Remember, remember, the fifth of November – in truth ‘Guy Fawkes’ came to be toasted as “the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions”

The ancient Palace of Westminster was in 1605 a jumble of medieval buildings [this drawing is of the foundation plan]

 

Today 5th November is of course Britain’s day of celebration of an event of 414 years ago, when a group of English plotters’ attempt to blow up the then house of Lords and its members with gunpowder, was foiled at the twelfth hour, so to speak, before the opening of the British so-called parliament of the times.

As you might guess, it was all about religion and involved about a dozen Catholics intent on overthrowing the Protestant King James 1, killing him and his lords, while intent on restoring a Catholic monarch to the throne.

Guy Fawkes also known as Guido Fawkes, is the one most associated with the plot as he was the only one actually caught, which was when in control of the gunpowder, as it was he who was set to detonate it in a ground floor storeroom [NOT a cellar as is widely recounted!]. Torture was ordered by the King and used to break him on the rack and so confess and implicate the others involved.

Fawkes was a convert to Catholicism and as we know only too well from Islamic jihadi terrorism, it is converts that make the most violent individuals in a faith. The plot wasn’t actually discovered by the authorities but came to light because a plotter tipped-off a Catholic peer to save his life, so the King found out that way and had a search conducted

Following the thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot and execution of its ‘high treason’ participants, an annual ‘Guy Fawkes Night’ bonfire festivity by Londoners was stimulated by parliament [as ‘the joyful day of deliverance’], and indeed and this has evolved into a widespread bonfire and extravagant firework displays event, throughout the UK to this very day, and even to overseas colonies, including some in America

[Later in the 17th century bonfires were accompanied by fireworks and it also became the custom to burn an effigy of the pope, while in modern times it is a guy effigy, often created by children from old clothes, newspapers, and a mask]

However, it was a learned professor of history who recorded that Fawkes came to be toasted as “the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions”. Many of us these days who have followed the disgraceful behaviour over many many years of MPs in the Commons and Peers in the Lords, would agree with that. Obliviously there was no democratically elected lower parliament in Fawkes’ day, as it wasn’t founded until over 200 years later

[The House of Commons, officially the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the upper house, the House of Lords, it meets in the Palace of Westminster rebuilt after a fire some 150 years ago]

Certainly many MPs seem to hold the attitude whereby the general population aren’t clever enough or well educated enough to dictate to them about how the Country should be run, so they will overrule the voters if they consider we have made a mistake or are misinformed – as we have seen over the past 3 years with their blatant refusal to implement the result of the 2016 EU Referendum, as they consider it bad for the UK – that would include the Scottish SNP who failed to persuade Scotland to leave the Union, but nevertheless believe they have the right to defy decisions of that very Union.

You see the elite and our MPs think they have the innate and divine right to rule and they hanker back to the old days without the binding inconvenience of democracy, and when ordinary people were serfs with no power nor say. Well, at least back to the time when only a few percent of the population had the vote and the British electoral system was totally unrepresentative – before 1800 probably only a quarter of a million people were entitled to vote and even large industrial cities like Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester did not have a single MP between them – and certainly not women [universal suffrage, with voting rights for women, though NOT for those under 30, only arrived here in 1918, didn’t it?

Certainly, Britain needs a completely new set of none self-serving, honest MPs who the people can trust, and ones who will implement the long-overdue changes that our parliamentary system requires. That would include getting shot of the ridiculous, non-elected, unaccountable,  over-populated, useless, expensive House of Lords – though that will take more than a couple of thirty-eight barrels of gunpowder that Fawkes intended to use, eh?

 

[A general election is upon us next month and hopefully the Country will get at least some of the right MPs this time]

 

 

 

Boris’ BREXIT Halloween Trick or Treat – TRICK?

   Tories still unreliable to deliver proper BREXIT

 

 

Three successive British Prime Ministers [Cameron, May, Johnson] have told the Country they had succeeded with EU negotiations – LIARS?

    

It isn’t just in this century that our Prime Ministers have tried to hoodwink the British public over Europe, is it? No, but probably the most disastrous example in memory is back in the 1930s when Germany embarked on a power grab of other European countries to create its first version of the European Union, eh?

The elite then in Westminster kept the British population in the dark about the dire goings on, the government’s ostrich style head-in-the sand dealings, the cowardly concessions, and the futile appeasement until the shit hit the fan in 1938. That was when things were laid bare but Tory PM Neville Chamberlain nevertheless assured the British public that through appeasement he had secured “peace in our time” – it proved to be a lie and only a year later the Country was embroiled in the worst war ever.

[World War II was the most destructive conflict in history. It cost more money, damaged more property, killed more people, and caused more far-reaching changes than any other war in history]

Well, that experience of our citizens perhaps is uncannily similar and parallels with the EU situation over the past half-century, wouldn’t you say?

For a start, the voters via a 1975 referendum, which was the first ever in the UK, and was an election promise of the Labour party, had misguidedly acceded to the UK ‘staying’ IN a European trading association – the EEC, known as the Common Market – which Tory PM Edward Heath had taken the Britain into two years beforehand without any public consultation [different from Norway whose people had been allowed to vote and had rejected membership].

Labour PM Harold Wilson had gone to Brussels to ‘renegotiated’ our membership conditions and returned to claim to the public that he had indeed succeeded in getting a better deal for Britain – so he led the ‘Inners’ campaign, didn’t he?

Liar?

Oh yes, the UK Inners clearly won that time round, but the mass of the public, though warned otherwise, were undoubtably conned, in an era when they were told that Britain could no longer go it alone in the modern world, into thinking that they were voting for a simple trading arrangement when it was anything of the kind –it was instead commencement of a seditious massive control mechanism, wasn’t it?

Yep, and while the ‘Outers’ knew full well and warned that the EEC was simply the thin edge of the wedge so voted against it, the majority had been falsely reassured that lives in the UK wouldn’t be affected and that it wouldn’t lead to general Community-wide laws and Britain would not be giving up the power to determine our laws – how has that worked-out, do you think?

In reality, it was also an unfair debate, driven by the Inners’ biased fervent Conservatives and backed-up by a controlling influential press, and railroaded through despite the fact that the Outers had undoubtably exposed the severe unavoidable risks facing the Country that such a decision would involve – which included they said Britain becoming in stages a mere province in a future single nation of Europe, eh?

You see, it was already clear that the EEC was unmistakably a club designed to enrich capitalists and benefit BIG business at the expense of ordinary people and democracy, while furthermore that it would decimate our traditional industries and destroy the jobs of its workers through increased competition at a time when our industry was already in a parlous state.

The Outers warned that continuing membership would drive-up further already high food prices, and anyway by then those who had experienced the war were upset that we had been forced to abandon our import of cheap butter from New Zealand, a loyal ally that had kept us going in those difficult times. It was predicted by Outers that the price of butter would almost double in three years if we ‘stayed in’ but they were WRONG – the price of butter QUADRUPLED

Of course, many current citizens won’t remember, or have been around, to know of the numerous wasteful fiascos of the Common market, much of it brought about by the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) and its reckless market interventions using subsidies, ensuring guaranteed prices to farmers, leading to a surge in dairy products in particular, so production exceeded demand which then created enormous stored surpluses of unwanted food with an associated massive cost. It also equally blocked cheap imports from the rest of the world and forced its countries to buy expensive food from other member states.

[Until reform, the CAP rewarded farmers for every ton of grain or head of livestock or gallon of wine they produced, guaranteeing them minimum prices irrespective of market conditions or how much was overproduced – France and Ireland raked it in while Britain bore the brunt of the astonishing cost]

So, we had the butter mountain that first built up some fifty years ago, but that is no longer just a perceived ‘relic’ of Europe’s EEC past, since milk lakes and butter mountains still persist today due to the renewed glut caused by continuing Brussels’ euro billion massive intervention in the dairy market over the recent half-decade – that leading to extraordinary stockpiling in the silos and warehouses of France, Germany and Belgium. That is likely though to be counterproductive as temporarily bailing-out the farmers and creating excess stock, could simply implode on a devastating market crisis and drive market prices down even further, as well as causing mayhem by dumping in developing countries with fragile dairy markets

Four years ago, unwanted dairy produce of another thirty thousand tons of butter as well as a hundred-and-ten thousand tons of skimmed milk powder, joined the over three hundred thousand tons of unwanted sugar, over fifteen thousand tons of unwanted maize and wheat and millions of gallons of unwanted wine in long-term storage.

Reportedly, at times CAP subsidies to farmers resulted in a million-and-a-half-ton mountain of unwanted beef stockpiled in cold stores, close to a million tons of cereals, fifty thousand tons of sugar and two and a half million hectoliters of wine – all proof that the British Outers were only too right about the EEC’s impending waste of money, eh?

The reason the Common market, was so badly and undemocratically set up, is in reality part down to Labour, because PM Clement Attlee, deposer of Conservative Winston Churchill in the 1945 post-war election, as it was he, suspicious and hostile , who refused to even attend the 1950 talks on the Schuman Plan which resulted in the creation of the embryonic form of the EEC – that lack of British sound council and assistance left it in the hands of democratically inept France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg to incompetently cobble together the critical brand new organisation which has evolved into the disastrously unaccountable current European Union

In more recent times, we have of course had a consecutive trio of Tory British Prime Ministers who all have led the public up the path when it came to Europe and rode roughshod the groundswell of opinion in the Country that identified with the eurosceptic opinions those opposed to the EU.

That view was down to the EUs’ structure that allowed power without responsibility, its inconceivable level of financial waste, its policies that enriched undeserving uneconomic producers, its unbridled wealth redistribution from the performers to the underachievers, its determination to expand and include those who didn’t qualify to its agreed membership criteria, its prime objective to remove all counties’ sovereignty and subject its membership to increasing EU political and legal control, and of course its ridiculous ambition of further and further integration to become the bloody parody of the united states of America – there are many other populations, increasing in numbers, that want shot of the EU’s idiotic ambitions – they are looking to the UK to make a successful exit so they can follow suit, and that is why the Brussels hierarchy are determined to punish and humiliate the UK in its decision to do so

In the summer four years ago PM David Cameron embarked on a quest to renegotiate the UK’s membership of European Union and other changes to EU rules and Treaties. He needed the changes to make the EU more palatable to the British public prior to our 2016 IN/OUT Referendum

Well, his words in Brussels fell on stony ground and his pleas on key sovereignty changes were inexplicably dropped despite being a Tory manifesto commitment, while he also gave-in on those on migrants, welfare benefits, and eurozone protectionism. The only thing he seemed to have achieved was an empty promise that the EU would try to cut red tape, eh?

Nevertheless, Cameron returned to the UK claiming success as the EU would change it ways, and indeed saying that the proposals achieved gave the UK special status within the European Union.

He immediately declared that he would campaign for a Remain vote in the referendum within what he claimed was a ‘reformed’ European Union. No such reforms occurred, did they?

He then proceeded to head-up a government that unfairly used its resources and public money to support the ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’ remain group to thwart the ‘Vote Leave’ group, and he orchestrated Project Fear that enlisted the Treasury and the Bank of England to produce a pack of fabricated financial forecasts predicting economic meltdown if Britain voted leave, all intended to scare-off leave voters. The voters on a national turnout of 72% chose Leave without such consequences, eh?

He told the Country that in the event of a Leave decision by the voters, that he would accept it and would lead the way in implementing the Referendum outcome. He promptly resigned the very next day

Liar?

Cameron was superseded by Theresa May another Remainer, though one less visible as a Referendum campaigner, but one less charismatic certainly, and one equally incompetent to be Prime Minister, and one who suffered from a weakness of purpose except that of personal survival which she has delivered in spades throughout her political life.

She reassured the public that the public’s vote had ‘converted’ her from a Remainer into a staunch Leaver. Nevertheless, she stacked all her Cabinets with other Remainers even though she knew that many of them were fifth columnists for the BREXIT saboteurs.

Oh yes, she fully appreciated what was her duty as PM, and that was to deliver BREXIT as had been promised by the Conservative party. She understood exactly what that meant, recorded it in speeches delivered over two years and moreover spelt it out clearly in her Mansion House on March 2 2018, as well as making a series of assertions and promises about the Brexit deal.

Well, just like Cameron, May found Brussels and its appointed chief negotiator Michel Barnier, a tough nut to crack, and that wasn’t help by herself being a crap negotiator, nor by her choosing a civil servant to lead on our side who was a known advocate of a federal Europe, was it? The objective of such negotiations was to agree a free-trade deal but the EU avoided that at every turn. May gave-in at successive sessions in the naive belief that each new concession conceded would get Britain such a deal – Barnier simply lapped it up and moved to the next issue, didn’t he?

May set-out with promises:

to put an end to the UK making vast annual payments to the EU, but then agreed to pay a fortune of perhaps more than £50bn, and potentially £15bn annually if Britain stays linked;

while also the customs partnership arrangement was ditched and was substituted by a single customs territory controlled by the EU, which does not allow the UK to set its own tariffs on goods so is anything but a free trade area;

or regarding the Irish border, it was to remain open with no customs border enacted and no trade barriers between NI and the rest of the UK, but instead she agreed to include a disastrous so-called ‘backstop’ which effectively kept NI in the EU, while the rest of Britain stayed in the Customs Union though not follow single market rules – that situation would remain FOREVER unless the EU gave the UK a free-trade deal (unlikely?);

involvement of the European Court of Justice was to end as May had said that we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws, nevertheless we have ended-up with a EU and UK unprecedented legal model for all aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA);

there was to be a ‘transition period’ of approximately two years or more if needed to secure a trade deal, but that ended-up as the UK being ruled by the EU but with no representation nor say, and required to continue its payments to the European budget as long as we stay and having ongoing “rule-taker” status;

although we were promised an end to free movement and its consequences, it will continue as long as the transition period goes on, and we will allow three million EU nationals living in Britain to stay and retain rights even if they move away from the UK for 5 years, that including family reunion rights, right to bring foreign spouses to the UK, as well as claiming benefits for children living abroad – all this coming under the auspices of the European Court of Justice for 8 years AFTER the end of the UK’s transition;

we had merely expected to maintain high regulatory standards, but then we get an actual legal commitment to apply EU regulatory standards, plus an agreement that stops the UK from altering environmental standards as well as state aid rules barring government backing for any troubled industries;

we needed to take back our UK fishing waters as currently the EU now grabs 70-80% of our fish, but nothing changes during transition and the EU’s game plan is to make that the same afterwards as the political declaration says.

Does any of that sound like leaving the EU and taking back control, eh?

However, May just like Cameron returned to the UK after two-and-a-half years claiming success as she had negotiated a ‘good deal’ with the EU (unalterable to boot) – even though it was NOT in fact ‘a Deal’, but simply one of withdrawal and the prospect of a further two years of [failed?] negotiations on a trade deal

Liar?

Now we have got her replacement in Boris Johnson, who has done what was said to be ‘impossible’ and renegotiated the withdrawal agreement with the EU. He had got the Tory PM job after winning the Conservative leadership by a landslide by promising May’s deal was dead, that the Halloween BREXIT day of 31 October would be met with either a new type deal with no backstop, or a clean-break exit, no ifs or buts.

Indeed, his proposed ‘deal’ was presented to Parliament last Saturday for a meaningful vote, that obtained approval in principle, although his legislative timetable of 3 days was rejected. But what DID he actually deliver?

Well, an ‘escape-blocked’ new European Treaty which was a 95% warmed-up copy May’s deal with the old backstop substituted by a customs border in the Irish Sea – an alternative previously offered by Brussels and rejected by May as it would threaten the constitutional integrity of the Country and ‘NO’ UK Prime Minister could every agree to it. [by signing-up to that unacceptable substitute Boris abandoned his allies in the Democratic Unionist Party]

Johnson had said he would rather be dead in a ditch than ask the EU for a BREXIT extension, but nevertheless he has asked for such an extension, and is awaiting the result BEFORE attempting to proceed and put his WA version through the full parliamentary process – we will NOT be leaving the EU anytime soon, will we?

Liar?

To sum up Johnson’s proposed ‘non-deal’ and associated political declaration see what Brexit party Leader Nigel Farage says

  • Britain remains under EU rules but with no vote, no voice, no veto
  • EU judges can still override our laws
  • We won’t control our fishing
  • We still won’t be free to trade as we see fit
  • We won’t have control of our tax or state aid policies
  • Britain can’t pursue an independent foreign policy
  • Britain can’t pursue an independent defence policy
  • The United Kingdom will be divided
  • We pay the EU billions and get nothing in return
  • And we’ll be trapped by the Political Declaration

 

[The successful operation of a parliamentary democracy in Britain demands that MPs enact the will of the people rather than override it with their own views and prejudices. That hasn’t happened under the two latest Prime Ministers. The Country must have a General Election immediately to right that wrong]

 

 

Can we expect Boris Johnson to deliver BREXIT – probably NOT [at best it’s BRINO]?

When Boris Johnson stood for the Tory leadership in June, he did so on a platform of ‘Theresa May’s deal is dead and the UK would leave the EU on 31 October’, didn’t he?

Yep, it may have secured him a landslide victory, but the news on the wires is that to all intents and purposes, his negotiations with the EU on his ‘do or die pledge to leave on time, involve nothing more than a reheated dish of May’s totally unacceptable Withdrawal agreement that has been rejected in Parliament three times.

[Remember it was the same Boris Johnson who resigned in July last year as Foreign Secretary, the 3rd highest Office of State. saying Theresa May’s plan ‘sticks in the throat ‘and that the UK was headed “for the status of a colony”]

His vehement demand that “our friends (?) in Ireland, and in Brussels and around the EU” completely ditch the anti-democratic backstop [which would forever keep the UK in the same customs territory as the EU, and Northern Ireland closely tied to EU regulations] and “do a deal without checks at the Irish border” has been replaced by yet another dire concession of replacing all that by isolating and marooning Norther Ireland in the EU Single Market ad infinitum – resulting in the need for new customs checks of being in a different custom’s union. Oh yes, the obtuse EU won’t accept just that, so you can expect, just like May’s, Johnson’s further capitulations, can’t you?

Apart from NOT having a genuine bottom line, May’s biggest negotiating mistake was allowing the EU to make the Irish border an issue and one which indeed eventually caused the negotiations to founder – surely she knew the obvious truth that the rest of Europe didn’t give a shit about the Irish, just as the Irish Republic don’t give a damn about the Good Friday agreement which was just a vehicle to get them a long way to an United Ireland

A supposed strong PM Johnson replacing an undoubtable weak one of May, would seem to have achieved little since Boris, whether by his own mistakes or not, has got himself in exactly the same set of circumstances as Theresa, hasn’t he? As feared, the electorate have indeed got a Theresa May mark2 Prime Minister, eh?

Yes, his proposals mean though we would have legally left the cartel, Britain is kept locked in the EU for ANOTHER 2 years, making a total of over 5 years total since we voted Leave, we then pay them a king’s ransom of dozens of billions in return, and when they unilaterally can change the rules we have to follow in ways that harm us without any say from us whatsoever, plus we will not be able to strike new trade agreements to gain the benefits of being outside the EU, either?

We will still have no ongoing trade deal with Brussels and there is no way that they will give us an acceptable one as they hold all the cards while they are in control – France and Spain will demand the continuing right to steal our fish, Spain is determined to make the UK handover Gibraltar to them without the consent of its people, the Republic of Ireland [that already gets away with calling itself simply Ireland] will succeed in its quest to take over NI without the agreement of its Protestant population [declining as the Catholics breed], and doubtless others will insist the continuation of free movement, all as just part of the price? The only way the UK can get a fair-trade deal with the EU is a ‘clean break’ BREXIT followed by negotiations as an independent country with ‘currently’ common standards, surely?

Moreover, Johnson equally is heading a government that doesn’t control parliament and doesn’t command a majority – only more so. His authority as Prime Minister is undermined by a Commons Speaker intent on thwarting BREXIT and using his controlling role to alter operational procedures to sideline the Executive, avoid parliament working normally, and permit the diehard Remainers to control the Order paper. Once more a PM has failed to stop parliament passing a law forcing them to ask the EU for an extension – this time even worse as it is the EU that is allowed to decide on the length, eh? Once again due to that folly the UK sat naked at the table, allowing the EU the inestimable advantage of knowing we could not walk away and would have to accept any crumbs offered – the Benn surrender bill was fully intended to have such an impact with an ultimate objective of getting BREXIT cancelled altogether

As any diplomate will tell you, Britain’s negotiations with Brussels have been nothing short of a shambles since June 23 2016

Like May, Johnson is in the same position of being corralled into an inescapable public commitment to exiting the EU on a certain date, so has to abandon all principles and agree to anything the EU proposes in order to get a deal on the table, doesn’t he? Even if he achieves such a result, he then has to get ‘immediate’ parliamentary approval which means he has to employ the same strategy as his predecessor by standing at the Dispatch box threatening MPs with the same phraseology as May ‘this is the only deal in town and if you don’t take it NOW then there will be no BREXIT!’

Now, Johnson may well get away with it because prominent Eurosceptics and leading figures of the ERG are on-board – like Jacob Rees-Mogg, seduced into government as Commons leader, who now claims MPs will back a deal to get it through parliament even though the PM is yet to secure any agreement from Brussels

Because of his full-blooded vows, Johnson knows full well that his political career is finished if Britain doesn’t leave the EU on time this Halloween. Equally, the Conservative Party recognises that it electorally is a dead duck in the water and will be for a decade if it doesn’t meet its EU Referendum obligation before the next election – that’s why there’s such desperation to take any path however unacceptable, towards the destination of a so called ‘deal’, which isn’t one as it only deals with withdrawal and not a trade deal – that is the only basis for an ongoing relationship, isn’t it?.

It is extremely difficult for us outsiders to comprehend what hand Johnson is playing because he and his cabinet continue to claim the Country WILL leave on this October AND will obey the law – two things that would seem to be mutually exclusive if there is no agreement with the EU, eh?

Do the Government have a Houdini type escape plan for the Benn bill extension straightjacket, do you think?

The other non-congruity is the fact that the dominant government force of Johnson’s Chief of Staff Dominic Cummings, who ran the official  Leave campaign in the Referendum, is an ultra-committed BREXITEER so it is difficult to see how he could stomach the deal that is being mooted, isn’t it?

 

[If ‘Boris Johnson’ dishes-up BRINO (BRexit In Name Only) he can forget about winning a General Election for the Conservatives, as Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party will cut massive swathes from the Tory vote as well as scupper Labour in their heartlands]

 

 

‘If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas’ – yet ‘Mo Farah’ claims he is being victimised?

sportcoincriminal

For scholars, the equivalent quote to ‘if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas’ in Latin would be qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent, both of which provide the sound advice of being cautious of the company you keep, as associating with those of low reputation may not only lower your own but also lead you astray by the faulty assumptions, premises and data of the unscrupulous.

You see Mo Farah blatantly and publicly flaunted such proverb advice by his close association with Alberto Salazar – his athletics coach for some half a dozen years.

Salazar from Cuban was a child immigrant to the US, who became a world-class Marathon runner and subsequently an American track coach. He headed up the ‘Oregon Project’, a Nike secretive hideaway elite training group for long-distance runners established nearly 20 years ago, primarily for the benefit of American athletes. It has now folded because Salazar, its long-term head coach, together with the project’s doctor Jeffrey Brown, are disgraced by a 4-year violations ban from all athletics involvement – imposed early this month by the US anti-doping agency for their trafficking of testosterone, the prohibited use of L-carnitine, and tampering with doping controls.

Somalian born Farah, himself is a renowned and revered British distance runner [1500 m, 3000 m, 5000 m, 10,000 m, Half marathon, and Marathon] with 19 Gold medals, plus 4 European and 1 World record to his credit. His wealth is accrued from his athletics performances and results, but even more so from lucrative commercial deals, and is probably in the region of £4 million. He was honoured with a knighthood two years ago

It is an unfortunate truth that in modern times the sporting world, including athletics, is blighted by the fact of too many competitors are willing to deviously cheat their ‘clean’ opponents, by taking performance-enhancing drugs or treatments which secures their ongoing success, and hence enormous financial reward.

Unmasking of the cheats can be a problem because sportspeople can only be tested for the substances ‘known’ to be in use as performance enhancers and efforts are constantly being made by the charlatans to find and use substances that aren’t on the banned list

The whole problem is compounded by the complicity of the sports’ authorities in regularity covering-up drug misuse to ‘protect’ their sport’s public image, as well as them handing out totally inadequate punishments that do not deter offenders nor keep them sidelined for long (exampled by the 2015 Beijing World Athletics Championships, where four of the supposedly top eight athletes in the 100 meters men’s final were reinstated drug cheats and in the 200 meters final there were two –all these athletes finally caught-out but who have been allowed by the IAAF to get away with it, eh?)

[Major sports suffering from drug cheating include: cycling, football, baseball, weightlifting, volleyball, judo, wrestling, rowing, equestrian, gymnastics, field hockey, athletics track & field, rugby league, basketball, snooker, boxing, cricket]

Now, the point is that Farah, due to his close links with Salazar, has now needlessly got himself embroiled in the sewer of athletes’ widespread drug cheating controversy, yet he clearly has been misadvised in again using the world’s media to loudly proclaim total innocence of wrongdoing. You see, that doesn’t aid him because like all criminals, even those with previous convictions, sport druggies always deny ‘everything’ even when they are ‘banged to rights’, as the old saying goes, eh?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Hamlet

Mo made a major mistake in not immediately severing his training relationship with coach Salazar when a female two-time Olympian whistle-blower went public about Salazar’s non-clean principles and his programme on a BBC Panorama exposé documentary in 2015.

Instead, he made a bad call by staying-on for another 2 years, although that didn’t mean of course that he himself was implicated in any transgressions, did it? No, but nevertheless however unfairly, people unfortunately will have doubts about the past performances of ALL the athletes who have been involved in Nike’s Oregon programme, and more so the ones who hung around during and after the four-year anti-doping investigation and two-year court battle behind closed doors over Salazar’s Oregon set-up, eh?

Last week, Mo Farah made claims that he is being victimised and naively said that his reputation has not been tarnished at all by his involvement with Salazar’s programme. He disturbingly even played the race card by claiming the scrutiny he is naturally under was motivated by a racist media agenda – yes, it is true that there are still vile pockets of racism in sport, but that is a worrying attitude coming from a man who has been taken close into the hearts of the British public over many many years, isn’t it?

The basic truth is that it is Farah who has put himself in the firing line by constantly being confrontational and aggressive in interviews, while he has for years defended Salazar and their relationship – he has never voiced any criticism whatsoever of the coach and even now he talks about ‘they are only allegations’, notwithstanding that millions had to be spent by Nike providing legal defence council, despite finally the guilty verdict, or the imposition of a ban, nor the closure of the project, plus the banning of the project’s medical consultant, and indeed Mo’s personal physiotherapist being sacked as UK Athletics’ head of performance for his woeful refusal to acknowledge the legitimate concerns about Farah’s relationship with Salazar and the project. Why has Farah personally risked his personal credibility in that way, one wonders?

In this day and age, when big money is readily available to clean competitors through athletics meeting organisers worldwide, conglomerate sponsors galore, untold commercial businesses, and indeed an enthralled paying public, the elite professional athletes would be wise to maintain a squeaky-clean image, wouldn’t they?

Farah hasn’t done that with his inclusive relationship with the Nike Oregon Project and its coach has he? No, it may have brought him greater success, but that has come with a price of greater scrutiny and public distrust, hasn’t it?

Yep, all these elite athletes are up for it in pushing the regulations to the wire to gain a competitive advantage over their opponents, and Nike’s programme is a case in point isn’t it?

Too true, as it has examined devious ways of endurance athletes’ performance enhancement like intravenous treatments, and it has in particular actually implemented an accommodation system for its residents that simulate high altitude living conditions. The point is that the oxygen in the air is less there so those athletes who live at altitude develop more red blood cells, increasing their athletic performance when performing at a lower level. That poses the serious question of is it ethical and fair for the athletes from low countries, who are sufficiently rich and famous, to gain a special advantage over ordinary opponents by using such special conditioning, solely designed to improve their race results and steal records, eh?

Over a decade ago, the World Anti-Doping Agency was even minded to ban use of such high-altitude houses, claiming that ‘altitude doping’ was an equivalent to blood doping, but it backed-off – probably because there was no realistic way of policing a ban, nor preventing athletes training at altitude, eh?

These days, elite athletes need to be especially careful to distance themselves from the cheats who use banned substances, if they are themselves to avoid any potential suspicion of their own use of non-legal means to achieving high performance.

Regrettably, Farad hasn’t been all that successful in that quest, has he? No, so doping allegations have surfaced a number of times during his track career and that’s the root of his current problems. resulting in his unjustified lambasting the British press. He has maintained he has never used banned substances and he has been frequently tested with no recorded failures, which of course helps to build public confidence that he is indeed clean

However, his current abject failure to support the authorities and their dealings with the Salazar issue, typifies his head-in-the-sand attitude to the reasons for the intense scrutiny he vehemently complains about.

Nearly a decade ago he missed compulsory random drug tests – two in a twelve-month period when three would have resulted in an anti-doping rule violation. That inevitably raised questions, didn’t it?

Four years back, at the time of the doping allegations first being raised against coach Salazar and distance runner Galen Rupp, pictures were published of Mo training in the company of Hamza Driouch, a banned athlete guilty of doping violations, who the year before had been officially banned from attending training sessions in any capacity for two years. If Farah puts himself in situations like that, mixing with low-life cheats, he was hardly justified at the time to hold a press conference to voice anger that his name was “being dragged through mud”, was he?

Also, some two or three years ago some official athletics database information was a leaked, which had recorded that an expert had deemed some of Farah’s blood values suspicious regarding doping, and though Farah was cleared of wrongdoing when his records were flagged as having become normal, that kind of controversy is inevitably damaging to any athlete, isn’t it?

 

[A couple of years ago Farah issued a statement in which he recorded that he was a “clean athlete” and while the wider UK public are prepared to fully accept his word, he has to be more circumspect about doping in his sport if he is to protect his substantive reputation]

 

 


 [i1]

The unelected and unaccountable UK Supreme Court’s outrageous constitutional decision – Boris Johnson is ‘GUILTY’ of breaking a law it has only just invented?

ABANDONED (but only ‘temporarily’) the longest sitting parliament for 400 years

We ordinary laymen don’t know much about the machinations of the law, and indeed our interests are generally restricted to avoiding any infringement, however minor, on the criminal side of it, but it is becoming increasingly evident to us that the judiciary here are secretly intent on increasing their power and influence to gain unwarranted control and advantage in British society.

That latter matter has become self-evident with the latest radical interference by the law in parliamentary affairs in the form of the Supreme Court acting as a constitutional court. It is a further incursion into the world of high politics, when on a judicial review application it pontificated and passed judgement on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogate parliament, over the annual conference season when traditionally it is suspended anyway. Its intervention to extend the law’s influence and power over parliamentary processes has caused untold damage to the British modus operandi that operates in the absence of a written constitution, as indeed has its mind-blowing arrogance in declaring that it had the right to overrule the Monarch’s prorogation, although already de facto in place, so consequently it was simply a mirage that hadn’t happened at all – an act that allowed self-omnipotent, villain, Speaker John Bercow, to order the falsification of Hansard records, the official verbatim report of proceedings of the House of Commons, and to totally erase the event of prorogation

Partisan Bercow will go down in history as the anti-BREXIT, 5 foot 6 bully-boy Speaker, of spending scandals, relentless grandstanding and pontificating on all matters, and one who has turned a role of studied neutrality into one of being an active participant, one who has repeatedly made unprecedented rulings, ripped up the Commons rulebook to discard and upend centuries of precedent against the advice of his parliamentary experts, and unilaterally changed the rules – a totally destructive meddling when the smooth operation of Westminster is critically dependent on everyone understanding and adhering to unwritten conventions, eh?

[Most modern states have a codified constitution, whereas Britain ‘does not’, but instead the system here relies on an informal one, heavily dependent on precedent, plus convention, Acts of Parliament, and court judgments]

We already have a situation where our Judges get appointed and promoted, all the way up to the Supreme Court, by their elite cronies behind closed doors without any public scrutiny, while they remain in-post notwithstanding crass mistakes, manifest misjudgments, and when even reprimands or law breaking is swept under the carpet. All that will have to change now, won’t it? It is a system that needs urgent reform and that will include judges being selected and vetted by proper open means

In past times, the political persuasion of judges haven’t normally been relevant, or been seen to be so, but when they stray into the political arena which they are increasingly eager and being encouraged to do, it becomes highly pertinent, wouldn’t you say? The days are numbered for judges to avoid public examination and critical judgement on their attitudes and performances – they will live to regret not keeping their heads down, and enjoying their relative untouchability while avoiding political controversy, won’t they?

The wheel has turned full circle, the public’s acceptance of courts’ impartiality has been crushed, and ongoing respect for judges will now depend on our right to know what are the private opinions, racial attitudes, religious beliefs, political leanings, and voting intentions of the current judiciary and BEFORE the new ones get appointed to their highly paid lofty positions.

When one considers the 11 Judges of Supreme Court sitting on the prorogation issue 2 weeks ago, you will know that they are a central part of the Establishment and are reportedly politically ‘anti-BREXIT’, and that together then with their ruling that the PM broke a law that never previously existed but was retrospectively implement by the eleven though they have tried to obscure that truth, their published judgement becomes perhaps less surprising, but nevertheless it amply demonstrates the rise of the courts’ intrusions that are linked to the demise of politics, don’t you think?

What is shocking though to us non-legal eagles is the sheer hypocrisy of its unprecedented, unanimously fishy ruling, in saying that the pros and cons of BREXIT were nothing to do with the Court, when the issue was ALL to do with BREXIT, wasn’t it? Moreover, the gall of giving a written judgement that asserted in one paragraph that the Court was not concerned with the PM’s ‘motives’ for the prorogation, only to contradict that just three paragraphs later when it decided it was in fact illegal because there was ‘no good reason’ for the PM to do it – do the Justices really think that we are all uneducated serfs that can’t read or don’t know that the synonym for ‘motives’ is ‘reasons’ or understand that their conclusion depended on them having assessing Johnson’s motives/ reasons/ grounds/ etc, and having failed to even second-guess them, eh?

[Judgement Para 58 “We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did.”

[Judgement Para 61 “It is impossible for us to conclude…..that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament…… It follows that the decision was unlawful.”]

There has previously been no control exercised over prorogation of any parliament anywhere!

Do not believe the assertion of the anti-BREXIT others who say that prorogation in the UK is usually routine and is never used for political ends, eh? Just take the case close at hand when ridiculous ex-PM John Major also joined in on the Supreme Court prorogation action to blisteringly assert that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament for 5 weeks was unjustified and so unlawful. That contribution was nothing short of bare-faced cheek, considering that not only was HE the PM that committed the UK to a binding international Treaty that passed political control of our Country to the EU without any consultation WHATSOEVER with the people, by him, by the government, by the MPs, or by ANYONE else, but HE was the person who himself prorogated parliament in 1997 immediately before an impending General Election simply to avoid parliamentary debate and public disclosure on a report into the Tories’ cash-for-questions scandal and that prorogation resulted in a parliamentary shut down of 6 WEEKS, the longest since 1924 – however he still lost the Election in one of the largest electoral defeats since the Great Reform Act of 1832!

We have the former Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption, previously lecturing about his lamenting on the rise of the courts and the decline of politics, but then demonstrating his personal bias on TV just a month or so ago by claiming that Johnson’s prorogation was ‘outrageous’, while nevertheless he arguing that it was actually lawful, but he now says that the Supreme Court was right to change the law – that’s typically judges closing ranks, isn’t it?

Or regarding the successful Miller UK constitutional law case of 2017 against the Brexit secretary, in a dissenting judgment from the majority of the justices, Lord Reed recorded that the legalisation of political issues was not always appropriate and may be fraught with risk, not least for the judiciary, yet he switched horses and supported this latest Miller Supreme Court escapade against the Prime Minister – WHY? Legalised skullduggery?

This Supreme Court came up with their shockingly ‘non-dissented’ judgement that overruled the esteemed High Court’s ruling to throw out Miller’s bid to block the suspension of parliament when it judged that Johnson had been within his rights to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks.

The High Court application was heard by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.

(Note: The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of England and Wales

[High Court Judgement Para 1 (part): We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable. It is not a matter for the courts]

This particular controversy needed to be settled politically without any intervention of the courts, as it was a matter solely for parliament, which is perfectly capable and empowered to deal with it, isn’t it? Yes, and since all ministers including the Prime Minister, are accountable to parliament, it could have halted any prorogation in its tracks by tabling a motion of no confidence in the PM and government

In our country Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, forbids judicial intervention in the domain of parliament but bizarrely the justices decreed however that the prorogation was ‘nothing’ to do with parliament, eh?

[The ‘prerogative’ powers of dissolution, foreign affairs, defence of the realm, and surely indeed ‘prorogation’, are not matters that lend themselves to outrageous rise of the unconstrained judicial review]

There is current unprecedented chaos in politics, by which democracy cannot operate and whereby Britain has a ‘minority’ government under siege that’s not in control of its parliament, it cannot run the Country, it cannot legislate, it cannot conduct foreign affairs, it is in limbo and is blocked from getting a mandate from the electorate, and all that is compounded by a parliament suffering an opposition that is led by someone that its own MPs won’t stomach as their PM, and it daren’t bring-down the government because it will get trounced in a General Election, plus a House of Commons infected with a debilitating virus of parties and rogue MPs unfazed by manifesto promises, who can’t accept that Remain lost the EU Referendum, so are intent on overturning the result at any constitutional and democratic cost to their Country.

How has this come about you may wonder? Well, there are some easily identifiable individuals who should be chained in the stocks.

Well, John Major is complicit in it all and belongs in a pillory rather than the lesser punishment device of the stocks, as his crimes against British democracy as outlined above were even greater than the others.

David Cameron cannot escape the public humiliation of the stocks, not because he called an EU In/Out referendum but because he didn’t enshrine into law the outcome, deliberately didn’t make any preparations for a Leave outcome, and then scurried away like a rat when the electorate sussed out his Project Fear lies

Take Tony Blair who was responsible for many misdemeanors apart from the most disastrous one of taking the UK into an illegal war with Iraq – he was also responsible for controversially sweeping aside of 1,400 years of history by replacing the frugally funded but effective Law Lords, who knew their legal place was to stay out of politics, with the failed 2009 experiment of an ultra-expensive [x5?] Supreme Court operation.

The Court instead of just undertaking the traditional tinkering with laws made by parliament, it in the absence of existing statute, now makes new law without any heed of parliament. It is a totally inappropriate legislative body for a country that doesn’t have a defined constitution for it to police

Our Supreme Court has been shown to be the prerogative primarily for benefit of the mega-rich using surprisingly unfettered Judicial Review and is not accessible by us normal mortals, is it?

Unfortunately our unwritten constitution, though prized for its flexibility, has nevertheless helped political Luddite types to created a chaotic situation at Westminster

Blair’s contribution to the Country’s political demise is further secured by his traitorous behaviour in becoming the modern day William Joyce voice of the EU in the UK as well as its adviser in chief on keeping us trapped in its institutions. As well as that, he surrendered to the IRA with the Good Friday agreement that has empowered the Republic of Ireland to pursue jurisdiction over the whole island against the will of the Northern Ireland people – and furthermore it has provided a block to BREXIT as Blair, aided and abetted by the republic’s Taoiseach, counselled Brussels to make it a sticking point. [Conversely, it has been a long-standing Unionist position that it is the EU’s backstop protocol that would wreck the Good Friday agreement]

Then there is Nick Clegg ex-LibDem leader, who as deputy-PM in the coalition government got his pieces of silver in the form of a 5 year fixed-term parliament, which he wanted from David Cameron as a quid pro quo for him and his MPs abandoning their principles and entering into government in support of the Tories. Clegg needed the guarantee of time because he didn’t trust Cameron and feared being ditched after a couple of years when the Conservatives could call a snap Election and get an absolute majority so not need the LibDems.

The disastrous effect of the act is evidenced by the comatose state of the UK government which resembles more like that of a banana republic than an advanced nation with the mother of parliaments and a country renowned for its democracy. This has come about by the unforeseen consequences of the significant transfer of power from the PM and Executive to the Commons, which has coincided with its infestation of a not so secret cabal of renegade MPs whose noses were put out of joint by their power being usurped by the public voting in a referendum in a way they didn’t agree with. The fallout of that is the population’s trust in politicians is at an all time low in a belief that they are self-serving, while there is no longer any confidence in the legitimacy of parliament itself

The Act also has allowed MPs elected for a particular party to defy the policies that they got elected on and then skip-off to join a different party of totally different ideals and policies without any reference to their electorate while enjoying the comfort of a full 5 years of power and position as a highly paid and expenses supported MP – plus racking-up a gold-plated pension to boot

It is an act that needs to be repealed immediately by the next government

Furthermore, Clegg and the LibDems fought in the first place to have a EU referendum but when the result was ‘Leave’, the followers- on declared “Bollocks to Brexit”, didn’t they?

On gender equality ground, we really shouldn’t leave out of the stocks, one Nicola Sturgeon leader of the SNP and first minister of the Scottish Assembly, who although not in Westminster in person, still pulls the strings of her party there. She has helped fire-up the furnace of chaos in the Commons in her quest to overturn the TWO referendums the SNP lost – that on Scottish Independence and that on the EU, eh?

 

[TODAY parliament will indeed be ‘prorogated’ and that uncontentious suspension comes ahead of a Queen’s Speech scheduled for next Monday. What did the Supreme Court’s unprecedented prorogation intervention and parliament recall achieve and what critical matters were dealt with in the Commons over the extra 2 weeks’ sitting, then? Answer: NOTHING and NONE respectively?]

 

 

 

You may have voted for BREXIT but you ‘cannot’ have it – well BECAUSE?

 

  • The IRA said NO
  • The Civil Service said NO
  • The Irish Republic said NO
  • Big Business said NO
  • Speaker Bercow said NO
  • The SNP said NO
  • The LibDems said NO
  • The Remainer Tory Rebels said NO
  • The LABOUR party said YES / PERHAPS / GENERAL-ELECTION / MAYBE / NO / NO TO NO-DEAL THEN GENERAL-ELECTION / NO TO NO-DEAL THEN NO TO GENERAL-ELECTION / WE WILL NEGOTIATE A NEW DEAL AND VOTE AGAINST IT SO NO
  • TIGfC said NO
  • Plaid Cymru said NO
  • Green Party said NO
  • The BBC said NO
  • The National Press said NO
  • Michael Barnier the EU negotiator said NO
  • Jean Claude Juncker President of the European Commission said NO
  • Donald Tusk President of the European Council said NO
  • Olly Robbins the UK’s Chief BREXIT negotiator said NO

WHY IS THAT THEN? – Well, the views of this lot above are to be truly ‘trusted’ aren’t they, eh?

    1. Like the IRA, rebadged Sinn Féin, for 30 years home to Catholic indiscriminate bombers and killers in the name of religion and in their quest for destruction of Protestantism in Ireland, and the absorption of Northern Ireland into the South. They were so deeply infiltrated by Britain’s security forces that they were on the verge of defeat in their war on Britain, but were rescued by warlord Tony Blair with the Good Friday agreement of twenty years ago that awarded them safe passage to three quarters of their destination, no retribution for their atrocities, a role in NI for Southern Ireland, a major Executive role for it in the NI Administration and with slots for its unrepentant terrorists to govern and run the police. In return the IRA/Sinn Féin merely ‘promised’ to completely halt the offensive, ridding themselves of ALL explosive material and weaponry but unverified, and support governance of their country. How did that work out then, eh? Not too good perhaps? Dissidents carried-on uncountable terrorist attacks, MPs were elected to Westminster who took the pay but didn’t turn-up or participate, Sinn Féin dropped out of the Stormont Legislative Assembly intermittently, once for 4½ years and has currently has had it suspended now for nearly 3 years

      [Atrocities in the past decade alone include: a Londonderry bomb, attacks on police with petrol bombs in Strabane, an attempted killing of police with an exploded bomb in County Fermanagh, attempted murder a viable device of police officers in County Armagh, a bomb under a police car in Belfast, a mortar tube and command wire found in County Down. journalist shot dead in Londonderry, five explosive packages found at locations across Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, bomb in a van explosion in Londonderry, two AK-47s, two sawn-off shot guns, a high-powered rifle with a silencer and three pipe bombs recovered from a house in Belfast, a significant amount of dangerous weapons seized during a search operation in counties Armagh and Tyrone, petrol bombs thrown at police vehicles in Londonderry, a man shot dead in Belfast, a female journalist shot dead in Derry, AND MANY MORE DOZENS OF OTHERS THAT COULD BE LISTED]

    2. The Civil Service don’t agree with politicians being in charge of government as being elected they have to be responsible to voters, which is inconvenient to running things the Civil Service way. Also, they admire the fact that the EU administrators are unburdened by elected politicians so can stop them implementing laws they don’t like. Furthermore, being in the EU allows them to thwart proposed departmental plans with the excuse “it’s against EU law/regulations Minister so it can’t be done”
    3. The Irish Republic provided safe haven for terrorists during The Troubles, and has willingly allowed itself to be a pawn in the EU’s destructive treatment of the UK during BREXIT negotiations
    4. Big business and its advocate the CBI raking it in by being in the EU, has been a major pusher of Project Fear for 3½ years
    5. John Bercow driven by vanity is deemed to be one of the worst House of Commons Speakers in history, is vindictive, hypercritical, biased, totally against BREXIT, and he has trashed precedent to encouraged the Commons to become the swamp home for wild dogs – even timing his impending resignation to ensure the next parliament is tainted with the poisoned blood of this one to deny the right of new MPs to elect a their chosen Speaker
    6. We have the mad Scots in the form of the SNP who don’t realise that Scotland is financially dependent, who forget their predecessors were slaughtered at Culloden, that they lost their independence referendum, that the EU referendum result was a Union outcome applying to the whole UK, that they have MPs at Westminster because the British parliament controls all major issues like BREXIT, and that they need to sort-out their poxy incompetent assembly led by the ridiculous Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood Edinburgh
    7. Then we have the dishonest, ‘never-to-be-trusted’ LibDems of broken pledges infamy, who have dragged politics into the gutter not least with their ‘BOLLOCKS TO BREXIT’ slogan and their repetitive denial of democracy
    8. What can be said about the Remainer Tory Rebels who won’t accept that they lost the Referendum but who nevertheless signed-up to their party’s platform and manifesto and then ditched that to defeat their own Government’s commitments, possibly get it replaced by a Corbyn one, and quite likely cause the complete demise of Conservatism in Britain, eh?
    9. Many may wonder what game the Labour party is up to these days, but the explanation is quite simple – it has been well and truly infiltrated by Marxists so is following their principles of creating a climate for revolution by causing mayhem, uncertainty, dissatisfaction, and utter distrust in current governance
    10. Then we see a group of unprincipled cuckoo MPs, 8 Labour and 3 Conservatives, who early this year abandoned their parties to form a new ‘independent group’ because they said all current political parties were crass and out of touch. Their total failure in the EU elections meant 6 of the incumbents dropped-out with 2 of them joining the LibDems which they had previously decried. They then joined the Commons sewer-rats to try to block BREXIT and to destroy the government, but not one of them has had the guts to re-stand in a by-election to get the endorsement of their constituent voters, have they? [the group is on its 3rd name of TIGfC in under eight months!]
    11. Consider Plaid Cymru of Wales with 4 MPs, which like the SNP wants independence but contradictorily requires to stay in the EU and still be controlled by Brussels, eh?
    12. The Green Party couldn’t even stick together as a UK operation but has 1 MP who wants to stop BREXIT with a all female Cabinet coup – that’s green feminism for you?
    13. The BBC hasn’t even bothered to hide its anti-BREXIT role but it presents a false ‘façade’ of equality, while paying men more than women, and opinion ‘fairness’, whence for its political output, it includes MP representatives of Government policy [Leave], Tory rebels [Remain], Labour [Remain], SNP [Remain], LibDems [Remain], PC [Remain], Green [Remain], Independent Grp [Remain]. Hence its panels and its programmes are ‘by coincidence’ of course, dominated by anti-BREXITiers and for some inexplicable reason a TV and Radio daily platform is provided to ‘non-entity’ but strident wreckers who are never off our screens like Kenneth Clarke, Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry Oliver Letwin, Chuka Umunna, Rory Stewart, Sam Gyimah, Philip Hammond,etcetera, and of course the BBC presenters et al are all well briefed and rehearsed in their ‘rubbish-BREXIT’ script because they know that their mega salary and pay increase depends on their successful performances
    14. A large influential section of the National Press is anti-BREXIT and has continued to promote a Remain message in its news and opinion articles, despite the vote of the 2016 Referendum, so it has undermined it and encouraged their readers and diehard Remainers to not to accept the BREXIT result and this has stopped the population’s deep division on the issue from healing
    15. Michael Barnier the EU negotiator has trounced the UK’s negotiators at every turn primarily because Theresa May conceded in every negotiation topic because she stupidly believed that Barnier would proceed to grant a trade deal, which he never had any intention of ever doing since the EU plan was to visible ‘punish’ the UK to put the fear into the other countries that are minded to leave
    16. Jean Claude Juncker President of the European Commission is answerable to nobody so doesn’t care about the damage that will result to EU countries when Britain leaves particularly if that is with a clean break
    17. Donald Tusk President of the European Council is like Juncker one with no accountability and is determined to try to force the UK to withdraw Article 50 notice and so rescind its decision to leave the bloc
    18. Not only was Olly Robbins an experienced senior Civil Servant so tainted with the anti-BREXIT brush, but at Oxford Uni he was president of a group promoting a ‘federal European Union’, so it is a bit surprising that past-Remainer Theresa May chose him from all others to be her personal representative leading negotiations for ‘Exiting the European Union’ from 2017 to 2019. It is less surprising then that he gave the federal EU exactly what they asked for and provided May with a Withdrawal deal that screwed Britain and despite intense pressure parliament repeatedly rejected, is it? Nevertheless, she gave him a kinghood for getting her the sack, eh?

 

[The winners of the BREXIT battle won’t just be decided by those listed but ALL of us hope it will be over soon and we can get a respected and responsible parliament with trustworthy MPs – fat chance?]

 

 

 

 

Disingenuous ‘Remainer’ MPs vote to AGAIN delay BREXIT – ignoring the UK public’s decision to ‘Leave the EU’ a full 3 Years 2½ Months ago?

 

The Country voted in the June 2016 Referendum to Leave the EU

ALL the Westminster political parties had campaigned for Remain – but they LOST! The ‘People’s vote’ was that the UK would Leave

The majority of MPs in the Commons had been in favour of Remain so it was rightly tagged as a ‘Remainer Parliament’. Subsequently, a General Election was held in June 2017 when the Conservatives stood on a manifesto of delivering BREXIT and were retained as the Government, while the Labour Opposition’s manifesto claimed that they would respect the decision of the Referendum.

But a large gaggle of Tory MPs and the bulk of Labour MPs were diehard Remainer lying gits who conned their constituents, as they were in fact committed Remainers so we still have a ‘Remainer Parliament’, don’t we?

Yes and consequently, it has pulled every trick in the book to delay BREXIT with an end goal of overturning the result of the Referendum and cancelling BREXIT altogether – as indeed was identified in a post here some 3 years ago!

The latest subterfuge by these wreckers is to jump on the passing bandwagon of taking a Clean Break (so-called ’No Deal’) BREXIT off the table in the UK’s negotiations with the EU, and get another pointless extension from Brussels. The base objective of this is to ensure that Brussels DOESN’T give Britain an acceptable deal at all, so that it will tie the UK to EU control FOREVERMORE – without any vote or say

To that end they have betrayed democracy and hijacked our Parliament, with advice and agreement from the EU’s legal department, to first pave the way for legislation to block a no-deal Brexit and then pass the bill, expected to come into Law tomorrow, which sets-out to delay BREXIT until 31 January 2020 or later, by forcing the prime minister to ask the European Union for a delay to Brexit to prevent the UK’s departure, if by 19 October this year MPs have not approved a new deal or voted in favour of a no-deal exit.

By their very actions the MPs responsible know full well that there is absolutely NO chance of either of those conditions being met, so the PM will be required by law to ask for an extension, which doubtless the EU will eagerly grant to increase the chances that the UK will decide to actually stay

Who are the perpetrators of this outrage you might wonder? Well, the orchestrators without doubt are a group of bloody-minded, elite Tory scoundrels from the Commons swamp, who have brought shame on their party and have humiliated Great Britain on the world stage, simply because they would not accept that the voters had a legitimate democratic right to decide who runs Britain – they innately believe that they are better educated and more knowledgeable than the ignorant masses who should never ever have been given the vote in the first place, you see?

The leader of this pack of some forty feral dogs is staunch Remainer Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer (2016–2019) – a top schemer certainly, but one of the most formidably boring speakers in British politics. In the 2016 EU referendum he was the leading-light campaigner for the Remain side and even carried the nickname “europhil”. He was so convinced the UK should have voted to remain that unlike the Conservative party itself, he didn’t unhesitatingly accept the result but immediately said he would fight it – and he has. That has included refusing adequate funds for BREXIT arrangements and also under Theresa May being collectively responsible for throwing away the UK’s strongest playing card – walking away, and he has just repeated that stupidity immediately Boris Johnson took up task of getting BREXIT done

Then there is another ex-Chancellor, ’old enough to know better’ Kenneth Clarke, avid cigarette supporter, one of the world’s leading tobacco lobbyists, mouthpiece and indeed employee of the cancerous tobacco industry. At the outset he said he would block BREXIT, and has used his status and considerable Party influence to try to do so since summer 2016.

Or, the real brain within the Tory rebels, Dominic Grieve, unceremoniously sacked as attorney general in 2014 for he believed of his unfettered support for the European Court of Human Rights, so one with a chip on his shoulder and the person able to provide the essential legal drive to their BREXIT wrecking plan. Mother is French, father worked for de Gaulle, he was educated at a London French school, seems to have more allegiance to France than Britain, is president of the Franco-British Society, a holder of the Légion d’honneur, the highest French order of merit for militart and civil merits, has a house and lives partly in Brittany France and owns building land there, he regularly broadcasts on French radio and television, is apparently in receipt of large EU grants, and he has hosted the French Europe minister and other senior French politicians to plot against the UK to get BREXIT cancelled – despite getting re-elected two years ago on a commitment of ‘the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it’.

Also we should identify BREXIT basher and proponent of Parliament’s “indicative votes” fiasco, Oliver Letwin who has been one of the leading figures in the rebel group and has had well lapsed key roles in government and is a failed policy maker, but is now just another shit-stirrer

Let’s not leave out the traitorous oldie Nicholas Soames, a heavily built political lightweight who’s only ‘claim to fame’ is that his grandfather was Winston Churchill, while his most ‘dishonorable deed’ was to disgustingly lie through his teeth about Prince Charles’ adultery and publicly criticising Diana, Princess of Wales for her accusation, and saying that it was because she was mentally ill and in the advanced stages of paranoia – he only appologised after Prince Charles owned-up. [He denied though threatening Diana and warning her, “accidents happen” in the months before she died in a car crash in Paris, eh?]

Those Europhile fanatics above are amongst 21 Tory rebels who have had the whip withdrawn by Boris Johnson for their voting decision to initially sideline the Government and then to bring it down.  [They are barred from running as Conservative candidates in future general elections]

They were warned of the consequences of such action and those which would be absolutely normal under a strong competent administration, but they still went ahead and some like Hammond are now squealing like stuck pigs about it, as are their fellow travelers like Jo Johnson and Amber Rudd both who disgracefully have jumped ship despite committing to the hard-line Government policy just weeks ago– at least all won’t now be in the next parliament to carry on with their shenanigans, eh?

Well, on the Bill to enact the deed, the Tory mutineers were joined by others using the smokescreen of blocking a no-deal Brexit to hide the undeniable truth that their objective is to overturn the Referendum result itself.

So we had 237 Labour MPs doing so when the Party has now rebadged itself as a Remain party that will ‘in government’ renegotiate a deal with the EU and will present that in a second Referendum when it will then vote AGAINST the deal it actually negotiated and campaign for Remain. Crass or what?

Also pretending to be against just no deal were 35 SNP MPs, but really these are those who want an entirely two different things – to cancel BREXIT and to leave the Union by having a rerun of the ‘once in a lifetime’ 2014 Scottish independence referendum – and Labour will allow both

The Conservatives who lost the whip voted as Independents who then totaled 29 MPs but are ones who in fact want to stay in the EU

Then there were the 15 LibDems ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ MPs, who didn’t accept the result of the Referendum, want a 2nd Referendum but the leader says it won’t accept the result of that if it’s Leave

Plus of course TIGfC 5 MPs, Plaid 4 MPs, Con 1 MP, Green 1 MP all of course who want BREXIT terminated [Originally named ‘The Independent Group’ with 11 MPs, it then became ‘Change UK’ and it is now TIGfC ‘The Independent Group for Change’ but with only 5 MPs retained. The new Tory MP rebel is Caroline Spelman]

So there you have it, 327 pathetic MPs, disgracefully determined to disrespect the vote, ensure parliament does NOT ever deliver BREXIT and thereby they ignore the fact that the people voted in the referendum to leave the EU, eh?

The hapless situation of BREXIT in the House of Commons cannot be resolved by retaining the current helpless status quo of Remainers and Leavers there, and that cannot be cleared-up at the EU unless a new deal is offered by it. If that doesn’t happen, then the only two ways forward are either leaving with Clean Break BREXIT, OR clearing the deadlock by a new parliament selected through a General Election when the public will decide which parties and which MPs they send back to Westminster, don’t you think?

[Last week PM Boris Johnson suffered severe losses in Westminster votes, but he has been adamant he will not seek an extension to stay in the EU after the current ‘Exit Day’ of Halloween, and apparently he is not willing to resign. How he can square the circle on that and get around the new Remainers’ law is debatable, but perhaps he has a Houdini escape trick worked out, eh?]

 

 

The BBC is totally unaccountable – scrap the Licence Fee?

An iconic British image – BBC Test Card F as used on television in the United Kingdom and in countries elsewhere in the world for more than four decades

The BBC is an organisation that like the EU is totally unaccountable to those that fund it, as there is no real mechanism for consumers to hold the BBC to account, and it similarly squanders its massive unearned-income budget with irresponsible and thoughtless expenditure with a spendthrift attitude that permeates throughout the organisation. Funding is wasted like water from a tap with an endless ‘meter-less’ supply with a zero analysis or concern for ‘cost benefit’. Large volumes of cash have been wasted by its bureaucrats who suffer no consequences for the reckless spending.

That is not to say that the BBC has too big an income in an age when delivery of quality TV programmes indeed involves big bucks – it does though have the second largest budget of any UK-based broadcaster. However, there is now much deep public dissatisfaction with both its current funding arrangement through tax, and moreover with its current lacklustre performance and poor value output – the days when it was a beacon of excellence for other broadcasters around the world, plus provider of bespoke quality, and when it generated truly iconic programmes are long gone – that has all been replaced by a 24/7 menu of predominately meaningless dross, don’t you think?

[The BBC had an operating expenditure of £4.722 billion in 2013/14 compared with £6.471 billion for British Sky Broadcasting in 2013/14 and just £1.843 billion for ITV in the calendar year 2013]

The availability of talent to the BBC has been decimated by other alternative employers so it is now unfeasible for the Corporation to continuously transmit decent programmes 24hrs a day. Return of the Test Card, previously shown while no programmes are being broadcast would be a welcome relief, to those of us that grew to enjoy the BBC transmissions of past decades, don’t you think?

The licence fee has been an increasing bone of contention as many viewers these days don’t bother with terrestrial TV at all, or have other alternative ‘paid-for’ service providers, or even they stream television to computers, tablets, or mobiles for free – so they don’t really see why they should have to pay ‘a tax’ to contribute to BBC channels and services they don’t necessarily use nor like. Moreover, apart from the fee paid not being related whatsoever to how much of BBC services are used by a property, it is clearly discriminatory against the poor, the old, and those isolated and reliant on television for company, because the cost is not related to household income, is it?

The utter unfairness and madness of it all though, is amply demonstrated by the fact that the BBC provides a substantial national and local Radio service, and certainly some of it is excellent with many very satisfied listeners, but the listeners don’t have to pay a penny for those expensive services at all, because these days radio users don’t require ANY licence whatsoever – television owners have to stump-up the major cost which is some fifteen percent of the total BBC budget of £5 billion

The BBC have just announced that it is to lavish another £100 million on advertising to try to attract younger listeners to its radio channels, and into the bargain the BBC is promoting an App for a radio FREE audio-book service [while Amazon provide an audiobook facility at £8 a month!] – ALL such radio, irrespective of unaffordable cost, is paid for from the TV licence fee of course!

Most galling of all and inexplicably to boot, radio presenters seem to be amongst the BBC’s highest paid elite when there can only be scant competition elsewhere for their skills and services, surely?

[Presenters solely on radio earning £1.7 million, £410 thousand, £560 thousand, £420 thousand, £410 thousand, £410 thousand, £359 thousand, £340 thousand, £340 thousand, £310 thousand, and others who have also been pulling in £300 thousand or so. HOW CAN THAT BE JUSTIFIED?

(The UKs Prime Minister’s salary is just some £150 thousand, and the average salary of UK FULL TIME workers is only £35thousand)]

That of course is the just tip of the iceberg as most BBC spending is just day-to-day ‘current’ spending, reflecting astronomical staff and procurement costs, with virtually NO investment nor capital spending.

Part of the reason is that the BBC pays both TV and Radio presenters staggeringly scandalous amounts – and those are only the ones we know about as it won’t disclose information about TWO THIRDS of its BIGGEST earners who scandalously are paid “off the books” so to speak, through personal service companies, or payments made through BBC Studios [£74million in payments dished out over 4 years, where payment via a company allows the BBC to ‘avoid’ national insurance while the performer ‘avoids’ income tax at source of up to 45% and instead pays corporate tax of just 19%]

[£1.75 million paid to a football presenter supported by analysts themselves on £420 thousand (covering matches already played!), £610 thousand to a radio presenter and TV chat show host, £530 thousand to a TV newsreader and elections presenter, £450 thousand to a radio and TV presenter, £410 thousand to a radio presenter with some TV work, £410 thousand to a TV presenter, £380 thousand to a radio presenter and TV host, and many others on TV and Radio who have also been pulling in £300 thousand or so

The BBC Director General not only ALREADY draws BBC pension but ALSO gets a BBC salary AS WELL – so is on £530 thousand].

Moreover, increasing numbers of people are dissatisfied with the BBC’s somewhat staid and slanted service output, which is targeted at quite a restricted audience, and some would say that for a supposedly ‘neutral’ public service broadcaster [an utter pretence of impartiality of course], that at times it lacks objectivity and it stands accused of bias in its approach to controversial topics [and that would specifically include BREXIT where it unfairly has clearly been supportive of the establishment’s and Cameron government’s original Remain line – it continues to paddle an anti-BREXIT canoe].

Also, these days one can find much better programmes elsewhere, and often its output lacks quality of thought and professionalism [exampled by the insensitive format, the extraordinary debate bias, and the series of appalling blunders the BBC exhibited in its chaotic ‘gate-crash’ Tory leadership broadcast in mid-July (scheduled after 90% members had already voted as it was just 6 days before voting closed) is a glaring case in point], while in general its output descends to the lowest common denominator in its apparent quest to match the garbage of the worst commercial channels.

Inexplicably the BBC seems to believe that its viewers (predominately intelligent, discerning people], want a never-ending programme regime of cookery & food, house hunting & relocation, bric-à-brac & antique sales, outdated & irrelevant chat shows, incomprehensible & meaningless game shows, medical dramas & old soaps seemingly used solely to promote relationship & diversity issues, repeats & re-runs of past quality items galore, low-interest sports events & with just post-time reviews of major sport goings-on, etc, eh? It is difficult to think of any current BBC programme that would be described as ‘unmissable’ or memorable – has all the good talent gone to Netflix, eh? [One of the few remaining BBC successes is its natural history series]

The bottom line is that it is now time to scrap the criminal law enforced Licence Fee funding for the BBC, as there is no longer any justification for an unscrutinised universal public service broadcaster in the UK, proving diverse free services funded by a TV tax.

The BBC claims that the licence fee is the ‘cheapest’ way of providing ‘existing’ BBC services – and that may be ‘right’ but it is certainly NOT the fairest’ way and certainly doesn’t mean that the Corporation shouldn’t ‘cutback’ on the services it provides, eh?

The BBC needs to move to directly fund its output from those viewers who are prepared to pay for it – if it is delivering the ‘quality output’ and ‘great programmes’ that it regularly (falsely?) claims then it will thrive, when then operating on a level playing field with the likes of Netflix and Sky – it will be able within its means to spend its income on expensive over-rated staff, be as biased as it likes, all with no questions asked by the tax-payer, eh?

The BBC can and must progressively move to a subscription service for Radio1, Radio2, Radio3, Radio4, Radio Five live, Radio London, audio-books, TV, HD services, BBC Red button services, TV streaming, news, current affairs and documentary programmes, soaps, drama, iPlayer, children services, etc.

The licence fee should be progressively phased out over a few years to give the BBC time to reorganise its funding arrangements on a normal commercial and business basis to compete with other providers – then we will see if it can really pull-in the many millions of pounds needed to support its loaded staff and presenters. If the government NEEDS a future and limited [TV and radio single channels] state public service broadcaster to peddle its messages or to meet perceived social needs, then it needs to fund it from general taxation.

 

[When the BBC has to control its own income opportunities Britain might see a resurrection of the long-lost creativity and control of costs that is badly needed from the organisation]

The three little pigs ‘PMs’ when the Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ blows down two of their houses – but NOT the third?

 

In the updated fable of Three Little Pigs, three Tory UK Prime Ministers pigs build three houses of different policy materials.

The 1st Little Pig ‘PM’ was Remainer David Cameron, a smart-arsed lazy little pig, who made his house only of straw, so the Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ huffed and puffed and blew his house down, whence he was dead to politics

The 2nd Little Pig ‘PM’ was Remainer Theresa May. a deceitful self-centred little pig, who made her house of weak sticks, so the Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ huffed and puffed and blew her house down, whence she was dead to politics but held on for another 6 torturous months

The 3rd Little Pig ‘PM’ was Head Leaver Boris Johnson, a popular charismatic little pig, who made his house of stronger than concrete bricks, so the Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ is huffing and puffing in an attempt to destroy the third pig’s house. The Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ is being helped by saboteur neighbours who are trying to knock-down his house’s internal supporting walls, and if they succeed then his house will be also blown down, whence he will be dead to politics, British democracy will be in the gutter, the United Kingdom Union will disintegrate, and the Conservative and Unionist party will be consigned to history

[If the UK is still in the EU on 1st November 2019, then the Brexit party’s star will be top of the tree at the next General Election]