trusted to honour its pledges.

We were promised power would be devolved to the people. But EU membership – the critical state of affairs that influences nearly every aspect of this nation’s governance – is kept off limits and completely invalidates the pledge Cameron had no intention of keeping to. He is all spin and empty rhetoric. He says what people want to hear but has no intention of delivering on it. He instructs his Whips to prevent his pre election promises ever becoming reality.

If the EU is a subject that matters to you and you want Britain to be sovereign and to run its own affairs, it is time to accept voting Conservative is incompatible with your aims. If you want the British people to deliver a mandate for staying in or getting out of the EU, don’t expect the Europhile Cameron and his circle to deliver a referendum – they are determined to remain loyal to Brussels, not the British people. The Conservative party is no longer conservative.

It is time for a new political force to represent the vacant centre right, one that not only talks the talk on democracy but walks the walk too. One that believes in genuine equality and meritocracy. One that will reject the nannying ‘nudge’ mentality and actively reduce the scope and power of the state so individuals can realise greater personal freedom.

One that restores the representative nature of politics and eradicates the this self serving elective dictatorship that refuses to honour its promises and treats the people of this country with contempt.

It is time to put this rapidly declining faux conservative party out of its misery and provide a genuine alternative for conservative minded people to support. It is time for genuine conservatives to say ‘no more’, to stop feeding the voracious cuckoo chick in their nest and establish a new home characterised by honesty and integrity.

Peter Sissons on the BBC’s climate change propaganda

The serialisation of Peter Sissons’ new book continues in the Daily Mail today, and the former newscaster turns his attention to the BBC’s editorial approach and coverage of climate change.

Perhaps it is a credit to the bloggers who have highlighted issues with the BBC’s coverage over the years that hardly anything Sissons says is new.  However what prove useful are the elements of Sissons’ professional assessment and inside observation of the BBC bias and propaganda, as demonstrated in the sections below:

There is one brief account of the ­proceedings, written by a conservative commentator who was there. He wrote subsequently that he was far from impressed with the 30 key BBC staff who attended. None of them, he said, showed ‘even a modicum of professional journalistic ­curiosity on the subject’. None appeared to read anything on the subject other than the Guardian.

This attitude was underlined a year later in another statement: ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.’ Those scientists outside the ‘consensus’ waited in vain for the phone to ring.

It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to ­prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.

Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists.

Yet the cream of the BBC’s inquisitors during my time there never laid a glove on those who repeated the ­mantra that ‘the science is settled’. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.

Then there is the BBC’s cult worship of celebrity and love of being courted expensively, as demonstrated by their fawning over Al Gore:

Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre.

His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, ­contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its ­environment correspondents downplayed its significance.

And Sissons provides us with confirmation of the BBC’s determination to present only one side of the story, in wilful breach of journalistic ethics and flying in the face of the corporation’s own claims of impartiality and balance:

At the end of November 2007 I was on duty on News 24 when the UN panel on climate change produced a report which later turned out to contain ­significant inaccuracies, many stemming from its reliance on non-peer reviewed sources and best-guesses by environmental activists.

But the way the BBC’s reporter treated the story was as if it was beyond a vestige of doubt, the last word on the catastrophe awaiting mankind. The most challenging questions addressed to a succession of UN employees and climate ­activists were ‘How urgent is it?’ and ‘How much danger are we in?’

Back in the studio I suggested that we line up one or two sceptics to react to the report, but received a totally negative response, as if I was some kind of lunatic. I went home and wrote a note to myself: ‘What happened to the journalism? The BBC has ­completely lost it.’


It’s not just the BBC

Another national broadcaster also willfully ignores the evidence, as we learn from Jennifer Marohasy.  This time it is ABC in Australia which is exhibiting unadulterated bias to further an agenda in its reporting on the devastating floods in Queensland.

But let’s remind ourselves anyway of the information and viewpoints about climate change the BBC refuses to give air time to…

It seems wherever you go in this world the mainstream media is determined to set aside impartial reporting of the facts and promotion of debate between two opposing views, and instead they appoint themselves judges of the truth and decide what we, the public, should be allowed to see and hear.

This state of affairs increases the value and importance of blogs in the developing information war.  Without dedicated bloggers around the world providing counter arguments with the oxygen of awareness; and revealing the vested interests of those whose opinions are broadcast and published as fact by a supportive media machine, how else will the public have any idea of the other side of any story?

Cameron shows his inner chameleon

This is what it all boils down to. This is what matters to David Cameron and in turn what he thinks matters to MPs. Everything those of us who have tried to explain what Cameron is really like has been made clear in two sentences from his own mouth.

Cameron had no interest in politics when he was at Oxford University, it just became a good route to power and success later on.  He was never a conservative, had no political ideology or principle, but in order to achieve selection to fight a parliamentary election he knew it was the Conservative party he had to join.

Cameron knew what act he had to put on to appeal to the mainstream conservative grassroots, hence the narrative about being a tax cutting, EUsceptic, law and order Tory.  Consequently Cameron believes every other MP has the same self serving, unprincipled, belief-free motives for being in parliament.  Experience has shown him to be largely correct and that is why his chosen method of threatening and intimidating new MPs into voting for his deceitful, utterly meaningless, sham European Union Bill centred on power:

‘You are making a bloody terrible mistake, Chris, it will do your career and reputation no good at all.

‘And you can bloody well forget about being a Minister.’

Anyone who still believes Cameron to be some kind of secret EUsceptic should have those words burned into their consciousness, because this demonstrates his EUphilia. It underlines the deception and the lies. It shows the sheer determination he possesses to create a piece of legislation that furthers the aim of transferring power to the EU while dishonestly spinning to the public that the Act will arrest the flow of competences to Brussels.

We live in an electoral dictatorship run by a cabal of EU enthusiasts who are determined to further the interests of Brussels in spite of the wishes of the people. No matter whether they wear Conservative blue, Labour red or Lib Dem yellow, underneath they don the gold stars of the European Union. They are determined to do everything in their power to prevent the majority of people in the UK from deciding if we want to be part of this anti democratic suprastate or not.

Cameron is the current head of the enemy within. It could just as easily be Miliband or Clegg. The effect would be identical.  Despite the acts of partisan posturing for the cameras in parliament, they are all friends and all in this together, united by a common goal to overcome the wishes of the British people and serve their own interests instead. This is the head of the fifth column.

EU Air Force takes shape thanks to Tories

The long planned European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) draws closer to its fruition. In the 1990s, under the last Conservative government, the plan was hatched. Then under Labour in 1998 London and Paris agreed to jointly and actively work to make the European Union ‘able to carry out some security tasks on its own’.

It is against this backdrop that Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, commander of the RAF’s No 1 Group, which controls all Britain’s fast jet combat aircraft, has said that Britain was likely to end up with only six fighter and bomber squadrons – half its current number. Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell said that one way around the shortages was to collaborate more with the French:

“It looks like we are going to twin 3 Squadron [a Typhoon squadron] with one of the [French] Rafale [fighter-bomber] squadrons. I’ll make a prediction we will have British officers flying Rafale from a carrier within a few years. I’m quite sure of it.”

That was always the intention since the Tories signed the policy. With the UK and France effectively forming a twinned military, the EU can assume control giving it that coveted ability to ‘to carry out some security tasks on its own’. It gives the EU a military force to go with its new legal personality as part of the step change to eradicating nation states.

It seems strange that senior officers of the RAF are not aware of what the politicians have agreed and the agenda to which they are working. It is no surprise that the media has been in complete ignorance, but surely the senior ranks of the armed forces should already know how they are expected to operate in the future.

All the pieces of the jigsaw are on the table waiting to be put together. When they are assembled, thanks to David Cameron, Liam Fox and William Hague, the picture will be a British soldiers, sailors and airmen ‘harmonised’ with the French, being part of an EU military force operating under Brussels’ control into which the smaller armed forces of the other member states can be inserted one by one until all of them operate under the blue flag and gold stars of the illegitimate articifical construct. Instead of focusing on the comparison between an eviscerated RAF and Belgium’s ‘air component’ the media should be focusing on the bigger picture which explains why this is being done.

Because of clueless reporters relying on press releases rather than investigating to uncover the facts of what this supposedly Eurosceptic Prime Minister and his people are doing, the country will remain in ignorance as the EU completes its aims. It’s enough to make one think they are in on the plan and deliberately keeping people in the dark…

What the Stockholm bombings tell us

The double bomb attack in Stockholm yesterday provides us with yet more evidence that appeasement of those determined to harm us doesn’t work. Across Scandinavia there are radicalised Muslims who feel nothing but hatred and contempt for their hosts and the west in general.

This has been exhibited by reports of Islamist youths wearing t-shirts declaring that in ‘2030 Sweden is ours’, which demonstrates that integration is not the aim of those granted residence in that country.

In addition, Sweden’s intelligence service (SÄPO) has also reported that Islamist immigrants have been engaging in terrorism and attending terrorist training camps back in Somalia. SÄPO was warning as recently as the summer that young Swedes in Somalia could take part in terrorist attacks ‘in the near future.’ We shall know soon enough if that prediction came true this weekend.

Western countries have been too free and too easy doling out passports and residency permits to people claiming to be in need of asylum.  Part of the thinking is that if we show how kind and generous we are we’re less likely to come under attack from Islamists. Supposedly we are setting an example. But all the evidence shows this approach is scoffed at by the Islamists and they say it shows we are weak and deserving of attack. The only thing that gives these religio-political lunatics any pause for thought is strength, resolve and a determination to defeat the threat they pose.

All too often the intelligence services discover that many people granted asylum then pitch up in their countries of origin, from where they have supposedly fled in fear of their lives, and are engaged in fighting, terrorism or radicalisation. Instead of immediately blacklisting these people to prevent their return, thanks to the self loathing liberal elite they are still permitted freedom of movement in the countries they intend to turn into theatre of terror. So is it any wonder we end up with a fifth column within our countries that are hell bent on killing as many innocent people as possible?

If we do not wise up and change our approach in order to deal with these people in uncompromising fashion then we can expect more of the same in weeks, months and years to come.

Update: Depressingly yet unsurprisingly reports now suggest the bomber previously lived in the UK, in Luton, and studied at the University of Bedfordshire. It will be interesting to see if taxpayers subsidised his study. Thanks to our utterly useless political class, their idiotic immigration policies and their sucking up to extremist preachers of hate, this country is the rallying point for every homocidal Islamist in western Europe. Whenever an Islamist carries out an act of terror anywhere in the west it must now be par for the course to look through his history to see where in the UK he lived, studied or attended a mosque run by hatemongers, in order to piece his story and connections together.

The conspiracy to trump all conspiracies

We are now moving beyond laughable conspiracy theories and into the realm of a genuine conspiracy to entirely subvert democracy.

It sounds so far fetched people will be tempted to scoff at such a suggestion. But Viscount Monckton of Brenchley argues that decisons being made and plans being laid at the Climate Change jamboree in Cancun have sinister implications for the way the world will be shaped in years to come. As Monckton explains:

The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

Monckton points out a raft of plans in progress on a number of subjects, which everyone should read and understand. Among them are the following:

Finance: Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.

The world government’s powers: The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies. Between them, they will be given new powers to verify the information, to review it and, on the basis of that review, to tell nation states what they can and cannot do.

Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach. In an explicit mirroring of the European Union’s method of enforcing the will of its unelected Kommissars on the groaning peoples of that benighted continent, the civil servants of nation states will come to see themselves as servants of the greater empire of the Secretariat, carrying out its ukases and diktats whatever the will of the nation states’ governments.

Many of the new bureaucracies are disguised as “capacity-building in developing countries”. This has nothing to do with growing the economies or industries of poorer nations. It turns out to mean the installation of hundreds of bureaucratic offices answerable to the Secretariat in numerous countries around the world. Who pays? You do, gentle taxpayer.

At no point anywhere in the 186 pages of the Treaty draft do the words “democracy”, “election”, “ballot”, or “vote” appear.

Delusional and far fetched conspiracy theory, or the explosive distilling of intentionally confusing legalese that reveals the blueprint for a new world order previously considered impossible to construct? Do you feel utterly powerless and detached from the ability to hold these politicians and bureaucrats to account? Just look at what has been taken from you while you slept. Now, how are you going to take it back?

Guardianista’s spiteful attack on EUsceptic over Ireland bail out money

‘Will Bill Cash, the historian, change his mind and agree to support Ireland? Veteran Eurosceptic says no to supporting Ireland as Downing Street confirms Britain is prepared to help fund a bailout.’

So writes The Guardian’s pride and joy, Nicholas Watt on the much acclaimed (ok, I made that bit up) Wintour and Watt Blog. Not content with posting the question, Watt includes a photograph of Bill Cash with the strapline: ‘Bill Cash believes Britain should not contribute a penny to help its ailing neighbour.’ Nice. Not the slightest bit of emotive rabble rousing from yet another internationalist, big government fanatic who hasn’t got the sense he was born with. He ruminates thus:

When you are blinded by hatred it is sometimes difficult to see the wider picture.

Bill Cash, the grand daddy of Tory Eurosceptics, gave a masterclass of this today when Downing Street confirmed that Britain may have to contribute to a possible bailout of the Irish Republic.

On cue, this is what Cash, chairman of the Commons European scrutiny committee, told the London Evening Standard:

Not a penny of British taxpayers’ money should go to bail out Ireland.

Cash does not want to help the Irish Republic because it is a member of the eurozone. Ireland has only itself to blame, goes the Eurosceptic thinking, and should turn instead to the likes of France and Germany which enticed Dublin to join the single currency spurned by Britain.

If Cash is struggling to summon up any generosity towards Ireland, perhaps a potted history of his career might help him to think again:

Oh piss off. Clearly Nicholas Watt is another idiot subscriber to the idea of the magic money tree that allows us to harvest vast quantities of cash on demand. Perhaps Watt needs a little (well actually a lot) help here. His spiteful and pejorative comments ignore a very simple fact. To help out Ireland the already heavily indebted UK would have to borrow even more money at a time we need to reduce public debt.

Part of the supposed benefit of the Euro currency was that Eurozone members would support each other in times such as these. We are not a Eurozone member and we have our own problems to overcome. It is not any imagined hatred of Ireland as Watt disgracefully suggests which is at the heart of Bill Cash’s views, it is economic illiteracy of accepting we do not have enough money for our own needs yet borrowing billions on markets nervous of our debt levels to send to Ireland. The fact is if Cash’s comments had been made by a non-EUsceptic, Watt would not have written this piece.

Think about it another way. Perhaps when the Unison trade union (currently hard at it recruiting new members) starts castigating the government for not spending more on its domestic departments, Watt will be happy to tell them it was more important to borrow money to send to Ireland rather than use it for the benefit of the UK. Realism and common sense are qualities notably absent from the Guardian. But if nothing else at least the Guardianista is always good for a bit of fantasy economics.

‘Dad, I hate Muslims’

That was the comment a youngster in front of me made to her father earlier this evening. She could not have been any older than 12 or 13 years old. But she was clearly so angered by the behaviour of a group of thugs calling themselves Muslims Against Crusades, who burnt a large poppy and protested against British troops during the two-minute silence, she decided she felt hatred for Muslims.

I did not hear the father’s response. Having returned home and seen the reports and images of these so called protesters, their faces contorted into hate filled expressesions, it is easy to understand why that little girl said what she did.

Why should people in this country have to tolerate the poisonous presence of Islamist extremists who take what this country has to offer but despise it in return? People who select a solemn occasion dating back decades that now marks the sacrifice of altogether too many young men and women who lost their lives in wars to defeat tyranny, and use it to slander young men and women who serve their country today.

It is they, not the men and women of our armed forces, who are the terrorists. It is they who engaged in fighting with police. It is they who sought to offend people with their ignorant protest deliberately aimed to spark a reaction. It is they who demand Britain conforms to their warped medieval vision of an Islamic caliphate. It is they who conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of people who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan have died at the hands of similarly aggressive and hate filled Muslims.

Who was it blowing up hundreds of innocent people at a time in markets and bazaars around Baghdad and other towns and cities? It wasn’t our armed forces. It was Sunni slaughtering Shia and Shia slaughtering Sunni. In Afghanistan who was it cutting the throats of people for having educational qualifications or bringing medical aid to civilians? Who murdered people for playing music or supporting the idea of girls attending school? Muslim terror writ large. It was the product of intolerance, hatred and a view that their form of the Islamic faith was somehow more correct than any other.

Where were these London based poppy burning pieces of scum when that was happening? Most likely they were talking big behind closed doors while shitting themselves at the idea of standing up to their ‘brothers’. Too terrified to stand against the real terrorists in their supposed Muslim homelands, they chose the coward’s way and picked a disciplined target that is trained to operate within the rule of law and would not represent a threat to them. Men and women who helped tidy up after the carnage dispensed by the adherents of the laughably self titled ‘religion of peace’.

The real victims of these hypocritical zealots will be those Muslims who have no truck with extremism and just want to live their lives here in peace, but who will be tarred with the same brush. Yet more Muslim casualties of Muslim violence. Ironic, no? Perhaps they need to put a whole lot of distance between themselves and these vile parasites in our midst.

The BBC and The Guardian – Why?

On Armistice Day and Remembrance Day many people think of wars in the past and ask the question, Why?  Ultimately wars stem from disagreements between leaders where at least one is playing power games, or from popular uprisings against leaders who forget they are merely stewards of their country and convince themselves they rule it in spite of the wishes of the people.

In every conflict there are people who are described as ‘fifth columnists’. These are people who clandestinely or otherwise undermine a larger group such as a nation from within, in order to help an external enemy. The don’t see the external entity as an enemy because they share its aims and are therefore comfortable to side against their own people. They engage in propaganda and work actively promote the aims of the external entity.

Of course the United Kingdom has people such as these. Outside of the political class the most visible fifth columnists can be found at the BBC and The Guardian newspaper. So it cannot come as a surprise that both supposedly serious news organisations – the BBC being the largest news gathering organisation in the world – have demonstrated yet more bias by omission today.

Both are guilty of deliberately ignoring the Herman Van Rompuy’s speech in Berlin, where as President of the European Council he said that the age of the nation state is over and the idea that countries can stand alone is an ‘illusion’ and a ‘lie’, while describing ‘Euroscepticism’ as dangerous and the way to war. Searches on both sites revealed the completely predictable absence of articles on the subject. Click on them to enlarge:


This takes us back to the original question. Why are these two organisations, that both benefits from taxpayers’ money – the BBC through the licence fee and the Guardian through public sector advertising revenues – making such crass and unjustified editorial decisions? Seeing as papers such as the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times etc, recognise the messages in Van Rompuy’s speech are of significant public interest and affect this country the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the fifth column BBC and Guardian do not want people to be aware of the EU’s plans for Britain, because they endorse them and want their internationalist agenda to be achieved.

As we stop and remember on this very day those people who laid down their lives to defend and protect the freedom and self determination of the British people, we see before us two British institutions actively working to subvert those perspectives. We see two organisations who wish to see Britain subsumed into a federal Europe that is anti democratic and bent on eroding the hard won freedoms we take for granted. It is not just insulting, it is morally repugnant and utterly sickening.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive