Friday, 29 August 2014

This service detects hate speech and subversive propaganda

On 25 August 2014, Elizabeth Harrington told us this at the Washington Free Beacon website:
“The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track ‘misinformation’ and hate speech on Twitter. The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor ‘suspicious memes’ and what it considers ‘false and misleading ideas,’ with a major focus on POLITICAL ACTIVITY ONLINE.

The ‘Truthy’ database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to ‘detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other SOCIAL POLLUTION’.”
What a fabulous way of describing the dissemination of truth the establishment doesn’t want the rest of us to know. Elizabeth continues:
“The university has received $919,917 so far for the project. The project stands to benefit both the research community and the public significantly,’ the grant states.”
The 'project' will ‘benefit.. the public?’ Yet another layer of internet censorship designed to prevent whole truth emerging will benefit Joe Average? Excuse me whilst I titter considerably.
“This service could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate,’ the grant said.”
Hate speech, eh? One wonders what kind of ‘false and misleading ideas… the service’ wishes to expunge from ‘open debate?’ In fact, One doesn’t wonder, one knows.
“‘Truthy’ claims to be non-partisan. However, the project’s lead investigator Filippo Menczer proclaims his support for numerous progressive advocacy groups, including President Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action, Moveon.org, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, and True Majority.”
See? (Though I don’t have a problem with Greenpeace and Amnesty International. At least, I don’t think I do)…
"The government-funded researchers hope that the public will use their tool in the future to report on other Twitter users.”
Aha! A snitching tool for the New World Order jobsworth then!

Why are we not surprised?

On Fox and Friends, Fox News' legal analyst, Peter Johnson, tells us this:
“They've actually come up with a whole algorithm to show how they plan to locate so-called hateful, subversive and misleading ‘propaganda.’ The Indiana professor who is leading the project, Filippo Menczer, had previously identified a list of hashtags that he believed fell under the categories of ‘far right’ and ‘polarizing’.”
Among the nine suspicious ‘far right’ categories listed were: #israel, #patriot and #mediabias. Not difficult to see where Filippo’s sympathies lie, is it? Fox and Friends added:
“Sounds a little Orwellian, no? Johnson Jr. noted that this effort reminds him of Joe McCarthy's hunt for Communists.” 
At his own blog, Menczer informs the world of ‘the truth about Truthy’ and rubbishes Fox and Friends’ take on his work, saying:
"Fox News and others continue to perpetrate their attacks to our research project and to the PI personally. Their accusations are based on false claims, supported by bits of text and figures selectively extracted from our writings and presented completely out of context, in misleading ways."
He then states what ‘the Truthy research project is not.’ It's not ‘a political watchdog; a government probe of social media;’ ‘an attempt to suppress free speech;’ ‘a way to define misinformation;’ ‘a partisan political effort;’ ‘a database tracking hate speech.’

All of which would be reassuring if it wasn’t for one thing: Filippo is getting a million dollar bung from the government for his non ‘partisan... database’ that won’t be ‘tracking hate speech.’ And the slaughterhouse shepherds don’t hand over such princely sums for baby wipes.

Filippo's response is disingenuous. However nice a guy he happens to be is of no consequence in the scheme of things. His benefactors will use his app to their best advantage. Such advantage is likely to be to the disadvantage of those social media cavaliers that the government doesn’t care for.

Filippo will know this. His protests and assurances, therefore, amount to very little.

In my humble opinion.

A hashtag ‘meme’ I regularly use at Twitter is this one: #LibLabCon. 

The Left, in particular, hate it and the Tories aren’t too keen either.

Try googling #LibLabCon. 2,460 results will say something very like this: ‘Twitter / Search - #liblabcon.’

Click on the first (or second, or third) link. Now you’re inside Twitter and observing a lists of posts, all of which contain the anti-establishment meme, #LibLabCon.

If you were to do this now, at 4.10 pm on Friday 29 August 2014, the first thing you’ll see are four graphics. All of which were entered (and created) by yours truly.

I guess the information contained in those graphics would be the kind of hashtag ‘hate speech,’ those who own Filippo Menczer’s handy little app might wish to ‘mitigate.’

Thursday, 28 August 2014

Political correctness is a vile, perverted ideology

On 28 August 2014, Leo McKinstry said this in The Daily Express:
“Multiculturalism is to blame for the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal. Political correctness is a vile, perverted ideology which is wrecking our society and ruining the lives of the innocent… 
The key fact about this brutal crime wave was that almost all the predators were men of Pakistani and Kashmiri origin, while the majority of their victims were white…
The authorities in Rotherham failed to act because the race-fixated dogma of anti-discrimination meant that they had completely lost their moral bearings and every last vestige of compassion…
The staff who did nothing for years are a disgrace to their profession. What is particularly sickening is their desperation to cover up the abuse in their attempt to maintain the illusion that cultural diversity was working in Rotherham. In the twisted mindset of the authorities, protecting their cherished dogma of multiculturalism was far more important than protecting vulnerable girls. 
That attitude is also highlighted in (a) passage in the report, where Professor Jay reveals that officials were fearful of tackling the Muslim gangs ‘because it might damage community cohesion.’ But that just demonstrates the grotesque logical absurdity of multiculturalism. There is neither a community nor any cohesion when this kind of violence, racism and misogyny is cravenly tolerated by the state… 
In the name of supposed tolerance the state has ended up colluding with savage intolerance in our midst… Like the victims of British jihadism, the abused girls from Rotherham have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. 
Nothing better illustrates the monstrously warped priorities of this council than the contrast between its paralysis in the face of Muslim sex gangs and its decision in 2011 to remove three foster children from the home of their adoptive parents who were found to be members of UKIP. 
Though these two parents were described as ‘exemplary,’ Rotherham children’s services department argued that their political allegiance ‘did not fit’ with the children’s ‘cultural and ethnic needs.’ 
So Rotherham could act decisively when it wanted, but such rigour just shows the inverted morality that enveloped the council where support for UKIP was regarded as a greater crime than the rape of an adolescent. 
Even now, after all the revelations from Professor Jay, the cultural cringe is still going on. On Tuesday, as news of the scandal broke, five of the BBC’s seven online articles about the report made no reference at all to Pakistani men. 
In the same vein, a pitiful article in a Leftwing newspaper argued that we have a duty ‘to avoid sensationalist stereotyping.’ That is exactly the cowardly attitude which allowed these crimes to go unpunished for so long.”
Sometimes I think that Leo must be cribbing.

Then I remember that the truth is the truth and, once in a while, the mainstream media’s finest are just as inclined to tell it as the patriot.

Keep it up, Leo.

Leo mentions ‘a pitiful article in a left-wing newspaper,’ which argued that we have a duty ‘to avoid sensationalist stereotyping.’

Perhaps, Paul Vallely was responsible for the offending comment. On 26 August 2014, he said this in The Guardian:
“Protection is what matters, not blame. The scale of the sexual exploitation revealed in the Jay inquiry is shocking, but let’s avoid racial stereotyping.”
No blame? We mustn’t blame the gang-rapists? We mustn’t blame their enablers? WE MUSTN’T BLAME THE PAUL VALLELIES?

I blame you, Paul. By God I do. You, along with many more sick PC champions would excuse every last crime your pet footsoldiers commit. When you find it impossible to to cover up the enormity of criminality any longer, that is.

Here’s someone else I blame.

'Our ignoble tradition of racialising crime.'

'Dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls.'

Someday soon, when we have our country back in our own hands, Brooks, Vallely and many others will face those their foully treacherous PC mindset has tortured and disenfranchised for so long.

Blame will be apportioned.

Mercy will not be recommended.

Wednesday, 27 August 2014

1,400 girls beaten, gang raped and trafficked in just one English town

An Independent Inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham was commissioned by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in October 2013.

Its remit covered the period 1997 (when New Labour took office) to 2013.

The inquiry was chaired by Alexis Jay OBE, former Chief Social Work Adviser to the Scottish Government, and its findings were published on 21 August 2014.

An edition of this document is presented here:
No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013.

In just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual exploitation were previously known to services because of child protection and neglect.
It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated.
There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

This abuse is not confined to the past but continues to this day... In 2013, the Police received 157 reports concerning child sexual exploitation in the Borough.
Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. From the beginning, there was growing evidence that child sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham. This came from those working in residential care and from youth workers who knew the young people well.

Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers. At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to CSE, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime.

Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and 2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham. The first of these reports was effectively suppressed because some senior officers disbelieved the data it contained. This had led to suggestions of cover-up.

The other two reports set out the links between child sexual exploitation and drugs, guns and criminality in the Borough. These reports were ignored and no action was taken to deal with the issues that were identified in them.

In the early 2000s, a small group of professionals from key agencies met and monitored large numbers of children known to be involved in CSE or at risk but their managers gave little help or support to their efforts.

Some at a senior level in the Police and children's social care continued to think the extent of the problem, as described by youth workers, was exaggerated, and seemed intent on reducing the official numbers of children categorised as CSE...

In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage...

Latterly, some child victims of CSE and some perpetrators had originated from the Roma Slovak community...

Dr Heal, in her 2003 report, stated that 'In Rotherham the local Asian community are reported to rarely speak about them [the perpetrators].' The subject was taboo...

In her 2006 report she described how the appeal of organised sexual exploitation for Asian gangs had changed. In the past, it had been for their personal gratification, whereas now it offered 'career and financial opportunities to young Asian men who got involved.

She also noted that Iraqi Kurds and Kosovan men were participating in organised activities against young women...

By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue.

Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
As Ed West intelligently notes in the 26 August 2014 edition of The Spectator:

"'I didn’t want to appear racist’ is truly the ‘I was only obeying orders’ of our time. Racism has become so hysterical a subject that it has crowded out all other moral concerns, including in this case the concern to look after children...

Political correctness was supposed to make us nicer, but in reality it just makes people stupider. As anyone who has done any sort of online test will tell you, much of human intelligence comes down to pattern recognition; the whole purpose of political correctness is to stop us noticing patterns even when they stare us in the face."
'Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist.'

So now, in the mind of a British civil servant, obeisance to political correctness is more important than the health and welfare of our children. Even when that civil servant is tasked with the care of those children.

Looks like the PC Crowd has won, doesn't it? Looks like those who wanted to destroy a world that worked, in order to replace it with an Orwellian dystopia where cowardice, meekness and subservience to the migrants-must-not-be-criticised-no-matter-what-they-do mantra, was the order of the day, have succeeded.

Where once we were proud, honourable and courageous, now we would rather allow foreigners to gang rape and prostitute our kids rather than condemn them for doing so.

What punishment do such creatures deserve, do you think? What punishment is merited by those police officers who not only turned a blind eye but regarded 'many child victims with contempt... and seemed intent on reducing the official numbers of children categorised as CSE.'

What do the politicians deserve? Those hideous social and psychological engineers who imported such asocietal monsters, entirely against the will of the indigenous population, and built this wall of immunity around them to shield their behaviours from just retribution deserve the fires of hell in my opinion.

Oh yes, if I was the boss I'd string up the politicians who made it happen. The same fate would befall the top cops whose progress up the greasy pole matter more to them than the happiness and sanity of the innocents they were sworn to defend.

The social workers would spend ten years at hard labour.

All of the above should be condemned, humiliated and shamed. Their crimes should be catalogued and forever paraded before those to whom they did so much damage and the wider public. Our children (and theirs) should be taught to despise them utterly.

As for the 'Pakistani-heritage' paedophiles, they too would be executed. As for the manner of their deaths, I'll spare you the details.

But I can tell you that it would involve a blow torch.

P.S. In 2012, Joyce Thacker, the Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services at Rotherham Council, underwrote the decision to remove three children from their foster parents because they were members of the UK Independence Party. The 25 November 2012 issue of The Daily Mail quoted her thus:
"When it became clear to us that the couple had political affiliations to UKIP we had to seriously think about the longer term needs of the children. We have to think about their clear statement on ending multiculturalism, for example. The children were from EU migrant backgrounds and UKIP has very clear statements on ending multiculturalism which might be sensitive to these children."
Er, Joyce, you know the 1,400 little girls, almost all of them English natives, who were gang raped, tortured and prostituted by Pakistani-heritage paedophiles? Do you have any evidence of the sensitivity you showed to them when they were subject to said treatment?

The Mail added:
"She said there was no ‘quality of care’ issue with the couple, the husband is a former Navy reservist who works with disabled people and the wife is a qualified nursery nurse, only that they were UKIP members."
'Quality of care?'

Ironic, huh?

Joyce Thacker is a former member of the sinister organisation, Common Purpose, which trains 'leaders' to 'lead,' as opposed to 'serve' the people.

Common Purpose has been described as a hidden virus in our government and schools.'

How would you punish the politicians who made this happen?
 
pollcode.com free polls


How would you punish the paedophiles?
 
pollcode.com free polls

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

We're talking about the brutal rape of young boys

On the 7 July 2014 edition of Newsnight, Kirsty Wark interviewed Peter McKelvie, a former child protection manager for Hereford and Worcester council.

During the interview he said this:
“It’s absolutely crucial that survivors have the biggest say in who should be in on an inquiry because survivors will only come forward if it’s people that they can trust and people who haven’t let them down in the past… And when I say people, I mean institutions that, perhaps, survivors have tried to talk to in the past but they haven’t been believed or their stories have been seen as not credible because of the sort of size of allegations that they’re making and the seriousness of them…

From the number of survivors that I’ve spoken to and also from a number of witnesses, the concerns that they have about the NSPCC is that it’s very much the charity of the establishment and for many years obviously had people like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris associated with the fundraising side of it…

For the last 30 years and longer than that, there have been a number of allegations made by survivors that PEOPLE AT THE TOP OF VERY POWERFUL INSTITUTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY. WHICH INCLUDE POLITICIANS, JUDGES, SENIOR MILITARY FIGURES AND EVEN PEOPLE THAT HAVE LINKS WITH THE ROYAL FAMILY, HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN…

At the most serious level, we're talking about BRUTAL RAPE OF QUITE YOUNG BOYS...
After an investigation that I was involved in was closed down before it had even got off the ground, a senior police officer from the Metropolitan Police and two very experienced investigative journalists and myself had a meeting with a very prominent figure in the opposition party at that time (Labour) and we essentially gave the details that we want to give now but NOTHING CAME OF IT…

Paedophiles infiltrate every institution but the more powerful the institution is the more powerful the abusers are. And, unfortunately, parliament, politicians haven’t been immune from the infiltration by paedophiles.”
Kirsty then put this question to Peter:
“Are you suggesting that there are still people in power, positions of power power, that were involved twenty-odd years ago?”
Peter replied:
“VERY MUCH SO, YES… The allegations are against very specific named individuals and the initial impression that I would have is that there’s a great deal of truth in them.”
Peter gave another interview to the BBC on the same day and, responding to the question, ‘what is your central claim about the paedophile network, which you believe was at the centre of, really, the power in Britain,’ he said this:
“I believe that THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE AND AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE… THAT THERE IS AN EXTREMELY POWERFUL ELITE AMONGST THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE POLITICAL CLASSES for as long as I’ve been alive… and there’s been sufficient reason to investigate it over and over again, certainly for the last 30 years, and there’s always been the block and the cover up and the collusion to prevent that happening.

For the first time I’ve got a belief that survivors will come forward and justice will be served for a lot of survivors. Unfortunately, it’s been left so late that a lot of the abusers are now dead

We’re looking at THE LORDS, AT THE COMMONS, AND THE JUDICIARY. We’re looking at all institutions where there will be a small percentage of paedophiles and a slightly larger percentage of people felt that in terms of their own self-interest and self-preservation and for political party reasons, it has been safer for them to cover it up rather than deal with it…

Over many, many years I’ve spoken to a considerable number of victims… They quite openly talk about rape and beatings and being moved around and being a parcel really, literally as crude as a lump of meat being taken from one place to another and abused.”

For more than 30 years 'there’s always been the block and the cover up and the collusion to prevent' knowledge of the true nature of the British elite from emerging.

That is the nature of the totality of the elite, ladies and gentlemen, not just the 'small percentage of paedophiles and a slightly larger percentage' who covered it up that Peter speaks of. Some would have known about it and swapped smutty stories with the perpetrators without actively engaging on any 'cover up.' Many more would have known but chose not to think about it.

Others on the Labour benches, notably the Deputy leader, Harriet Harman, her husband, Jack Dromey and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt encouraged it by pandering to the Paedophile Information Exchange. Margaret Hodge, Tony Blair's former Minister for Children, did next to nothing about a paedophile scandal in Islington when the Egyptian-Jewish immigrant was the youthful leader of the council there.

You see what I mean? Discounting the most recent intake, very few of the current incumbents in the Commons and Lords would have no knowledge at all of the paedophilic behaviours of their perverted confederates.

And they did and said nothing. They closed ranks. In fact, they didn't just close ranks, they ridiculed the one MP who took the matter seriously. Geoffrey Dickens, whose dossier Leon Brittan, Home Secretary at the time, when questioned about it recently, did not remember and then did, but couldn't recall where it went, was either lampooned or ignored by his fellow MPs and the press.

The guilt of all is as actual as it enormous. They allowed the most vulnerable members of our society to be brutalised and tortured. For many decades many knew what was happening and most did nothing.

This is what you vote for. This is what rules our world. This is what has given it away to everyone else on the planet in recent times. This is what accused the BNP and the National Front of 'racism' for trying to warn the British people of Muslim paedophilia in our towns and cities.

Today we learned that more than 1,400 English girls, many of them just 11 and 12 years old, have been threatened, raped, gang raped, prostituted and trafficked, for the most part, by Pakistani Muslims over the course of the last 16 years.

In just one English town!

And Rotherham Council knew it was happening. So the did the police. And they, too, did 'next to nothing' until they were forced to do so by increasing pressure from the media.

How many more have been similarly abused by the establishment's pet uncriticisables since those who have our worst interests at heart began shipping them over en masse in the nineteen fifties? Rotherham is just one of 650 constituencies in the United Kingdom. 1,400 x 650?

I'll let you do the math.

Anyone out there imagine that Rotherham's MP from 1994 to 2013, the parliamentary trough-gobbler and erstwhile jailbird, Denis MacShane, knew nothing of these matters? Was he never approached by concerned parents and their children before the BBC quoted him thus on 24 September 2012?
"The Rotherham police exposed, arrested and broke up an evil gang of internal traffickers who were sent to prison. But it is clear that the internal trafficking of barely pubescent girls is much more widespread and I regret that the police did not tell Yorkshire MPs about their inquiries."
How come other MPs knew about it and he didn't? How come I knew about it and he didn't? When it was happening on his own doorstep? Check out what I was saying about such things ten years ago.

He must have known about it. He just didn't want to admit it. In common with most MPs, when the sh*t hits the fan, they look for some else to condemn. It helps if that someone else is entirely deserving of any blame going.

Anyway, who thinks it more likely that the criminally inclined within 'the Lords, the Commons and the judiciary' (and the police), along with their peers who chose not to inform on them, would be more likely to turn a blind eye to similar criminality in their constituents' communities?

Common sense, isn't it? If you find torturing powerless and terrified youngsters pleasurable, you're hardly likely to give a damn when others institutionalise the process across the country.

The people you vote, the people you enfranchise, have been abusing our children for many decades now. Those they beckoned in to our world against our will, have been doing likewise from, one must presume, the time they got here.

In a democracy, even a pretend democracy like ours, You get what you vote for, ladies and gentlemen.

If you vote the same way forever, you get it over and over again. As the wise man said, 'if you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got.'

When we take our country back, the foul degenerates of parliament and Pakistan will be punished to the max. If you want that happy event to happen along sooner rather than later, don't vote for degeneracy and don't vote for those who who import it.

It's just that simple.

An exposé of paedophiles operating in Rochdale may be seen below:


Jack Straw, who was Home Secretary in 1997, when the the period of abuse covered by the Rotherham inquiry begins, describes the way the Muslim paedophile sees our little girls in the video below.

'Easy meat' is the term he uses.


Straw did nothing at all when he was in a position to do a good deal about Muslim paedophilia. He speaks out above in 2011, a year after New Labour lost power.

Monday, 25 August 2014

33 hours after arriving by ambulance

On 23 August 2014, David Burrowes, who had recently been in the North Middlesex Hospital suffering from a ruptured appendix, said this in The Daily Mail:
“I could have died waiting so long to get my scan and operation. The place was jam-packed. Every cubicle was taken and trolleys lined the corridors. In between, people well enough to sit up were on chairs. If this is what it’s like at the height of summer, how bad could it be in the depths of winter?

For six hours my wife, mother, and a friend were being told ‘Yes, yes, yes – he will be seen.’ But they were being fobbed off. They found out I had not been booked in for a scan on the system. In the meantime, I was on a trolley, in an A&E cubicle that doubled as a storeroom, curled up in pain…

They discovered I had a perforated, gangrenous appendix. Thankfully they got to it and the resulting infection in time, before it became life-threatening. It could have been very serious. People die of appendicitis and time is crucial.

I waited nine to ten hours longer than I should have done for the scan. If it was not for my family and friend acting as my advocates, I fear I would have been completely lost in the system. I fear for other patients, who may well be disorientated and vulnerable, and, without their own advocate, become helpless and voiceless.

I know the hospital was almost certainly trying to do its best. But when you have an A&E bursting at the seams, you can’t give everyone the best care. The reality I saw was that on an ordinary day in June my local A&E could not cope.”
David then gave us a clue as to why those who 'could not cope' eventually got a move on.
“I didn’t make a fuss about being a local MP, but someone found out, and the chief executive and the A&E consultant came to see me on my trolley. They were very concerned and apologised for me being missed from the CT booking system.”
I’ll bet they were concerned. 

It’s OK to see thousands of inconsequential plebs peg out for lack of appropriate care but the local MP? That is one gigantic no-no. The Mail on Sunday’s Stephen Adams added:
“After finally being taken for a scan at 5.30pm, Mr Burrowes had to wait another seven hours in an A&E corridor for a diagnosis – because all the doctors able to interpret the results were in theatre. He finally went into theatre at 2pm the next day – ALMOST 33 HOURS AFTER ARRIVING BY AMBULANCE…

Critics claim North Middlesex Hospital A&E has struggled to cope since the department at Chase Farm Hospital in neighbouring Enfield was closed last winter. And last week an official report concluded there had been an ‘underestimate of the resources’ needed to maintain standards, while nurses’ workloads had ‘increased significantly’.

In 2007, David Cameron joined Mr Burrowes in opposing the closure of Chase Farm A&E and was pictured with him outside the hospital. But after coming to power, Mr Cameron’s first Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, approved the closure.

Inspectors from the Care Quality Commission… calculated that 189,000 patients would use the A&E this year – 39,000 more than before the Chase Farm department was downgraded to an Urgent Care Centre in December. Health bosses had forecast only 26,000 extra patients would end up at North Middlesex A&E annually.

The(y) also found managers were ‘firefighting’ as the hospital was ‘stretched’. Yet two more A&Es in the area are to close next month.”
I wonder how many foreigners such ‘stretched’ hospitals have to accommodate these days? 

A few death-door megatons every other day I shouldn’t wonder.

And yet everything’s always so rosy in the immigrant garden, according to the LibLabCon merchants the sheeple still vote for, isn’t it?

Anyway, if our hospitals can treat the big shots like this, just imagine what they must be doing to us on a regular basis. Actually, you don’t have to imagine anything. Just read the papers. The cat has been well out of the bag regarding this godawfully inefficient and often uncaring bit of the LibLabCon machine for more than twenty years now. The care many of us receive these days in our NHS hospitals is beyond criminal.

We just die by the unnecessary tens of thousands every year.

And you just know that nobody but nobody, not even David Burrowes, is going to do a damn thing about it. That is they’re not going to do the one thing that would make a positive difference.

They’re not going to close the borders to the freeloaders and they’re not going to boot out the freeloaders already here.

Don’t fall ill, ladies and gents.

They do leave us on trolleys until we die these days.

They really do.

P.S. As Enfield Southgate’s finest didn’t ‘make a fuss about being a local MP,’ and spent 33 hours in total waiting for a very necessary operation, he is obviously a cut above most of the immoral dross in Westminster. However, when I’m the boss, if it comes to a toss up between Mr long-suffering Average and an MP who’s a cut above the rest, the contents of this web site should give you a bit of a clue as to identity of the corpses in the hospital corridors.

He felt he had a divine right to do as he pleased

On 23 August 2014, Robert Montagu, the son of the 10th Earl of Sandwich, told us about his forthcoming autobiography, A Humour Of Love, in The Daily Mail.
"I wrote the first draft when I was 16 and I’ve probably done ten versions since then. I always intended it to be written as a novel but then I came to realise in the last three months it had to be done as a memoir. If you want the message to come across that people should be brave enough to speak out, you really have to put your name to it and write it with people’s names as they are. 
I could lose all contact with my brother. He’s a very successful crossbencher and is a popular man, a fine man. It’s going to give him problems... but I’m afraid I can’t spare him... I’ve spared him for 55 years."
Robert then describes what his father did to him:
"It was what we did every day. It was accepted that I would always go to his room at half past seven in the morning until quarter to nine. I felt I was fulfilling a function of my mother who was missing. It was my duty, to some extent, to be in the position I was in and that is the reason I did not resist. 


That feeling was hinted at by my father, by sometimes making comments comparing me to my mother... That was what would happen every single day. It was never questioned by anybody. My sisters have asked and I said 'Surely you always knew?' and they said no, they didn’t. 
You castigate yourself later for not telling anybody and also not refusing to go. But when things start at that age, it feels the natural order of the world so there is no questioning it... 
You wouldn’t suspect there was anything going on in that child’s life that wasn’t completely kosher... It makes me sad for that child, that he had to put up such a front. At that time he wasn’t sure if he was a boy or a girl. And he felt like a little prostitute. 
I do think WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS PROBLEM MORE SERIOUSLY, PURSUING PEOPLE WHO ACT IN THIS WAY AND NOT ALLOWING THEM TO ESCAPE. 
It’s easy for me to say that. I let my father escape, as have all my family. But we’ve got to get tougher. I particularly want families to be active in reporting. It’s a difficult thing but it must be done. You cannot have an 11-year-old telling of abuse that had reached a zenith and not act. You must make sure that person is not in a position to do the same again... 
I know personally of ten (victims) and I’ve spoken with most of those. They were family friends, London contacts, Dorset contacts, holiday contacts. I suspect it might be 20, possibly more... 
Although he was abusive, I didn’t want to denounce him. I never referred to what had happened and neither did he. There were occasions when I could easily have raised the subject. I spared him, I suppose. In retrospect, I wish I’d had the courage to face him and question him about it. But this is the way life pans out. You don’t have the courage early on. 
I think, PROBABLY TRUE OF HIS GENERATION, HE SORT OF FELT HE HAD A DIVINE RIGHT TO DO AS HE PLEASED, especially within his family. And that what he was doing was not wrong. I don’t know how he justified that with God because he was a God-fearing man. But he came to some arrangement in his mind that permitted him."
For some, informing on their abusers is horrendously difficult. 

Robert Montagu isn't just telling tales on his father, whom he loved, and almost certainly risking the feelings of his family thereby, he is also very likely to upset the powers-that-be as a whole. Many powerful people in high places will be aghast at Robert's revelations and he will probably find himself shunned by many in 'polite society.'

Robert, who set up the Dorset Child and Family Counselling Trust ten years ago, is a brave and righteous Englishman, of that there can be no doubt. And though it is, obviously, better if you manage to find the courage to tell the off-limits truth sooner rather than later, even if it takes a lifetime to get it out, it's better told then than not at all.

As far as I know, Robert is the first member of the aristocracy to speak out publicly. He is not, however, the first upper-crust whistleblower. That accolade must, I think, belong to Susie Henderson, who was abused by her late father, a prominent QC, and raped by Nicholas Fairbairn, MP, when she was just four years old.

Susie's story can be found here.

Remember what kind of person rules our lives, ladies and gentlemen. 

Remember who ruled our lives and created the world we live in today. Remember what kind of person the dark forces behind the scenes need in front of them, in order to be able to steal a world that worked away from those who made it.

If I said that the pervert minority was more likely to betray their kith and kin than the decent majority, the PC Crowd and the rest of the 'perverts-have-rights-too' crowd would, probably, be up in arms.

Well, as I prefer truth to political correctness, I'll say it again:

THE PERVERT MINORITY IS MORE LIKELY TO BETRAY THEIR KITH AND KIN THAN THE DECENT MAJORITY!

That's who 'the dark forces' rely on, folks. That's who does their dirty work. Along with those who actively hate the British people, the trough-gobblers and the slithery-up-the-greasy-pole merchants.

I'll tell you this for nothing, there are a hell of a lot more elite 'establishment' perverts than there are in society as a whole. Unfortunately, even with the help of good folks like Susie and Robert, it's not likely that we'll ever be able to ferret them all out. They are in charge after all.

However, if they weren't in charge...

Now that's another matter.

Alexander Victor Edward Paulet Montagu, 10th Earl of Sandwich (1906 – 1995), was the Conservative Member of Parliament for South Dorset from 1941 until 1962.

At one point Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's Private Secretary, he set up the Tory Reform Committee in 1943 and was its founding Chairman.

His first wife, Rosemary Peto, (Robert's mother) was a god-daughter of Queen Maud of Norway and his second, Lady Anne Holland-Martin, was the daughter of Victor Cavendish, the 9th Duke of Devonshire.

Sunday, 24 August 2014

A Jew is a part of God, they have Godly souls


In his 21 August 2011 essay, What is the cause of anti-Semitism? the Czech-born American Rabbi, Manis Friedman, expostulates as stated in the graphic.

Thinks very well of himself and his fellow Jews, doesn't he? 'The Jew is a piece of God... we are of heaven, we have Godly souls.'

I guess this might explain why some Jews seem to think they have a divine right to control the rest of us in the way they do. And to award themselves huge bonuses when they've just bankrupted the world.

Leaving the rest of us to pay for the clean-up of their Godly partying.

Perhaps it also explains why we're always being accused of ant-Semitism when we are the least bit critical of Jewish misbehaviour. I mean, if you're the next best thing to God himself, we mere mortals really shouldn't be criticising, should we? They really ought to be allowed to do whatever they please because, hey, even though whatever seemingly godawful activity they happen to be involved in at any given time might seem pretty dire to we mere mortals, the infinitely fabulous type always knows better. It's bound to be for the best in the long run, God knows what he's doing and so does every last 'heavenly being' that, sadly, finds itself down here on planet earth having to put up with the rest of us.

Perhaps you think Rabbi Manis is a one off, a freak, that his pompous opionating probably counts for very little in the scheme of things. Well, The Huffington Post might beg to differ. This is how the Post, which has published a good few of his essays, describes him:
"... a world renowned keynote speaker... travels the world inspiring thousands to be better people. He is dean of Bais Chana Women International."
So, the chap who came out with the aren't-we-wonderful stuff cited above is no Napoleon-in-the-loony-bin whacko who forgot to take his medication. At least, he might be, but we're not allowed to say it. Or think it. He's a Jew, you see. A rabbi even. And the godliest of the Godly don't ever get carted away by the men in white coats.

I'm grateful to Rabbi Manis for something else he said in 'What are the causes of anti-Semitism.' 

Grateful because, if I'd said it, and an over-zealous, LibLabCon Plod had spotted it, I might have had some explaining to do down at the local Nick. Check it out:
"We find a disproportionate number of Jews in the world who don’t know what to do with themselves. It’s not an exaggeration that although we are less than 2% of the general population in the US, at the same time we are over 40% of all the cults... of all the revolutions and upheavals and changes that take place in the world. 
This is because we are not content; we sense that something to do with the very condition of existence needs to be explained, and we are not finding an explanation. So we’re ready to turn everything upside down and throw everything away and start all over again in order to find the justification for existence."
You get this? This is what so many have tried to point out over the years about the nature of so many of our Jewish brethren. They, much more more than the rest of us, are inclined to 'turn everything upside down and throw everything away and start all over again.'

Which, when it is our stuff the Jew is turning upside down and throwing away, might go a long way to explaining 'the causes of anti-Semitism.'

Anyone out there think Rabbi Manis might pour contempt upon anyone who thinks that 'revolutions and upheavals' are a good enough reason to dislike and/or distrust the Mr Wonderfuls of our earthly domain?

Here's how the heavenly fellow thinks those with 'Godly souls' should fight a 'moral war:'


I suppose, if you believe in the God of the Old Testament and you are intimately acquainted with the genocidal way he often operates, Rabbi Friedman's words won't come as much of a shock.

On the other hand, if you ever imagined that the Jew was a poor, cringing, much misunderstood and long-suffering nice guy who'd never dream of being nasty to anyone if only we horrid anti-Semites would stop picking on him, you might have to re-programme the odd few trillion brain cells.

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

Israel's Gaza policy explained


On the 7 August 2014 edition of 'Democracy Now,' (22 minutes in) Professor Emeritus at M.I.T., Noam Chomsky, described Israel’s 29-day offensive in Gaza thus:
"It’s a hideous atrocity, sadistic, vicious, murderous, totally without any credible pretext. It’s another one of the periodic Israeli exercises in what they delicately call 'mowing the lawn.' That means shooting fish in the pond, to make sure that the animals stay quiet in the cage that you’ve constructed for them, after which you go to a period of what’s called 'ceasefire,' which means that Hamas observes the ceasefire, as Israel concedes, while Israel continues to violate it. Then it’s broken by an Israeli escalation, Hamas reaction. Then you have period of 'mowing the lawn.' This one is, in many ways, more sadistic and vicious even than the earlier ones...

Hamas had observed the previous ceasefire for 19 months. The previous episode of 'mowing the lawn' was in November 2012. There was a ceasefire. The ceasefire terms were that Hamas would not fire rockets, what they call rockets, and Israel would move to end the blockade and stop attacking what they call militants in Gaza. Hamas lived up to it. Israel concedes that.

In April of this year, an event took place which horrified the Israeli government: A unity agreement was formed between Gaza and the West Bank, between Hamas and Fatah. Israel has been desperately trying to prevent that for a long time... Israel was furious. They got even more upset when the U.S. more or less endorsed it...

What was used as a pretext was the brutal murder of three settler teenagers. There was a pretense that they were alive, though they knew they were dead. They blamed it right away on Hamas. They have yet to produce a particle of evidence.. the killers were probably from a kind of a rogue clan in Hebron, the Qawasmeh clan... They’ve been a thorn in the sides of Hamas for years. They don’t follow their orders.

But anyway, that gave the opportunity for a rampage in the West Bank, arresting hundreds of people, re-arresting many who had been released, mostly targeted on Hamas. Killings increased. Finally, there was a Hamas response: the so-called rocket attacks. And that gave the opportunity for 'mowing the lawn' again...

For over 20 years, Israel has been dedicated, with U.S. support, to separating Gaza from the West Bank. That’s in direct violation of the terms of the Oslo Accord 20 years ago, which declared that the West Bank and Gaza are a single territorial entity whose integrity must be preserved. But for rogue states, solemn agreements are just an invitation to do whatever you want. So Israel, with U.S. backing, has been committed to keeping them separate...
Israel is systematically driving Palestinians out of the Jordan Valley, sinking wells, building settlements. They first call them military zones, then put in settlements—the usual story. That would mean that whatever cantons are left for Palestinians in the West Bank, after Israel takes what it wants and integrates it into Israel, they would be completely imprisoned. Gaza would be an outlet to the outside world, so therefore keeping them separate from one another is a high goal of policy, U.S. and Israeli policy. And the unity agreement threatened that.

Threatened something else Israel has been claiming for years. One of its arguments for kind of evading negotiations is: How can they negotiate with the Palestinians when they’re divided? Well, OK, so if they’re not divided, you lose that argument...

In February 2011, the U.N. Security Council considered a resolution which called for—which called on Israel to terminate its expansion of settlements. Notice that the expansion of settlements is not really the issue. It’s the settlements. The settlements, the infrastructure development, all of this is in gross violation of international law. That’s been determined by the Security Council, the International Court of Justice. Practically every country in the world, outside of Israel, recognizes this. But this was a resolution calling for an end to expansion of settlements, official U.S. policy. What happened? Obama vetoed the resolution. That tells you something...
Obama’s latest condemnation of the recent, as he puts it, violence on all sides was accompanied by sending more military aid to Israel... the military aid continues, the economic aid continues, the diplomatic protection continues, the ideological protection continues...

When you pursue a policy of repression and expansion over security, there are things that are going to happen. There will be moral degeneration within the country. There will be increasing opposition and anger and hostility among populations outside the country. You may continue to get support from dictatorships and from, you know, the U.S. administration, but you’re going to lose the populations. And that has a consequence. 
You could predict—in fact, I and others did predict back in the '70s—that, just to quote myself, 'those who call themselves supporters of Israel are actually supporters of its moral degeneration, international isolation, and very possibly ultimate destruction'...

The United Nations, every country in the world, even the United States, regards Israel as the occupying power in Gaza for a very simple reason: They control everything there. They control the borders, the land, sea, air. They determine what goes into Gaza, what comes out. They determine how many calories Gazan children need to stay alive, but not to flourish. That’s occupation, under international law, and no one questions it, outside of Israel. Even the U.S. agrees, their usual backer...
As for wanting peace, look back at that so-called withdrawal. Notice that it left Israel as the occupying power. By 2005, Israeli hawks, led by Ariel Sharon, pragmatic hawk, recognized that it just makes no sense for Israel to keep a few thousand settlers in devastated Gaza and devote a large part of the IDF, the Israeli military, to protecting them... Made a lot more sense to take those settlers from their subsidized settlements in Gaza, where they were illegally residing, and send them off to subsidized settlements in the West Bank, in areas that Israel intends to keep—illegally...
It was decided to construct what’s sometimes called a 'national trauma.' So a trauma was constructed, a theater... So you could have little boys, pictures of them pleading with the Israeli soldiers, 'Don’t destroy my home!' and then background calls of 'Never again.' That means 'Never again make us leave anything,' referring to the West Bank primarily. And a staged national trauma.

What made it particularly farcical was that it was a repetition of what even the Israeli press called 'National Trauma ’82,' when they staged a trauma when they had to withdraw from Yamit, the city they illegally built in the Sinai...

And I’ll repeat what Weissglas said. Recall, he was the negotiator with the United States, Sharon’s confidant. He said the purpose of the withdrawal is to end negotiations on a Palestinian state and Palestinian rights. This will end it. This will freeze it, with U.S. support. And then comes imposition of the diet on Gaza to keep them barely alive, but not flourishing, and the siege.

Within weeks after the so-called withdrawal, Israel escalated the attacks on Gaza and imposed very harsh sanctions, backed by the United States. The reason was that a free election took place in Palestine, and it came out the wrong way. Well, Israel and the United States, of course, love democracy, but only if it comes out the way they want. So, the U.S. and Israel instantly imposed harsh sanctions. Israeli attacks, which really never ended, escalated. Europe, to its shame, went along.

Then Israel and the United States immediately began planning for a military coup to overthrow the government. When Hamas pre-empted that coup, there was fury in both countries.
The sanctions and military attacks increased.

And then we’re on to what we discussed before: periodic episodes of 'mowing the lawn'...

For Israel, with U.S. backing, the current situation is a kind of a win-win situation. If Hamas agrees to extend the ceasefire, Israel can continue with its regular policies, which I described before: taking over what they want in the West Bank, separating it from Gaza, keeping the diet and so on.
If Hamas doesn’t accept the ceasefire, Netanyahu can make another speech...
For 40 years, the United States has been almost unilaterally backing Israeli rejectionism, refusal to entertain the overwhelming international consensus on a two-state settlement."
Professor Chomsky is Jewish.

Tuesday, 19 August 2014

Iraq and after - the true story

In 1985, Jack Bernstein's 'The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel' was published.

In this, Jack warned us of what was to come. From 2002 onwards honourable Jewish journalists and writers were warning us that the US Neocons, 'most of whom are Jewish,' were about to unleash hell in the Middle East. At no time before or since, have the mainstream British media ever bothered to mention this fundamental truth.

What follows is a sample of this honest reportage.


James Rosen, Wesley Clark and Glilad Atzmon have already alluded to those responsible for the ongoing horror that has been inflicted upon the Middle East in recent times.

In this regard, here's one last truthful nugget to ponder: