skilful.com ~ skilled.org UNDER RECONSTRUCTION
Think about it – the gap between the rich and poor always gets wider. The poorest hardly get any rise and are still in poverty, those of us above get little more - whilst rich fat-cats increase their incomes by up to 30%, compounded year on year into a massive annual fortune. Incomes diverge, never converge to improve inequality. They think us idiots.
The UK Office for National Statistics help the scam using statistical confidence tricks, including the Gini coefficient. My findings prove this beyond any doubt. The con is to hide the ever widening income inequality between any countries powerful rich families and the rest of the population. Government and authorities have utter contempt of us.
If the government measured weight problems by ignoring the obese and dangerously underweight - you would say they were corrupt and trying to hide the problems - wouldn't you? That is how they measure inequality - ignore the richest and poorest groups - those millions of people most affected by what is being measured. For political motive.
Indeed, the UK Statistics Authority (Deputy Head of Regulation) actually admitted to me about the Gini, “I agree with your observation that it is not ideal if your particular interest is in inequalities at the top or bottom of the spectrum”. So admitting it is "not ideal" if you care about rich or poor. The first time perhaps they disclosed the fact they know it hides the inequalities of the rich and poor. This con goes for other inequality metrics e.g. Palma ratio and S80/S20.
It is sickening to me that government lied about improving inequality to make billions of pounds of welfare cuts to our poorest families. This is not simple opinion that inequality worsens, it is objective fact and is easily proven. I explain how they did it - easy enough for a school kid to understand - but not the 'experts' at the ONS it seems:
The Gini is a con to make people believe that government are addressing inequality and are reigning it back in, when the truth is it gets worse every year. They lie, so when they show you the Gini go down any year you believe that inequality does. The admission they agree with my observation is proof the authorities know it hides inequality.
They know all data has to be included as it is an essential factor in making the derived analysis more accurate. Yet they ignore this fact. The only logical reason to ignore the poorest and richest groups is to hide how bad inequality is getting. Corrado Gini would have also known this in 1912 - unless he was a terrible mathematician. This was always a con job on the general population.
If government and authorities would lie about that, causing poor desperate families with children to suffer, then they would lie about anything. Only fair wage legislation can stop the greed of the rich in privileged positions of power - remember that if we get any Swiss-type referendum. Do not bottle out.
The Prime Minister said those words at PMQ's on 24 June 2015 - https://youtu.be/iaNLH5aIt10?t=32m36s
NB: I have had criticism about revealing the Job Creator Myth - which plutocrat billionaire Nick Hanauer has recently confirmed in his video.
The REALITY: does a factory get created with jobs as a main reason - or is hundreds of jobs gone if it can be done cheaper by machine?
Jobs are used only if necessity - 'job creators' do not want an expense that has wages, holidays, sickness, pensions, NI, can strike or have babies...
As for the 'Wealth Creator' myth - guess who they create wealth for - themselves - government applaud greed and praise 'job creators' (guess why £).
IMPORTANT - all inequality measures that I have looked at are statistical confidence tricks - it includes even the praised new Palma ratio,
It is much praised as it is supposed to show inequality better - being the poorest 40% compared to richest 10% of the population.
Scotland 'improved' since 2011/12 to 2014/15, falling from 118% to 112% with Palma. Good news for Scottish people and government - or deception?
To explain: they pretend the 40% and 10% groups are two large families – the simple comparison that the Palma ratio shows.
That is where professors 'go wrong'. They are, of course, millions of separate families on differing divergent incomes, divided into two large groups.
If you can think for a moment about just the richest 10% group - concentrate on that.
In any one year the bottom of that range will rise relatively little, whilst the richest at the top income can rise by millions.
Quote: FTSE 100 directors enjoy 27pc pay rises [during recession]
So even in that range alone, inequality has worsened.
Now think about the poorest 40% range of population – similar will happen there.
The bottom of 40% range raises little or not at all (with poorest staying in poverty) whilst the top of the 40% range rises much more e.g. minimum wage.
Inequality has worsened in this range also.
The outcome being that both ranges may have increased – but undeniably so has inequality - the gap between bottom and top of population most.
So at the end of this you could see ‘inequality’ using the Palma has improved, purely because of the bottom range total rising more – a statistical con.
Just because the lower range total (with increased inequality) has risen more than the upper range total (with increased inequality) - they say 'inequality' has improved.
What The Flip - are people really that thick?
These people are intellectual professors of mathematics and economics - I mean, you understand and you think they do not?
That is how the deception in similar comparison inequality measures work e.g. S80/S20.
These imbeciles are effectively comparing averages of groups - whilst completely ignoring the ranges - ignoring millions of people.
It was like saying that inequality in the UK improved just because the average wage went up - clearly not true.
Very intelligent people have been been told how to do something simple and have not understood what they are doing – which is unbelievable to me.
The public are all treated as though they would never be able to understand or work this out, like imbeciles.
It is most important to note - we are not taught to think for ourselves - just taught to think the same way as others - why lies continue.
UK ONS and other countries statistics offices measure inequality with Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient - it is a confidence trick
FACT: Not only is the Gini rubbish measuring inequality within a country of poor to rich, it is also useless for comparing one country to another country.
The Gini coefficient is a confidence trick to hide the ever widening gap between each countries powerful rich families and the rest of the population. It also clearly hides millions of poor families, many who are in poverty. Obviously, nobody wants to admit they know this. Using frequency distribution to hide the wealthy, it only compares the poor to average income - not comparing the millions of poorest families on lowest income to the richest.
I use the analogy of measuring inequality with a rubber band in my video - inequality widens getting worse - yet the measure reads the same. Close your eyes and think about it for a minute, does the gap between the rich and poor ever get narrower? Wake up - they treat us like uneducated plebs! This is fact and not mere opinion being written here - some don't know the difference.
An example of stretch is during 2012 the FTSE director's got a 27% rise and the millions of people on minimum pay got 1.8% - the rich got £100,000's per annum, the poor got just over £200. In 2013 CEO's got 21% and those on minimum pay got 1.9% with similar sort of cash rise in the 'pay packet'.
In the video I made the following chart for those bad at maths and to provide undeniable proof for corrupt people like those at the ONS. How can (an ideal?) country be the same inequality as the UK? How is somebody in a country like this be living in the same inequality as us in UK?
Wouldn't a country with a more even spread of six times income differential not have much less inequality than ours? Why has this the same Gini then?
The IFS are also part of the 'problem' - they support the deception.
Here is a chart which shows 'income inequality' going down as well as up - this when incomes diverge and inequality gets worse.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/ER_JC_2013.pdf
Wealth and Taxation
Something else you are being conned about - the rich are not being squeezed - we are.
The financial wealth of the country has built up in the rich because ALL governments have helped them by squeezing the working class.
Workers have little or nothing left after tax and essential bills. Governments know tax is greater burden on the them but lie about squeezing the rich.
BTW: You hear government propaganda about richest 1% paying 27% of income tax - they feel very sorry for this 'poor' 1% (themselves or friends).
It is because fat-cats are the ones with up to 30% compound rises year on year - whilst holding down pay of workers who made them all that money.
It is insulting because they use exploitation of workers as propaganda against them. Pay workers these big rises and they will pay more tax also.
BREXIT - was for the sake of our grandchildren - our children already have had their lives made worse for them.
Many have blamed us 'old people' for voting out - but many of us 'old people' have seen what is happening over the decades.
I am still amazed we had more than 5% of the population voting to stay who *still* cannot see the problems getting worse in the EU or that us remaining makes our problems worse (for the many spin-doctors: staying in wasn't going towards solving these problems).
BTW: I never blame immigrants who are only doing what many of us would do (go to better country) - or say they caused the problems - for those that slur & misrepresent me.
We have made our kids lose out being in the EU, as firms and government would rather take skilled workers from a vast supply of immigrants than train British young adults.
The times we heard stupid people say, "We wouldn't have the NHS if it wasn't for immigration" - government treat you like morons and lied about not being able to get Brits to be doctors (they restricted training). NHS lied about Brits not wanting to nurse and are taking trained nurses from poorer countries (in & out of EU), while turning down tens of thousands of young Brits. This is why we have to leave the 'single market' with free movement and seriously restrict points system with critical examination of each applicant.
We are taking away skilled and younger people from poorer countries but supporters of EU don't care what state it leaves these poorer countries for their elderly left behind.
Mass immigration was supposed to solve the problem of elderly people having to work years longer - how is that working out - it will make the elderly care crisis £trillions worse.
Why - the cost for looking after elderly individuals is rising - immigrants and their children/ grandchildren get old also - do you understand concept of a pyramid scam?
The EU is an anti-democratic scam - allowing poorer incompatible countries to join. We were never going to flood Poland - though many of our jobs have gone there.
Cameron lied with his "tens of thousands" - it was not achievable - which the press did not warn about - yet they did about Brexit lies e.g. £350m to the NHS (also wrong).
It is important to note that the EU want Turkey +others to join, the latest confirmation was March 2016. Even if these countries do not join soon, they all want EU expansion. Also, this refugee problem that they cannot handle is tiny to what is to come with world overpopulation.
People only have to look at what is happening: skilled & semi-skilled Brit wages held down - less housing & jobs available to Brits - Pension Pyramid Scam (immigrants get old too, as do their children, grandchildren...) with care it will cost £trillions - worsening food/water/energy security - many more crimes - greater congestion - more NHS overstretch...
Ignorant people do not understand is that we are incurring massive extra costs because of immigration - not just extra schools but also desalination plants.
We had to have one built in London in June 2010 - to provide enough drinking water for this extra population.
The pro-immigration nutters do not like facts like these - they are helping the rich to f- up the British working class..
The financial (Mars bar) gain is fiddled as it does not include all costs e.g. crime - also false argument anyway because it could be Brits making this money.
Even if we build 100,000 homes every year it still would not be enough for 300,000+ extra immigration - also we know young Brits cannot get social housing any more.
The Tories will likely take advantage - but they can be voted out. Even if half the Remainians scare-mongering is true - we had to leave. Can you all *honestly* not see that?
The bosses do not train any more to anything like they used to. In early 1970's, I was trained by EITB (Engineering Industry Training Board) as a Mechanical Engineering Technician Trainee - and later as a Telecommunications Technician Trainee with PYE Telecom.
1964 -Engineering Industry Training Board
The EITB had the power to impose a financial training levy on employers over a certain size. Employers who could prove a good track record of training activity could be granted exemption from most of the levy.
Corrupt governments would rather give skilled jobs to foreign workers than train our British kids up to higher standards.
WARNING - corrupt politicians still want this cheap skilled immigrant labor - so we do not train young British workers, even now we are out of the EU.
BTW: We can control seasonal work: "More than 98% of those coming to the UK through a previous Seasonal Agricultural Workers scheme returned home."
Authorities and media lie - you are all being brainwashed. In fact 'fake news' was already here - for example, try deny this:
Chilcot was a cover-up - he lied when saying it was "flawed intelligence", allowing Blair to say he "trusted the intelligence".
I knew the inquiry would pivot on this point - the authorities clearly do not want to prosecute and will allow the guilty to go free.
However, the truth is Tony Blair got John Scarlett and JIC to alter the intelligence - so it was in fact 'falsified intelligence' and not flawed.
It is on record the cabal changed the wording and removed caveats to achieve the desired outcome - to deceive parliament and public.
For example, "MAY BE ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons" was changed to "ARE ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons".
(You can see Google has only around thirty sites reporting this fact - some are mine - proof perhaps that authorites do not want to prosecute?)
Analogy: You are seriously ill, ATOS may say that you ARE ABLE to do something to fail you in the All Work Test and to rob you of legal entitlement.
I wrote for years that Blair would merely be heavily criticised in the latest cover-up for an 'error of judgement' - his 'mistake' - to make the inquiry look like they are being more critical than in the past. The JIC all would know they should not make the evidence for invasion stronger - it was no mistake.
If bad people killed or mutilated up to a million British men, women, children and babies by illegal invasion, we *all* would want them to stand trial - true?
Finally, the truth is out - though nobody held to account by corrupt authorities: The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war was designed to “avoid blame” and reduce the risk that individuals and the government could face legal proceedings, newly released documents reveal.
Who cares about all the poor innocents murdered by Bush and Blair - not our governments - thus acting as recruiting sergeants for ISIS.
Imagine the terrible grief if your child was killed - these poor souls were just as precious to their parents - they deserve justice.
Privatisation: have you still not realised the truth?
There is this man on £4.1m in charge of British Gas who has hiked customers electricity prices up by 12.5% - well, he can afford it.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/01/british-gas-hikes-electricity-prices-centrica-energy-bills
That was September 2017 - soon after, May 2018, they put up gas and electricity another 5.5% - profiteering or what?
British Gas price rise unjustified, says government - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43711556
We are still with original suppliers - because privatisation was illegal fraud and you shouldn't have to chase around looking for cheapest deal.
That it was fraud is a *fact* - you were sold your own property and they did not explain about their new fiduciary duty to screw you for profit.
This legal fiduciary duty was not to us customers - giving us the cheapest gas, electricity, water - but to their new owners - ask any lawyer.
Fraud by false representation, Fraud by failing to disclose information and Fraud by abuse of position - look it up if you don't believe me.
It was also covered by the Theft Act 1978 at the time - these are criminals we are discussing here.
Police have a duty to return stolen/defrauded property without paying compensation to those who have handled this stolen property.
We should get our property back and be getting the cheapest energy as a right of your ownership of these industries.
Below is the old site - whole site is under reconstruction - sorry for the mess - it was more of a scrapbook of thoughts:
Garry Anderson ~ critical thinker
If your judgement or opinion does not fit ALL the facts then it is not the facts that are wrong.
Info for intellectually insignificant politicians (those that think they fool us).
Every problem can be solved until it is proven that it cannot be.
My personal philosophy.
skilled.org - link to my more messy old skilful.com site
WoolwichSucks.co.uk - corruption by authorities
wipo.org.uk - find registered trademarks on internet
twitter - aptly named for twits like us
So, what is a critical thinker? It means, amongst other things, having good logic ability. How is any of my thoughts here wrong? Just two examples:
1. It was reported in the media at the end of 1999 that ICANN stated, "every word in a typical English-language dictionary is already registered" in the .com TLD after many millions of domains had gone. I knew from that statement what to look for and registered skilful.com as my new personal domain right away (and skilled.org). It was not simply because only 23% of Brits can spell it.
2. I also discovered this year the solution to consumer confusion for registered trademarks on the internet i.e. name.class.country.reg e.g. barclays.bank.uk.reg. The 'experts' at UN WIPO said they were stumped for an answer - even though it was self-evident. See my site wipo.org.uk (reg'd Jan 2000) and my complaint - not connected with UN wipo.org!
What possible explaination could there be for our government and the ONS saying inequality has improved back down to 1986 levels? Is this not a lie? Since then the rich have been compounding large pay rises up to 30% year on year and our poorest now have to use food banks.
Why were the ONS evasive and not confirm or deny my findings? Could it possibly be that the measure they use (Gini coefficient) is a confidence trick to hide an ever widening gap - could it?
Look at my video above and see how it was done. Anybody with GCSE maths can understand.
This worldwide con job under-reports inequality between the privileged rich families and millions of poor families in every country. The media stay silent.
Anyhow, calm down Garry, it's not good for you. Forgive me, I come from a poor background, born in Liverpool 1954, and know just how these families suffer. We should have a much fairer (more equal) society by now, with no poverty in our rich country. In case you've not guessed - I am a socialist.
These are a few of my thoughts on things that seem very obvious to me. More of a jotter than a website. However, these are Important things, like the biggest pyramid scam ever - governments saying we need a lot of immigration to pay for old age pensioners. Are they really that stupid? How has it kept retirement age down, you imbeciles? Also we all know that problems get worse with mass immigration, not better e.g. housing and job shortages. I can guess most of your replies, please see below.
Another; the financial authorities. Surely you know about the big cover-up. Each time there is a 'mis-selling' scandal you seriously have never asked yourself, "Why is mis-selling not fraud?". We are not all idiots, we know the difference between when something is sold by mistake and when there is evidence that something is sold by deception and hiding facts. Individuals that commit fraud are criminals - as are individuals in authority that cover up crime. With a cover-up the latest financial crisis was inevitable, as is the next. There will be more financial disasters as authorities continue to protect guilty people - they aid and abet crime. We were easily able to win an official complaint against the FSA/FCA for their evasion and malfeasance.
People in the authorities, including the FCA & SFO, are crooks. They help criminals evade capture. Rather than jail those that defraud customer they allow them to escape, giving the firm fines which are then passed on to their customers. Customers get robbed twice with authorities help.
Two of the greatest threats to society - what future for our country if we cannot control over-population or financial meltdown?
BTW: I was against these illegal wars - Afghanistan was using a (deliberately) failed illegal extradition as pretext for war - Iraq was falsified intelligence - see what I say about those. We should be sending farming/ irrigation equipment and saving people - not dropping bombs and killing people.
We have evidence Barclays defrauded us - and the authorities have been protecting them. This was not just us however and there is the wider picture to consider. Including you and your family.
<- This is me in 1997 just before I was forced to retire, before I began our fight against Barclays, financial authorities and the Serious Fraud Office. The tubes are a lot worse under the covers. I was trying to smile for my 11 year old daughter, Faye, taking the picture. I was thinking this would be the last time she saw me. I later put the annotated picture on my website to warn others about the under-reporting of elective surgery going wrong. The 'HELP PLEASE' is added now.
First things first, this is the internet after all; how do you know this is not a spurious accusation by somebody of dubious intelligence? We are making serious claims e.g. that the authorities cover up mass fraud by Barclays and others. So here is proof of cover up; an official complaint we won against FSA for corrupt behaviour in protecting Barclays. More details here.
Every time I wrote to Barclays or authorities I ended up in a ball of unbearable pain on the floor, which is why there are gaps when contacting them. I needed a big break - I knew the horrific agony of going back for more. You do not return willingly to a beating. It was like my chest and side were being ripped out. We thought it was the damaged nerve bundle from the op. The two <- pictures at bottom were sent to the pain clinic after injections for the damaged nerve bundle. On the left picture you can see three scars where the hosepipes went in for body cavity juices.
Things actually got much worse fighting them and I was lucky to survive again. There was a growing aneurysm which eventually had to burst due to the repeated stress of 'battle'. It also split my artery (chest to stomach) causing another large aneurysm which is now getting bigger every year, with more serious complications. You could likely expect to fight any bad people that defraud you, but not reputable banks and never the financial authorities - our 'protectors'.
How can you help? This is not about helping me, I had to give up, my health is too bad. The FOS falsified our complaint in 2013 by removing essential key points, exactly like Barclays. The FOS would not rule despite admitting that it was within their time limit. As Barclays told them to do. The FOS chief executive with whom I communicated, Natalie Ceeney, left to work for HSBC.
This is about helping my children and yours. Faye has her own lovely daughter now. The reason the UK is in great trouble now is because of the authorities corruption e.g. ask them what the difference is between fraud and 'mis-selling'. This is why it will happen again and again. Please help by warning your friends and family about the corrupt authorities. For the sake of all your grandchildren too. If the authorities admit they 'lack integrity' then what is the point of them?
IRAQ Legacy
I would say there is a complete lack of intelligence on this subject (no pun), but I know many lie. Some idiots think that all these problems are nothing to do with us or America. It was admitted by President Obama to Vice News March 2015: "ISIL is direct outgrowth of Al-Qaida in Iraq which grew out of our invasion which is an example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot" - he should have said illegal invasion.
https://news.vice.com/video/president-obama-speaks-with-vice-news
The vile London bombers and Lee Rigby killers tell us that our murder of all those hundreds of thousands innocent civilians caused this radicalisation - it is cowardice not to admit this fact.
How likely is it that they would have been radicalised had we not killed all those innocent Muslims in illegal war - with nothing here before then.
This is not excusing terrorism - or justifying it - merely explaining why they attack. I put that in because some like to misrepresent what I write - many know I am against terrorism - Muslim or Western. Causality - read up on it. The security services warned Tony Blair an "invasion would lead to more terrorism" - did the security services justify the London bombers actions?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/ex-mi5-chief-tony-blair-was-warned-iraq-invasion-would-fuel-terror-6493687.html
Tony Blair is directly responsible for the worst atrocity committed by our government since the end of World War 2. This is truly a most heinous crime.
Imagine just for a moment that we in the UK were invaded using falsified intelligence. Not wrong intelligence - that is the obvious big lie (why the flip do intelligent people comply) - simply altered and exagerated with caveats removed e.g. "MAY BE ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons" to "ARE ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons". It 'may be possible' is not the same as 'they can' - nor is 'intelligence suggestion' same as fact.
Let us say the invading country are responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 British people (up to 1 million). As many innocent men, women, children and babies that were killed in Iraq. Many more were maimed. You surely would want justice for all those killed and maimed then, wouldn't you?
If your friends or sons and daughters (or any of your family) had been slaughtered using lies to do so - sure, you know you would.
The Intelligence report was a work of fiction, when it was supposed to be a true story. This work was a collaboration by known authors. The ICC at The Hague is biased and clearly a tool of Western imperialism. They are very selective about who is prosecuted - primarily those in African countries.
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
The Chilcot Inquiry will be another Public Relations exercise - damage limitation. It will be more critical to say they did a good job - to pretend it was not another whitewash. But it will be - nobody will be prosecuted for illegal war.
Quote: He (Blair) told Chilcot: "In a sense what I was saying to America was: 'Look' – and by the way I am absolutely sure this is how George Bush took it – 'whatever the political heat, if I think this is the right thing to do I am going to be with you. I am not going to back out because the going gets tough. On the other hand, here are the difficulties and this is why I think the UN route is the right way to go".
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/29/chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war-new-year
Obviously Blair knew Bush would not go down the peaceful UN route - he also certainly knew though Bush would though try to persuade the UN to use his violent route for regime change. Blair knew Bush wanted regime change - which is an illegal excuse for invasion.
Goldsmiths Legal Advice
I originally wrote this analysis many years ago, to lay down the gauntlet for fools that said invasion of Iraq was legal and our PM is not a war criminal.
Some folks truthfully believe that there were loopholes for us to invade - not saying much for morality of government using loopholes to kill people.
I use Goldsmiths own written legal advice to explain, as no country can legally invade another without legal justification to do so.
Even a legal novice should be able to see through Goldsmiths lies and deceptions - in which he aided and abetted Blair (along with Scarlett and others).
We all know that UN resolutions were the only supposed LEGAL excuse they could find to try to justify the removal of Saddam i.e. could not use regime change etc.
One quote: "The Attorney General had concluded that authority for the use of force in Iraq was contained within existing UN resolutions and that another was not needed, Mr Straw said in reply to an emergency question from the Opposition."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1539816,00.html - sorry link now dead.
Indeed, it did not seem to matter how many Iraqis they killed in doing so - Blair would not give any upper limit when he would admit it was the wrong thing to do.
Keep in mind when reading this, that the UK signed up to UN1441 and are actually legally bound to this agreement.
First and most importantly of all - fact beats even 'expert opinion' - all lawyers know this.
Goldsmith (the Attorney General and Blair’s pal) certainly knows this - yet you will see he uses his opinion to falsify his excuses to overrule facts.
Please note the difference between his use of opinions and the actual FACT.
So – my comments start with G> - everything following numbers 26-31 is from Goldsmiths written legal advice – and anything beginning with 'quote' is from relevant UN Resolution:
26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the cease-fire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.
G> He has failed to explain (either in the detail or summation) what exactly is unclear in UN1441 that would give countries permission for unilateral action - even in an unclear way - that is a FACT.
G> The key question he makes is a sham ("whether there is in truth a need for an assessment") - because it is a FACT - whether it is needed or not - UN1441 actually calls for an assessment.
G> He is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.
27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. I have already advised that I do not believe that such a resolution need be explicit in its terms. The key point is that it should establish that the Council has concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.
G> Not only the safest - but the only legal course using UN resolutions - because it is a FACT that is what UN1441 requires a further resolution - as per item 12.
G> Quote: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"
G> Again he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.
28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.
G> False - an outright lie.
G> FACT: UN1441 specifically recalls all prior resolutions - including UN678 - which now requires the UN "convene ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance".
G> This gives UN1441 primacy over UN678 - like your latest 'Last Will and Testement' - UN1441 now requires UN to decide.
G> Even if it did not - UN678 applied "all necessary means" only to the demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait anyway - "to restore international peace and security in the area Kuwait". As Iraq army are no longer in Kuwait, their argument is rubbish - it is not even a moot point.
G> Quote: "Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,"
G> Yet again he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.
29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.
G> Nothing in UN1441 gives authorisation to use force under any circumstances - it recalls UN678 and now requires UN decision on next step.
G> FACT: UN1441 specifically requires the UN to make that judgement on what to do next - here it is again as stated in item 12.
G> Yet once more he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception - starting to see a pattern?
30. In reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with the view. I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do requ1re a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained. However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.
G> Opinion is not the same as fact - and especially not a "reasonably arguable" opinion.
G> FACT: Even if a previous war was illegal - illegality cannot be used as the basis of starting new wars.
G> You cannot use an argument that you got away with murder last time - so you can murder with impunity again.
G> Yet again he tries to revive the authorisation in resolution 678 for "all necessary means" - but we know for a FACT that UN1441 stops that and only applies to getting Iraq army out of Kuwait anyway.
G> Goldsmith admits, "a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court [he] would be confident that the court would agree with the view" - because his argument is rubbish.
31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter. So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time."
G> Vetos are valid even if "unreasonable" e.g. the many examples were the American veto could be considered "unreasonable".
G> He even admits that "there are no grounds for arguing that an 'unreasonable veto' would entitle" them to invade.
G> He says that if a second resolution fails - they need to "[RE]consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time" - where is that review?
G> It can be seen by this analysis that Goldsmith does not have a legal case for invasion and I welcome people to show where the scrutiny is wrong.
UN1441: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Goldsmiths Advice: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=91
UN678: http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-678.html
Here is Anthony Lester QC's analysis of it:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/27/Iraq_legal_advice_.pdf
Some have said, 'Blair really believed that Iraq had WMD. It was just the poor quality of the evidence. Actually, x number of Inquiries found him innocent'.
Firstly - I think it possible he convinced himself that Iraq had some WMD (likely field munitions) - but that is of little importance. The overiding fact is that they altered intelligence to deceive Parliament and public about the quality of evidence for invasion - even if he really believed Iraq had WMD.
If no Inquiry found that Blair and chums had altered the evidence to get their way then they were not thorough, actually they are guilty of hiding this fact.
Even if our Prime Minister really believed the 7/7 London bombings (or another) were committed by Iran - he cannot remove the 'qualitative nature' of intelligence to invade Iran and kill millions - can he?
Government Surveilance
Or Stasi 2.0 as some call it. This is all a scam, these are not good people, they lie and deceive you - don't be fooled folks.
Here is proof - as if it were needed - that all the surveillance in the world will not stop determined foes.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/protestors-launch-a-135-foot-blimp-over-the-nsas-utah-data-center/
I have long been concerned about this problem and wrote this in March 2004 (on slashdot) - and before this even:
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
This is a post that I have used many times before :-)
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece, wrote by another who did a better job of explaining than I could:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I know what is possible. I also know from my own experience with a government department that they will abuse personal information. In my last job (at one of the largest food manufacturing plants in Europe) my responsibilities included stand-alone and networked data capture systems (not solely) - and the automation of turning large amounts of data into information. These were reports on analysis of the data for all levels of management - to any amount of detail. I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100317&cid=8554109
Additional: Some ignorant people, have wrote things like, "just don't put your personal fears and hopes and deeply personal revelations online for the whole world to see". They thought I was just writing about social media. Obviously you know I was also writing about your searches for information on things about your personal life - or health problems - not just your fantasies (sexual or otherwise).
I really have trouble believing these scares - entirely the fault of authorities using lies and propaganda. For example - we officially had 4,000 dangerous blood-thirsty terrorists in the UK. 2,000 that we knew about and another 2,000 that we do not know about - according to former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens in May 2007. 2,000 more that *we don't know about* - why not make the number much scarier - say it is the tip of iceburg?
Yes - unbelievable is it not - they all must be the most lazy or incompetent terrorists on the whole planet - not to attack us on a weekly basis. Still - they have to do something to make us agree to mass surveillance and have our privacy taken away. Like I wrote above - the terrorists would have to be complete imbeciles now since NSA whistleblower Snowden to use the internet or phone and not use couriers or face to face communication instead.
You are much more likely to be struck by lightning than injured with a terrorist bomb - how much time off your life do you waste worrying about that?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23621324
Where are the court cases of those they say are stopped? So sleep easy - don't worry about being hit by lightning - I mean being bombed by terrorists.
Revenge Terror Attacks
e.g. quote: British travellers warned they could be target of revenge terror attacks
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/31/british-travellers-warned-foreign-office-revenge-isis
Causality - we all know about it. This could be about any attack past, present or future.
What idiot thinks that our mass murder and maiming of hundreds of thousands innocent men, women, children and babies will not cause revenge attacks from mad nutters (like Blair) e.g. London bombing?
The beheading of a hostage is a vile act - but what moron would think it less worse than our sending a missile which kills a dozen kids.
Or if it blows parts of their bodies off and leaves them in agonising pain.
Just because you are physically seperate from it does not make their murder a tiny bit better. Though many bad people like to pretend.
BTW: It is not the anti-war peoples responsibility to make other suggestions to get us out the mess the war-mongers got us into.
Cameron backs Pickles’ letter to Muslim leaders
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/david-cameron-backs-eric-pickles-letter-muslim-leaders
Although Cameron would have wrote the letter thus:
It is your fault we have terrorists - not ours for killing and maiming a million innocent men, women, children and babies with an illegal war.
My fellow leaders and I marched for the twelve people killed in France last week.
We wouldn't do it for all those we killed in Iraq because they don't matter.
Mr Cameron
God and Life
I am agnostic - but have posited the possibility of 'God' - the creator of universe and life - being more an intelligent 'living' force than a living being - which most people take 'Him' as (even atheists in their denial).
Intelligent as in following certain rules to create life (like you following a plan) and not thinking as such e.g. doing things on a whim. All the parameters to make the universe and life had to be exact e.g. the universe could not have been created had the force of big bang been more - it would have come apart too fast to make galaxies and solar systems - or collapsed if too weak. Same thing with gravity. There are supposedly 200 known factors that had to be 'just right'. This can be seen on the minute scale also.
Quote: Microbes discovered by deepest marine drill analysed
The team found that microbes, despite having no light, no oxygen, barely any water and very limited nutrients, thrived in the cores. Elizabeth Trembath-Reichert, from the California Institute of Technology, who is part of the team that carried out the research, said: "We keep looking for life, and we keep finding it, and it keeps surprising us as to what it appears to be capable of."
Methane on the Red Planet is intriguing because here on Earth, 95% of the gas comes from microbial organisms.
BTW: athests are being closed-minded. No, I'm not agnostic on human fantasies like fairies and Flying Spaghetti Monster, just question the possibilities of the origins of life, universe and everything.Why could 'dark matter' not have already existed before the 'big bang' and the universe spread into it?
Capitalism and Socialism
It is successful capitalism until it fails - then it needs socialism to bail it out - proven with the crash.
Capitalism is a corrupt system evolved out of greed and power - not one that I would choose.
Job Creator Myth
As for the 'Wealth Creator' myth - guess who they create wealth for - themselves - government applaud greed (for obvious reasons).
I am not saying we should be Luddites or that there is no economic gain to having new factories - just not lie about the greed - why they start business.
The customers are the ones that pay for these jobs, machinery and profits - it is a symbiotic realitionship - they are more the 'job creators'.
New Labour & Socialism
Quote: He (Cameron) also accused Labour of betraying its traditional values and no longer representing working people.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/28/david-cameron-makes-personal-attack-on-ed-miliband-and-sneering-socialists
Flip - he really hit home with New Labour there - I'll give him a point for that. New Labour are Tory Lite - another crime by Blair.
I am a socialist - and we were right about having national services in the hands of the people - not greedy fat-cats whose fiduciary duty is to make as much profit as possible from us.
The rest of you are idiots to want privatisation and the sale of public housing that should be used for people who cannot afford to buy a home.
Sorry, socialism isn't about selling houses - it is about helping people live in homes - especially if they cannot afford to buy one.
The public should not subsidise your private housing should they?
NB. If "Labour... no longer representing working people" and (by that statement) the Tories know they do not either, then who are representing us?
Many have a rose-tinted version of history with Tony Blair - this is even despite the fact he destroyed Labour. So much so that Thatcher called New Labour her "greatest achievement" – and still these foolish New Labour MP's do not get it!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/making-history.html
New Labour follow stupid capitalist neoliberal Tory policies like selling council housing - they cannot even see the simple fact that council housing should not be sold as it drives up housing benefits, rents and governments to make more cuts in benefit to those in need.
The idea came realised by Thatcher's government - they not only hoped to buy votes - but also yoke the workers like bosses used to with a tied cottage and also remove cheap rented social housing for rich landlords to exploit.
I will state yet again - privatisation was a fraud - selling to the public what they already owned. Do you want them to sell more property that you own - your car or home perhaps?
Police have a duty to return stolen property without compensation - so you can "magically undo a mistake on that scale" (somebody said you couldn't).
The Tories were right about the fact that New Labour helped ruin the country – but they fail to say it is because they followed these Tory policies and allowed the financial industry free reign to defraud us.
I am against the death penalty even for mass murderering war crims like Blair and Bush - who killed more innocent people than the vile 911 terrorist. It is most perverse and sick to say 'murder is wrong and only terrible people murder' and then use murder yourself.
The following subjects are work in progress:
All subjects to be expanded. Please forgive mix of fonts - see my skilled.org for a better example of poor website design (it was the old skilful.com site).
Are the Financial Authorities Corrupt?
Firstly - how do you know this is not a spurious claim by somebody of dubious intelligence?
Here is proof that our accusation of cover-up by financial regulators is valid. I won this official complaint against the ill-fated FSA for corrupt behaviour in defending Barclays against our claim they defrauded lots of their customers, including ourselves. Possibly a criminal act by FSA and definately evasion of responsibilities as it actively aids and abets culpable/ criminal activity. Please do not be taken in - rebranding and changing their name to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) does not mean the dogma or the people are different. They perhaps believe that if there is no criminal prosecutions then that will help 'market confidence'. This is the main reason why the banks crashed and the finance industry are allowed to get away with with mass 'mis-selling' (fraud) to the public and why the financial industry can never be trusted. The financial authorities aid and abet corrupt firms with cover-up. There has to be prosecutions and jail so they know there is real personal danger in acting wrongfully, fines are ultimately paid by others.
This is ongoing (2013) with Barclays and the FOS both altering our customer complaint. The behaviour of the SFO was just as corrupt.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
If the financial regulators 'lack integrity' then what is the point of them exactly - and who else do you know that has proved this?
Head over to WoolwichSucks.co.uk to see what Barclays, the Financial Services Authority (rebranded to the FCA), Serious Fraud Office and Financial Ombudsman Service have been up to. It is why we have big 'mis-selling' scams and the banking crash - with their pretence of financial regulation.
You can make your own mind up from the documented evidence there. This involves recent activity by Barclays and the FOS (2013) - also it goes right to the top - not just the staff. It was admitted that Endowment Mortgages are "unfit for purpose" by Walter Merricks in 2001 (when head of the FOS). The financial authorities only warned us of this when loss was imminent - yet they must have known years before this. But they kept quiet - guess why.
They will certainly all deny that they acted criminally. What they cannot deny with the evidence is the fact they were evasive and tried to 'win' with attrition by refusing to address the arguments that were put to them. Fact is different from mere opinion, especially when shown in their own communications.
Whilst authorities aid and abet by protecting the corrupt we will have more financial disasters. Remember what happened the last time we had a government- sponsored pensions revolution in the 1980's? What about the latest government- sponsored pensions revolution. The 'Workplace Pensions' - the "We're all in". All in what - is it the latest pension 'mis-selling' scandal? Given the financial industries record, do you have any idea?
Whilst on pensions. Regarding George Osborne 2014 pensions overhaul allowing people to cash in their pension funds. One quote, "Chancellor insists pensioners should be trusted with their finances". Insincere twonk - do you honestly believe he thinks that. This stupid policy should be reversed.
It is Tory madness. This is as bad as when they sold council houses - a public asset to be used to home those on low pay. Now we have private landlords making a fortune and housing benefit we cannot afford. This will end in a financial bloodbath - worse than any mis-selling (fraud) scam in the past.
Supporters are:
1. Deliberate naive about millions of peoples ability to be able to properly invest in adequate provision for their future.
2. Deliberate naive about the finance industry honesty - to not 'mis-sell' financial products/ services to pensioners (defraud).
3. Deliberate naive about personal financial advisors selling investments which reward the client best and not the advisor.
Supporters want to make a better deal for themselves so are willing to allow millions of old people to be defrauded. Unfortunately that is considered a perfectly acceptable Tory (selfish) viewpoint. How it is reasonable that people can be sacrificed for financial gain of others I am at a loss to understand.
Even so-called 'intelligent' people will be persuaded that they can do better, as with 'mis-selling' of endowment mortgages. I was one of them.
If the problem is annuities then tackle that. Government should not abdicate their responsibility, chuck the pension pots at people and say 'There, now bog off and get on with it'. Government actually 'robbed' and ruined our pensions in 1997 - up until then they were doing very well. They have a duty to put things right and return the hundreds of billions 'stolen'. Chancellor Gordon Brown knew the possible consequences. He was not ignorant of the risks.
BTW: Do you know the difference between mis-selling and fraud? Neither it seems do Barclays, FSA, SFO or FOS - they were all asked many times. Ask yourself; "Why it is not Fraud by false representation or Fraud by failing to disclose information or Fraud by abuse of position? Why do the financial authorities give corrupt firms large fines - which are then passed onto you the customer or shareholder - instead of putting the guilty people in jail?". Would jail not be even better than personal fines (money come from you), which over the coming years they will more than get back? See the Fraud Act 2006.
Why do these people in authority not know jailing the guilty individuals is a bigger deterrent to 'mis-selling' (defrauding) the public?
In fact the Crown Prosecution Service say this:
8. Prosecution of a company should not be seen as a substitute for the prosecution of criminally culpable individuals such as directors, officers, employees, or shareholders. Prosecuting such individuals provides a strong deterrent against future corporate wrongdoing. Equally, when considering prosecuting individuals, it is important to consider the possible liability of the company where the criminal conduct is for corporate gain.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions
On that specific point - can somebody please remind me - I have looked everywhere and cannot find the answer. With the banking collapse, why has nobody been prosecuted? They knew they were gambling with customers money. It was the same criminal reckless behaviour that 'rogue traders' have been jailed for: Kweku Adoboli - Nick Leeson - Matthew Taylor - or are the bankers being protected?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/20/ubs-trader-kweku-adoboli-jailed-fraud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/2/newsid_2518000/2518423.stm
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/06/us-goldman-trader-sentencing-idUSBRE9B50XQ20131206
Bankers should be licenced with wages and bonuses capped - else no licence. It is a lie that they could not find anybody good to do the job for £250,000 (proposed maximum for fair wage legislation). Even paying millions is no guarantee they will be any good - as the recent disaster proved beyond doubt. It is a lie they need to pay millions to get the skill. Good riddence if they have insatiable greed and want more than anybody else in UK - they should go.
The deception continues. Quote: RBS plan for 200% bonuses blocked by Treasury body - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27154184
This is not a massive great victory for the public - it is minor propaganda by our corrupt government to pretend that the public are being looked after.
These bankers are still overpaid and get massive bonuses - and even Barclays bankers just got higher bonuses despite a 30% fall in profits.
And worst of all - still nobody in UK has been held to account for crimes that 'rogue traders' have been imprisoned for - irresponsible gambling with other peoples money. Not one person has spent a single day in jail for destroying the financial state of our country. Government continue to protect them.
As further proof - of government helping criminals escapes:
Quote: A new offence of aiding and abetting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance is expected to be included in the budget next month, George Osborne has said in his first comprehensive parliamentary response to the HSBC scandal.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/feb/23/jack-straw-and-malcolm-rifkind-respond-to-cash-for-access-allegations-politics-live-blog
There does not need a new law - we have one already, called aiding and abetting. This is a false excuse to let the guilty off. Government are complicit.
Quote: Assisting or Encouraging Crime
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/
Taxation and why the 'fair' flat rate tax for everybody is a forthcoming con.
Government know that they punish the poorest and middle income the most with taxation. They know that after the bills are paid that you have little (if anything) left over. They know that taxation is a greater burden on the poor working class, what Cameron calls "hard working families" (to get you on side), than on the rich.
Yes, it is you they squeeze until the pips squeak, not the rich who whinge and say it is them getting squeezed. Are the rich left with near nothing after they have paid bills and tax? Please do not believe their deceptions or fall for their spin e.g. the rich pay more of the UK tax bill now than ever before.
You must have heard the propaganda (usually a Tory) saying, "the top 1% pay 30% of UK's (income) tax" - obviously meant to imply the rich pay loads more than their fair share. They seem to feel very sorry for this 'poor' 1% being picked on, perhaps themselves or their friends. Income tax is about a third of our taxes and they usually leaving out the part about it being income tax to imply they pay a third of the total tax bill to make them sound more picked upon. The top 1% get more than £160,000 and up to many millions - so do not cry too hard for them - you or I should be so hard done by.
Update: PMQ's Wednesday 29 October 2014. David Cameron stated, "...and the top 1% of taxpayers are paying 27% of all income tax—a higher percentage than ever happened under the last Labour Government". Please don't insult our intelligence - why do you have this contempt of us?
Pay the poor workers these massive rises the CEO's get and the rest of us will pay much more tax also.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141029/debtext/141029-0001.htm#14102956000005
As I say, the reason is most obvious, the rich/poor gap is getting ever so much wider. Greedy fat-cats give themselves massive wage rises - but not to the employees. Can you really not see that this is very basic maths and purely common-sense? Honestly - you do not understand simple maths?
Clearly the starting rate of tax should be much higher to lessen the burden on poorest, everybody benefits from this, £15k at least. Minimum pay is crap.
A so-called 'fair' flat rate will simply mean that the rich will pay even less tax and therefore those on a lower wage will pay a bigger portion of the UK tax bill. It is a scam - any savings (e.g. administrative) help the rich not you. The government know most the 'legal' tax loopholes and can easily close them.
BTW: ISA's are used as an example of why avoidance is legal. ISA's are not tax avoidance per se - the government want you to take them out, indeed even advertise the fact. Do government advertise other ways to avoid tax? They are a tax incentive on saving after you paid income tax, totally different - except to crooks. Both tax avoidance and evasion of income tax should be a criminal offence.
This is not about envy but simply about fairness versus the deceiving of the public for rich and powerful peoples greed.
LIE: Inequality is at its lowest since 1986
There had been articles in the press and media since the end of 2013 that the ONS had been saying we are now a more equal society under Cameron. You did not need my good maths skills to know this was a deception.
This was clearly a lie so I wrote to John Pullinger and Glen Watson (CEO and DG of the ONS):
"...please allow me to ask a question which on first look you may consider insulting – but it is merely to settle a doubt in my mind about your impartiality.
There has been talk in the media about inequality in the UK coming down – using your information and analysis of data.
e.g. The most startling of the Prime Minister's claims was that inequality is at its lowest level since 1986. This is absolutely true, and was published by the independent Office for National Statistics in its "The Effect of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income" in July. Disposable income was more equally distributed in the UK in 2011/12 than at any time since the great increase in inequality under Margaret Thatcher.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/pmqs-inequality-is-at-its-lowest-since-1986--and-david-cameron-takes-the-session-with-that-8924735.html
The question is; why do you provide information that the facts prove to be clearly untrue e.g. FTSE 100 directors have increased their wages 27% in 2012 and 14% in 2013 - whilst peoples wages have been held down or cut.
Unless you really believe that “inequality is at its lowest level since 1986” is “absolutely true” – even though it is a fact the gap between the richest and poorest gets wider every year.
I am not an idiot – I used to be a manager in accounts looking after data-capture systems and turning the data into information myself. The Gini coefficient has been used to say income inequality has come down – using statistics to try deceive us. It simply measures frequency distribution, not the widening gap between poorest and richest.
Why use statistics that could deceive the public for political motive – indeed that are being used to do so?
[Would it not be honourable to] issue a clarification, including that we are actually becoming a less equal society?
This would settle any doubt in my mind about your impartiality – [point about always under-estimating net immigration figure and never over-estimating].
Yours Sincerely"
They completely evaded my questions - nothing in their reply addressed these points. That makes them at very least dishonourable gentlemen.
Government LIE when they say, 'Inequality is at its lowest since 1986'. The fact of the matter is that the gap between richest and poorest gets wider every year. You know the truth - the fat-cats have removed their wage differentials and have been giving themselves up to 20-30% wage rise year on year whilst giving workers a couple of percent (if they are lucky and not had a wage cut). Even in a really bad year they gave themselves 14%.
Quote: Directors' pay jumps 14% in year thanks to share incentives. Incomes Data Services (IDS) said this took the average pay for a director of a FTSE 100 firm to £3.3m. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24983178
Google yourself and see headlines like: 2012 FTSE 100 directors enjoy 27pc pay rises. What pay rise did you get in the recession? Bet not 27%.
Government, ONS and greedy bosses lie when they say we are getting more equal - tell them the truth - that they are all liars. Politicians cannot use the word in Parliament - so if anybody tells you that inequality has come down - just look them in the eye and point at them. They will know what it means.
Quote Sunday 21 July 1996 - gap is wider now: Britain is now the most unequal country in the Western world, an authoritative new United Nations report reveals. The gap between rich and poor is as great as in Nigeria. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html
Why we need Fair Wage legislation.
It is obvious to get the fairest society with nobody getting several hundreds times the annual wage of their workers - that is just sickening greed.
Though it is only right that there should be wage differentials between jobs - being paid more for greater responsibilities and skills.
However the top bosses have decided to remove their differentials - rising their wages by many times year on year - whilst holding yours down,
I am only talking of introducing fair wage legislation - not wealth sharing - just more equal wage structure - there will be no increase in the total wage bill.
I personally believe a boss should not receive more than ten times that of any employee - about right for a rich/poor gap.
With the rich/poor gap actually getting ever wider - it is clearly no longer just greed - it is avarice - insatiable greed.
Indeed - it was always known that a wide rich/poor gap was wrong - this legislation has been advocated before by a famous greek philosopher.
Plato (427-347 B.C.): "Any city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another." (The Republic)
Also, "The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues -- not faction, but rather distraction -- there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil . . .
Now the legislator should determine what is to be the limit of poverty or of wealth."
Quote from news article: Just what is fair pay? Plato said the income of the highest paid in society should never amount to more than five times that of the lowest paid.
Plato was right – there is an implicit agreement in society that the rich cannot simply exploit their power to unreasonably enrich themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/03/public-sector-pay-cameron-executive-bonuses.
Legislation should cut top pay to £250,000 and then give them half inflation rate rises yearly. Those below should get rises in line with inflation. This then should continue until the ratio of 10 to one is reached between top and bottom.
BTW: Socrates believed that injustice was more than doing wrong - it was not doing right.
NHS with PFI = Public Financing Immorality (greed of those that profit millions from NHS spending)
Quote: David Cameron warned NHS in danger of collapse within five years.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/28/cameron-warned-nhs-in-danger-of-collapse
Strange, many of these reports do not give the main reason - not an aging population that cannot be avoided - but greedy rich people actually profitting from it. The government are quiet about the cause - because they are to blame.
Yes - PFI - rich people taking millions from our taxes. They ripped us off by privatising everything else - there was only privatising finance left. At least one commentator had it sussed two years ago - though many of us knew decades ago.
BTW: Hospitals should not be paying any 'rent' - is this not obvious. They should be bought and paid for by government.
Quote: How PFI is crippling the NHS.
We can still afford to pay for universal healthcare – but only if we stop using NHS funds to prop up banks and equity investors
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/29/pfi-crippling-nhs
Quote: Buildings in Devon funded by private finance initiatives (PFI) will cost nearly five times more than if just government funded, the BBC understands. Government figures show the PFI cost of buildings such as schools, hospitals armed forces' accommodation and other major projects will be nearly £2.4bn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-22355993
Quote:The 717 PFI contracts currently under way across the UK are funding new schools, hospitals and other public facilities with a total capital value of £54.7bn, but the overall ultimate cost will reach £301bn by the time they have been paid off over the coming decades.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/05/pfi-cost-300bn
Why are people in denial about the facts? That £301bn was in 2012 - the case will be MUCH worse now.
Certain people are getting very rich off our NHS spending. What risk for them - when have they lost money? It is money for nothing - PFI is a rip-off. Wake up folks - we are being squeezed dry by corrupt people for the gain of others more wealthy than us.
One last point - what sort of people would want the NHS privatised - for extremely greedy fat-cats to profit to from our taxes?
Quote: “I sometimes get asked: why do I believe in tax cuts so much? It’s simple, because I trust people more than I do politicians,” he will say.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/26/david-cameron-tax-cuts-reward-for-sacrifice
He went on to say, "This is because we are all a bunch of liars - especially me and the Tory party" - obviously a joke - he would not admit that.
There is certainly no arguing with the last part - but unfortunately we need tax to pay for essentials - which the Tories want us all to pay for privately - so the poorest suffer even more and their rich friends get even richer.
They use a undeniable truth to sell their lies and deception to us - this is the most basic tool of propagandists.
David Cameron justifies tax cuts for the rich as rewarding aspiration.
There is 'aspirational' and then there is Tory greed and avarice - for bankers, fat-cats and their like.
Mass Immigration
This is NOT about racism or xenophobia as some disgusting people try to pretend it is about. Many of us would do the same given the chance to go to a country with four times the wages and a better life style. This is about protecting the future of our country for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
Even without mass immigration, we have to get better food/ water/ energy security - this will mean looking at desalination plants or massive pipelines from Scotland - also possible safer nuclear energy (thorium?) - increasing field usage for food crops and farms... When some unexpected disaster strikes (e.g. world grain shortage through wheat blight), politicians will say, "How were we to know this disaster would happen - how could we plan for it?".
The media are perpetrators of others propaganda. Those that want cheap labour and to keep your wages held down. There are also those who cannot see the bigger picture and those which want more people from their own country to come join them of course.
Firstly - the net financial gain is a lie - even if it is only a 'mars bar'. It does not include all costs e.g. immigrant gang credit card fraud and other crimes. Only idiots believe government figures about this. Hello to these fools - guess why government fiddle them. Also any transitional controls are merely delay or a disincentive at best and is certainly not controlling immigration levels.
I must have heard nearly all the so-called reasons for this from pro-immigration supporters. Unless you can come up with something new you will lose this argument e.g. 'we wouldn't have a NHS were it not for immigration'. We could have had managed immigration for doctors and nurses - though we should have better training in the UK and be supplying our own, not simply taking away doctors and nurses from poorer countries. Education and training has got abysmal over decades - it can be fixed. Another of favourite argument from these blinkered people is, 'we need lots of immigration to pay for our growing elderly'. Err - as far as the UK is concerned, this is our biggest influx ever - how many more are needed on top of current immigration - 500,000 net? Also - don't the immigrants themselves ever get old, don't they have children and grandchildren who also get old, this is a massive pyramid scam.
BTW:80,000 UK students are told they can't train as a nurse - despite recruiting almost 6,000 overseas nurses (2013: 4 out of 5). It costs the NHS £70,000 to train a nurse for three years – the same amount it costs for 3 qualified foreign nurses. Our politicians and authorities are clearly corrupt to deny our youngsters this work and to give it to people in other countries. It is a propaganda lie to say we cannot get enough British nurses - they do not want to train them. The requirement for a degree now does not help. The Blair legacy does not help either - our country did not need 50% of workers to get a university qualification for a job. This was to give them hope, which they knew was false for many - and that they would end up in debt of course.
1964 - Engineering Industry Training Board
The EITB had the power to impose a financial training levy on employers over a certain size. Employers who could prove a good track record of training activity could be granted exemption from most of the levy..
Quote: The government's plan will see an expansion in [doctor] training places from 6,000 to 7,500 a year.
Quote: Number of foreign nurses coming to UK doubled in three years as NHS poaches workers from abroad
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10376026/Number-of-foreign-nurses-coming-to-UK-doubled-in-three-years-as-NHS-poaches-workers-from-abroad.html
I have wrote something like the following at least 100 times:
We need a moratorium - close the doors to all immigration (except essential) until an open objective analysis is done. This should be about where we are and where we want to be on UK population. This should take into account all factors - not just the usual focus by the dumbing down media e.g. jobs and housing or that touched on like crime. Though they misrepresent this and say it has brought down crime - they try deceive you and talk about per capita. In actual fact the numbers of crimes have soared - more murders, rape, child molestation, theft, buglary, card fraud, et cetera... Here in Haverhill a local man had his head smashed in with a claw hammer by an immigrant.
This analysis should also examine serious things which so far have been ignored - like food, water and energy security. Also things that negatively affect our way of life, such as increased NHS usage and road congestion. Whatever corrupt party are in government they will 'solve' the congestion problem by getting you off the road with 'road pricing' - spinning it as a 'green tax'. No 'road to riches' with our government - it will be 'roads for the rich'.
Though I doubt the authorities will have an open public Inquiry - because of the obvious outcome. Of course not pre-judging the result, but you do not need qualifications in immigration to see it is making things worse. Though these may be the wrong 'experts' to ask, as it seems they have a massive blind spot and are even afraid to answer a simple question about "displacement". Are they really that frightened to answer? Anyhow, it is like we are all on a big bus heading for the edge of a cliff, a bus full of blind people - with a foot hard on the accelerator.
We need the moratorium because you don't try fix a sinking Titanic whilst smashing more holes below the waterline - immigration makes all problems much worse. We should have had points based system two decades ago - from the EU also. We likely need to let in less than the number emigrating.
We cannot save the world from a population explosion (without spraying countries with Nestorone or some other contraceptive drug - which I do not advocate) - but we may be able to save the UK. That is if it is not too late.
I have also said many times - the figures are all BS anyway. We are being swamped, the authorities and MPs lie to us about it, those that are corrupt - not just simply incompetent to protect their voters and constituents e.g. from increased competition for jobs and housing.
How can you trust the ONS when they admit they undercount the number of immigrants. What makes it worse is MPs have known they falsify figures for years - to help against dissent of mass immigration - like positive multiculturalism policy. The odds that the ONS understimate should be 50/50 - if it was unbiased and not deliberately flawed towards giving one result. Give just one year when the ONS overestimated the number of immigrants - you cannot.
Quote: Immigration numbers 'far higher' - A new report claims UK immigration figures are not accurate
The number of immigrants entering the UK is far higher than government figures show, a new report suggests.
Economic consultancy Capital Economics claims that net immigration in 2005 was actually 400,000, rather than the official figure of 185,000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6234011.stm
Quote: The Office for National Statistics said it was reviewing the quality of data but could not alter the past estimates.
It has already accepted it undercounted the number of immigrants from countries which joined the EU after 2004.
2013 is likely BS also, said to be 212,00 net (532,000 in 320,000 out). However, "National Insurance numbers given to foreigners - an important indicator of immigration levels - showed a 19% rise to 617,000 in 2013", TheCourier. 617,000 - 532,000 = 85,000 more, therefore the figure is nearer 297,000. In fact it is very likely to be much higher as this is only those that have registered for National Insurance. NI is iissued for 16th birthday - which means that many of those coming will not get a NI number for their children. The number of NI numbers and immigrants should tally over time - they do not.
Quote: The net flow of migrants into the UK over a 10-year period was underestimated by nearly 350,000, the Office for National Statistics says.
Shock - not. This will also be a gross underestimation.
Polticians know that mass immigration is making our problems much worse. They know they are making it harder for their constituents to get a job and a home. Yes - our 'honourable' politicians deliberately ruin the future for our children by taking away their jobs and homes.
Government use financial benefit to us as the reason. This 4p per week benefit (3 Jan 2007) to us is best case case scenario (using government fiddled figures) and does not include all non-attributable costs. Immigrants are generally with the lower paid requiring benefits to top up wages. Governments want cheap labour immigration primarily to keep workers wages down.
We have to get out of EU if we want control of our borders. The EU is a scam anyway, they allow non-compatible countries to join e.g. having a quarter of our minimum pay - of course they are going to flood over here. We are not going to flood Poland with our workers. Many would though to a country with a wage four times ours - individual immigrants themselves are not to blame - it is our government who want cheap labour to hold wages down. We should have what we voted for - a common market with no export /import duties.
The reason this has been allowed to continue is because the censorship of debate - to allow supporters of immigration (inc. government) their way.
People have said that leaving EU to control our borders would lose us jobs. They pretend we could not have a mutually beneficial trade agreement with no import or export duties between us and the EU. Even taking what they say as true - had we not allowed millions immigrants to take 'our' jobs then we would have many times more jobs available than we would lose. Did we get 212,000 (297,000) more jobs from EU in 2013 for taking these immigrants in?
As for idiots who say things like, "Multiculturalism isn't an ideology, it's a fact of life": Multiculturalism is a policy, being positive about other cultures without proper scrutiny e.g. sending those making reports about child-molesting criminals in Rotherhamon 'diversity' courses because of the race of criminals, instead of prosecuting these vile criminals. Those like you are the reason problems persist.
We have an (inflated) multicultural society - which is different from multiculturalism policy. Is this really so hard for you idiotic fools to understand?
Multiculturalism is not simply a description - it is propaganda policy brought in by a corrupt New Labour party to aid mass immigration and to lie that it is positive. It allowed Female Genital Mutilation to continue - despite supposedly being illegal nobody was prosecuted. It allowed young girls to be forced into marriage. It allows the public to be fed Halal meat - a backward step of bringing religion back into our food.
As to asylum seekers and refugees - we should have very few. When they are in France or other EU countries they are NOT fleeing violence, war and persecution - they are safe and not a refugee - they are financial immigrants.
Quote: More Europe migrants to gain access to full UK benefits
Migrants from the eight countries which joined the EU in 2004 will be able to claim full benefits in the UK for the first time from May (2011).
In the Guardian 6/3/2014 is the story: Report reveals little evidence foreign migrants put British workers out of jobs - Because if immigrants did not come here to take British jobs then the work would do itself presumably. Are people really that dense they believe this tripe? Honestly?
A supporter of mass immigration posted to me saying that we need immigrants because "Migrants are predominantly young, single and well motivated - exactly the type of workers whose productivity is high". Yet, do we not have our own - one million unemployed British youngsters, "young, single and well motivated - exactly the type of workers whose productivity is high"?
Your sons, daughters and grandchildren - many of whom have been deceived into thinking that paying thousands for extra education would get them good jobs. You supporters of mass immigration want to stick our youngsters on the scrapheap and replace them with foreign workers. Are you all proud of yourselves - you should be disgusted. Everybody else can see you are wrong - what is the matter with you?
BTW: The main parties are entirely responsible for the rise of UKIP. If they had took reasonable measures and controlled immigration the problems would not be as bad now. Only idiots believe both the main parties 'tough act' e.g. Cameron knew his "Tens of thousands" pledge was a lie - impossible to keep.
Quote: It suggests "displacement" - the number of UK workers unemployed as a consequence of immigration - is well below the figure used by ministers of 23 for every 100 additional immigrants. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26435000
This latest propaganda is the stupid idea that immigrants do little to put British workers out of a job, "displacement". If the immigrants did not come then guess who else would get the jobs. Yes - British workers. Do not believe the lies. My wife has done the cleaning jobs that British workers are supposed not to want - we both have done low paid factory jobs that we Brits are told we do not want. Millions of us have. Millions are unemployed and want a job or to come off part-time hours (or zero hour contracts) onto full-time. With zero hours we are back to the dark ages, when workers stood at the factory gate, waiting to see if the well-fed boss would pick them. Saying, "I'll have you, you and you". Work hardest and don't upset him or he'll not ask you back again.
Think about what they say. We have family & friends that work looking after the elderly. What jobs will we Brits not do - that only foreigners will?
To prove the emperor wears no clothes I tweeted migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk. They would not answer the simple question - who else would get the jobs if immigrants did not come. This is clearly because the story that 'immigrants only take a few jobs away from British workers' is complete BS.
These are supposed to be learned people, experts on the subject, academics. They treat us like imbeciles - when they are the ones who are idiots, if they think we would all fall for such a pile of intellectual tripe. They and politicians need a kick up the backside for such contempt of the public. They are all destroying our country using lies and deception to do so.
Polticians know that mass immigration is making our problems worse.
They know they are making it harder for their constituents to get a job and a home.
@CVar_Sil @xtophercook @MigObs suggests "displacement" is below that claimed. False, who else would get the jobs if immigrants did not come.
— Garry Anderson (@skilfuldotcom) March 4, 2014
Somebody wrote: ...so, linking immigration to 'Food Security' you think, Mad[World], that if immigration is curbed or stopped, the UK will somehow be exempt from any future catastrophic effects, say this wheat bug thing, on the global food supply. ...what was that about low intelligence?
Reply: Oh dear, you are aware that since we had Blair we have had net immigration of 200,000 plus, using ONS fiddled figures always underestimating.
If we managed immigration we could have had net loss of 200,000 every year and still had upto 100,000+ essential immigrants come in every year.
Indeed in 2013 was said to be 212,00 net (532,000 in 320,000 out), we could have let 100,000 in and been 220,000 net loss.
That would ALLEVIATE problems with UK food security.
"...what was that about low intelligence?"
You are not of low intelligence - though you give this appearance - I never said or implied we will "be exempt from any future catastrophic effects" - did I?
This is about preparing for future catastrophic events, which are bound to happen, be it a world crisis in our crops with drought or disease or whatever.
BTW: I do not advocate any fascist-type population control - indeed I say so on my website: We cannot save the world from a population explosion (without spraying countries with Nestorone or some other contraceptive drug - which I do not advocate), but we may be able to save the UK. That is if, not too late.
Fora posts and misc to be sorted:
I sometimes use the pseudonym of MadWorld on forums (because it is). Most the press and TV help spread propaganda - they are not the media but the 'madia'. For example, maps on BBC etc. of Israel/ Palestine conflict show them a more equal size - when Israel actually occupy most of it. The word "anti-semitism" is misused by evil people to mean anti-Jew or anti-Israel - because Arabs are also Semites. And not all Jews are Zionists. So, to start.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism (anti-Jew), those that say it is prove themselves to be the most vile of people, to slur the innocent with such terrible lies.
The maps above show how Palestinians are wiping Israel off the map - for those idiots who believe the propaganda - the reverse is true. Yep, Israel is guilty of committing the actual crime they accuse Hamas of wanting to commit. Israel are the land-thieving aggressors. The murder and violence is a lot worse coming from the Israeli side. Palestinians killed a few people with thousands of their rockets, Israelis killed thousands witha few of their missiles. Is this response proportional?
http://www.worldcitizen.uk.net/palestine.htm
Quote: United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted on 22 March 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.
In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"
The Resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446
We are the biggest supporters of America and Israel - America allowing the murder and abuse of the Palestine people by Israel - doing nothing to stop it - indeed we both supply the arms for Israel to kill them.
We and America supply bombs to Israel and bandages to Palestine. We both give real support to the aggressors and just pity to the victims.
Quote:UK government reviewing £8bn of arms sales to Israel - 4 August 2014.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/uk-government-reviews-arms-sales-israel-gaza
It is called 'collective punishment' - it is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, Israel uses German World War 2 policy of Sippenhaftung and make innocent families pay for crimes of others. Also even directly targetting the homes of Hamas, killing their wives and children.
If this was any other country other than Israel doing this then our government would condemn their government as criminals.
With exception of America (who can do no wrong in eyes of UK government) of course - they can unlawfully invade countries and we will help them in a mass killing of civilians and soldiers defending their country from illegal invaders.
This is why we are a target - we give weapons to kill innocent men, women, children and babies - our government ministers are murderous evil b's.
Talking about targetting - the excuse used by Israel that they do not target civilians. For some strange reason, using twisted logic, they think firing a missile on a house is not deliberate murder. Obviously, they use this line for political motive. They target ALL people in the house - they do not want any to escape in case it is the Hamas member they want to kill - true or false? The wife and children are also targetted - this is why it is collective punishment. Nobody is saying the Israeli government wish the wife and children were killed - not least for bad publicity - but all are targets.
Some say it is a border dispute - but that is where the complainant says, 'the border should be here' and the other says 'no there'. What we have here is one side saying we want our border here - then later saying we want it here to take more land - then later saying we want it here to take more land...
Only to a simple minded person is it a 'border dispute' - there are millions of them about. What it is, in fact, is the grabbing more and more land. Sicko's try pretend this is just about anti-Semitism or anti-Jewish agenda (to protect an evil state government). This is just criticism of support for land theft.
The BBC are biased, even refusing to air a national charity appeal - quote; The BBC was in crisis last night as politicians including government ministers, religious leaders and senior members of its own staff condemned the decision not to broadcast a charity appeal to help the stricken people of Gaza rebuild their homes. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/24/bbc-gaza-palestine-aid-appeal
Everybody knows that Israel want to keep all the land they stole - to profit from crime by attrition and time - even those that defend Israel. Israel was born with terrorist attacks from 1944 onward. They murdered British, American and Arabs. There was also terrible ethnic cleansing - the destruction of more than 400 villages, 11 towns and the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinian Arabs. Do not let anybody pretend anything different.
Certainly nobody denies there was evil done to the Jews by Germans - but there is no excuse to do evil to others. Is there?
Zionists call people that support Palestine 'anti-Semite' - when Palestinians are Semites. They are also call them 'anti-Jew' - which is another sick slur. This shows their nature - when all that these people want is for the aggressive land theft and aggression to stop - so peace process can begin. A cease-fire allows Israel to continue stealing land - it should also include a clause to return stolen land.
The Zionists could have had all the compassion in the world - instead they act in a way that makes them hated by Arabs. I personally believe that the best solution (after a single state Palisrael?) would be a return to 1947 UN borders - a victory for both sides.
Additional: It is not just Israeli government. August 2014; Most people of Israel support a disproportional response from government despite there being only one Israeli Arab killed in a field by thousands of Hamas rockets, the hundreds of people killed in Gaza by Israeli missiles was still was not enough.
Quote: There is no geopolitical issue more bitterly divisive than Israel and Palestine at the best of times...
My response: Actually, there is no geopolitical issue more wrong than Israel and Palestine - all of the time.
A demonstrably true fact, look at how the media portray the region - shown above - the maps show Israel and Palestine at roughly the same size. The fact of the matter is that Israel occupy most of it - they commit the crime they accuse Hamas of - they wipe Palestine off the map. There is much more - but there are people so polarised they cannot even see the disproportionality - it will fall on deaf ears or, more accurately, on closed eyes.
I would link to terrible pictures of Gaza suffering with dismembered bodies and adults or babies with limbs blown off - but this post would be deleted.
Look at the disproportionate response to Israel deaths - Palestine is fighting for survival - Israel is fighting for expansion.
This is the sort of blinkered posts I get.
interested wrote: I give up Skilful[dotcom] I suppose I can't expect mere facts to sway your opinion! Just carry on repeating the propaganda....you might start believing it eventually.
It is you who is repeating the Zionist propaganda - whose land was it before we helped steal it for Zionists?
You ignore the overriding fact - that the Palestinians are the victims - their land was stolen from them - we took part in that crime.
You cannot beat this overriding fact - objectively it is paramount and beats all others into insignificance.
You steal somebodies property - who does it truthfully belong to - you or them?
http://www.politicsforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=36255&p=854495#p854495
tinculin wrote: Individual Palestinians do not have national borders - a fact you can’t deny.
Is it just me that thinks he's living in a world of self-retards?
That intelligent 'people' really think Palestine is like early America hundreds of year ago?
That they can kill and throw out the native people - using the feeble excuse it wasn't a nation state.
Only a retard would *believe* that Palestine should be treated like early America - removing inhabitants.
There clearly is something mentally wrong with somebody that would treat innocent people so inhumane.
And you honestly do not see this as a mental problem with them?
Spare Bedroom Subsidy
The spare bedroom subsidy is another lie, there never was a subsidy. This is a tax to punish the poor who now find themselves with an extra bedroom.
Somebody Posted:
Council's should have sent out a letter:
Dear Tenant
Up to now we have been pleased to pay for rooms you don't use. We can no longer afford to do that, so we won't.
So I posted in response:
-Council's- Government should have sent out a letter:
Up to now we have been pleased to pay for rooms you don't use. This is because of successive governments incompetence and maladministration meant we did not build enough homes to place you better. Unfortunately you will have to pay for our pathetic failure to act with due care and diligence. This is an injustice to you - hard luck - no skin off our nose.
BTW: I have heard supposedly intelligent people say, "Why this a tax?". It is really quite easy to understand.
It is a 'tax' because people in their position are entitled to 'free' or subsidised housing.
Because of bad governement (see above), they are forced to pay an extra compulsory contribution. An extra tax because of government ineptitude.
Political or Police Mistakes
This post is about when politicians or police say they have made a 'mistake'.
When you do something in error - that is called a 'mistake'.
When you do something wrong intentionally - that is not a 'mistake' - it is deliberate wrong-doing.
A bank robber will say he made a mistake when caught - but it was deliberate wrong-doing.
Calling it an 'error of judgement' also means you did not know it was wrong.
Your wife picking a pink hat with a green dress (thinking she will look like a rose) may be an 'error of judgement'.
You picking an expensive car thinking you can afford it may be an 'error of judgement'.
What politicians and police do when caught - is deliberate wrong-doing.
As such they should be put on trial for what they did - if the crime deserved it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = "Something we knew already" - more BS and cover-up.
Privatisation, Council Houses and Quangos
Government should not have sold these council houses - they were public property - it was a madness decision. To buy votes. They dubiously sold a public asset - used to home those on low pay, so now we have private landlords making a fortune and housing benefit we cannot afford.
Of course it was a popular decision for the buying public - they were getting cheap houses.
Government should also not have sold our water, gas and electricity - they were public property - a con selling it to those that already owned it. It was a madness decision. To screw and defraud the public - like selling our council housing.
I have said many times before - Labour should take back privatised industries. People all realise now it was a con - though most are not sure how.
It was selling us what was already ours - a fraud - so that fat-cats can make profit - not to sell us gas and electric cheap. They have a fiduciary duty to make as much profit as possible from us - Tories knew this.
If you car is stolen or taken using fraud - the police have a duty to return it to you. They do not pay the person who stole it or has it.
Also we should have more council rented housing - which are cheaper - not what we have now which is dearer privatisation rents. Housing benefit has risen because of selling these houses.
Council housing is better for the public than dearer social housing rents (Housing Association) quangos who want to make more money. Even though supposedly non-profit organisations they also charge residents extra for building new houses for others. As the business is expanding they pay for more than their own house. Mathematics.
BTW: All housing sold should be affordable - not ripping off buyers.
The solution is to stop selling social and council housing and build council houses on all the brownfield sites we have in UK.
Socialism isn't about selling houses - it is about helping people live in homes if they cannot afford to buy one.
The public should not subsidise somebody in the private housing market should they?
So - how will the country turn against getting back the electricity and gas companies that was stolen from them?
Quangos are for cowards in government to evade responsibility and to blame somebody else after making negative changes....
The problem is worse than they make out.
Every police officer who has had the chance to 'blow the whistle' (e.g. Hillsborough) has chosen to help cover up the wrong-doing of his colleagues.
Everybody lies - it is not 'a few rotten apples' as the media often portray at each exposed case - it is every one is a rotten apple when given a chance to prove they are not. Obviously there are other cases when officers have 'blown the whistle' - very rare brave exceptions - they are 'heroes'.
We should all respect the police without doubt - but not when these individuals act wrongly e.g. pervert justice or beat up peaceful protestors.
Financial corruption
The problem is MUCH worse than they make out.
Every person who had a chance to 'blow the whistle' (e.g. Libor and many 'mis-selling' frauds) has chosen to help cover up the wrong-doing of colleagues.
Everybody lies - it is not 'a few rotten apples' as the media often portray at each exposed case - it is every one is a rotten apple when given a chance to prove they are not. Obviously there are other cases when people have 'blown the whistle' - very rare brave exceptions - they are 'heroes'. Unless they do it to save their skin.
We all rely on these people in the financial industry and regulators without doubt - so they should be jailed when acting illegally to act as powerful deterent.
Quote: Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, delivered a withering attack on the invasion of Iraq, decried the term "war on terror", and held out the prospect of talks with al-Qaida.
Recording her first BBC Reith lecture on the theme, Securing Freedom, she made clear she believed the UK and US governments had not sufficiently understood the resentment that had been building up among Arab people, which was only compounded by the war against Iraq.
Before an audience which included Theresa May, the home secretary, she also said the 9/11 attacks were "a crime, not an act of war". "So I never felt it helpful to refer to a war on terror".
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/sep/02/mi5-war-on-terror-criticism
Indeed - 9/11 was a crime - not an act of war. Therefore the invasion of a country (Afghanistan) was an unlawful response. We used the (deliberately) failed illegal extradition of Bin Laden as pretext for war. Blair should be on trail for two massive war crimes - Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.
Illegal Wars
In the old days the king used to head his troops to at least share some of the risk of those that will die for him. We should bring this back - with the PM heading the troops - to stop him getting us into stupid or illegal wars.
Our leaders have got much more cowardly since then - they do not mind as much you losing your life - as long as they can sit safely back at home.
Richard III was the last English monarch to die on the field of battle. Our corrupt political masters send our young people into battle - they do not fear for their own personal safety. This is into unlawful wars using falsified intelligence or a failed illegal extradition process as a pretext.
Sally Bercow was innocent.
Mr Justice Tugendhat is mistaken.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.html
38. If the Tweet does mean that the Claimant abused children, then there is obviously no dispute that that is one of the most seriously defamatory allegations which it is possible to make against a person.
Yes - obviously.
84. In my judgment the reasonable reader would understand the words "innocent face" as being insincere and ironical. There is no sensible reason for including those words in the Tweet if they are to be taken as meaning that the Defendant simply wants to know the answer to a factual question.
85. The Defendant does not have any burden of proof in the issue I have to decide. She does not have to offer an alternative explanation of why a peer, whose name and career is known to few members of the public today, might have been trending on 4 November 2012 without her knowing why he was trending. But where the Defendant is telling her followers that she does not know why he is trending, and there is no alternative explanation for why this particular peer was being named in the tweets which produce the Trend, then it is reasonable to infer that he is trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser. I find the reader would infer that. The reader would reasonably infer that the Defendant had provided the last piece in the jigsaw.
So then: "She does not have to offer an alternative explanation of why a peer, whose name and career is known to few members of the public today, might have been trending on 4 November 2012 without her knowing why he was trending."
Err.. she obviously did know why and was pretending not to - hence the *innocent face*.
"..then it is reasonable to infer that he is trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser."
Why is it not reasonable to infer that he is trending because he had been accused - which the judge admits does not imply guilt even if there was a police inqiry.
Quote: "If the ordinary sensible man was capable of thinking that wherever there was a police inquiry there was guilt, it would be almost impossible to give accurate information about anything…"
The Judge fails to even acknowledge anything other than "the Defendant had provided the last piece in the jigsaw" - why is it not about her naming him as being accused.
Exactly how it goes further than tweeting about an accusation - even if she believed it was true. Explain Mr Justice how it was more than opinion. Try.
BTW for idiots: It is NOT repeating an accusation i.e. saying 'McAlpine raped Mr X' - it is a tweet about him being accused of it by Mr X.
Imagine if we all had to keep quiet about hearing serious accusations with people like Jimmy Savile. Knowingly making false accusations is different.
Unfortunately we cannot trust police to investigate 'important' people, as Savile case *proves* & other alleged cases e.g. ex-MP in just a maids pinny.
His judgement is unsound and promotes a wall of silence towards possible vile abuse of children - I hope unintentionally.
Government Wonga Fraud
Our corrupt government had seen how poor people were extorted by loan sharks and instead of stopping it they thought, 'That is a brilliant scam, we should have some of that as tax'. So they legalised loan-sharking at 5,000% for the poor whilst the rich pay a few percent.
Failure to protect girls from FGM is 'ongoing national scandal', MPs say
It is due to all this rubbish with being positive about multiculturalism (to aid mass immigration).
You cannot offend - you even have to drop your values for the sake of others - go backwards and bring religion into eating of food (Halal).
Jaha Marie Dukureh was a victim of female genital mutilation.
I asked her, "why has it taken so long for somebody to be prosecuted for such a vile crime? Is it due to Multiculturalism and Political Correctness?"
She replied: "Thank you so much for your question, I think it has taken so long because politicians are afraid to deal with other people’s culture and a lot of people feel that the topic is too sensitive to address and they don’t want to come off as racist."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/19/questions-female-genital-mutilation-campaign-end-survivor-un
Corrupt politicians have turned us into one of those sh!thole country that allows Female Genital Mutilation, they don't care that or about those poor girls.
UK JUSTICE
Quote: Mother of Iraq soldier killed by friendly fire loses legal aid backing
Landmark case against MoD in jeopardy after unemployed Beverley Clarke took low-paid job – and funds were withdrawn
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/24/mother-iraq-soldier-friendly-fire-loses-legal-aid-david-clarke-beverly-clarke
There is no justice for the working person - they cannot afford it.
Just what the rich Tory ruling class want - the Tory Lite (New Labour) party are no better.
Climate Sceptic
I am not a denialist - just a sceptic - with good reason. So some of you rabid evangelists know where to put your slurs and false misrepresentations.
Indeed, climate is always changing - climate could get cooler or hotter - the 95% certainty by 'experts' is purely a gut feel - not scientific at all.
There is no scientific skepticism in their research - it is all about confirming a belief that the world is warming and man is to blame. Yes, unbelievably scientists should be sceptics too - until it is proven beyond any doubt. Scientifically & politically it is done and dusted, sceptics are now called denialists.
My scepticism is because of bad science e.g. closing weather stations all over the world whilst comparing data with new ones built elsewhere plus removing unreliable proxy data from charts only after it diverged from dogma but keeping it in from before. Also propaganda like with recent (2013/14) English weather e.g. Dawlish rail always had similar weather problems with the track - this was presented as a new problem because of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_storms_of_2013%E2%80%9314_in_the_United_Kingdom
They have closed many weather stations. As to moving of weather stations example - quote: The Hadley Centre's CET calculation has recently undergone a major change, involving the replacement of several of the contributing stations. Their series is now based on Stonyhurst (Lancs), Pershore (Worcs) and Rothamsted (Herts), all of which are Campbell Automatic Weather Stations. The Philip Eden series continues to emulate Manley's original work which calculates the mean between the Oxford district and the Lancashire Plain, and no changes have been introduced to this series in recent months. You can draw your own conclusions as to the efficacy of the Hadley Centre's change. http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm
LATEST 2013: Met Office admit a warming pause when it should be rising faster: "The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as the start of the current pause...It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF
N.B. Spoiler alert - they blame ocean uptake - like there was no ocean uptake before - so what stopped it?
Recent propaganda is implying man-made global warming increased rainfall - causing recent flooding problems in England. A big thing was made of January 2014 being wettest ever for England - though January 1948 was so close it can to be thought of as to be the same (156.9 compared to 158.2). I would say that the great storms of February 1287 (when whole areas of coastline were redrawn) and December 1703 (one of the most severe ever recorded) were a lot worse - but your 'experts' will likely disagree, as man-made warming cannot be blamed. Check yourself.
The important thing is trend. Wettest *recorded* February is 1923, March 1947, April 2012, May 1967, June 2012, July 2009, August 2012, September 1918, October 2000, November 1929 and December 1914. One off bad months prove nothing - even them pretending it was not wetter before records.
They say it is about CO2 - if higher countries cut to UK usage per capita and lower countries did not increase theirs then the man-made CO2 problem will be resolved - if it ever existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
This is purely used as an excuse to tax us more - so-called green tax - when we in UK are good compared to bad guys like America - it is another scam.
Let us start with something simple - which you can easily check yourself. Do not take my word or anybody elses - trust yourself.
Here is the official dataset - try prove from that that the trend has been getting wetter for over 100 years since 1910.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/England.txt
I could not - perhaps you can do better - please look yourself. It is the only thing which will convince some close-minded people - and then not always.
The first chart is from the Met Office. It is very important to note they have invented a new trendline methodology - the "Smoothed Kernel Filter" - only 12 links on google. Why is that? Why are the Met Office not using standard methods like a "10 year moving average"? Why are they letting people think winters are getting wetter in England when that is not true? English winters have actually got drier since 1910.
If ALL other countries copied our UK usage per capita then the man-made CO2 problem will be resolved - if it ever existed.
This is purely being used as an excuse to tax us more - so-called green tax - when we in UK are good compared to bad guys like America - it is another scam.
Quote: The first trouble experienced with the line, after opening in May 1846, was in December 1852 at Breeches Rock between Teignmouth and Dawlish. Héavy rain caused a spring to, break out from a soft vein, resulting in the collapse of the cliff onto the railway. After a similar occurrence in February 1853, the gradient of the cliff face was eased and drainage work carried out, but it was not enough toprevent a slightfall in October of the saine year. This illustra-tion shows the result of the first attack on the line from the other side. Easter~y gales during the first fortnight of February 1855 had washed away the beach near Teignmouth, exposing the marl on which the railway and sea wall were built. Heavy seas scoured the marl and despite remedial work 30yd of wall collapsed on the 16th. Severe frosts and turbulent seas prevented reconstruction, and by the time work could begin 50yd of the embankment had been washed away..
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/ind_rev/iln/accident.htm
Look at the raw data - can you see any change in rainfall?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/monthly/HadEWP_monthly_qc.txt
Here it is in graph form - there is no noticeable change.
The other argument - that winter is also getting wetter - is another lie. Even the Met Office graphs do not show this. Why then are they letting people think winters are getting wetter when that is not true?. Please - trust yourself - see what you believe then.
Regarding the recent flooding - here is an analogy for you:
Our government are in charge of the Titanic and they have forewarning it is going to sink - so what do they do?
They build more decks on it so more people will drown (their excuse being that they have decks there already anyway).
That is the consequence for our continued building on flood plains and in areas prone to flooding (including current villages and towns).
We have idiots for our leaders and are doomed to stay that way.
Why did our scientists join IPCC for global warming in 1988 - when the temperature had been coming down since the war? Maybe they had a crystal ball and could tell the futures. No silly - perhaps they thought that the UK was immune and indeed could reverse global warming. That must be it ;)
If UK temperature came down in the UK for the next 42 years the public and scientists would be 100% more sceptical - wouldn't they?
Please check this yourself - the Central England Temperatures. Taking the data they had since the end of war up to 1987, did our British scientists really believe we could reverse global warming when they went into the IPCC?
Does anybody know how many millions of pounds funding have they received since then? Was future funding the primary influence then?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) says this;
Quote: One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
Except they are clearly telling fibs - because they say "Temperature change (blue) and carbon dioxide change (red)" - the temperatues is clearly leading the CO2 - not the other way around i.e. When the temperature goes down, carbon dioxide concentration goes down.
Somebody wrote to me about that saying, "it did amplify the warming" - but with high CO2 the temperature was coming down - not going up.
At the bottom of this page - look in zoomed in detail at the last 100,000 years:
At the beginning of this period - you can clearly see that temperature (blue) is bringing down CO2 (red).
In the middle - temperature starts to rise - CO2 follows.
Towards the end - temperature reaches a peak - CO2 follows.
Government would tax the air that you breath if they could get away with it - a 'green tax' (for our own good) is one way of doing it.
The working class are taxed disproportionately - green tax like VAT is regressive - they are left with even less of their income than the rich.
Paedophiles in Position of Power - (allegedly)
& cover up allegation. The big lie of the inquiry (there will be others) will be that the cover up was historic but in truth it continues until the present day. In actual truth at least one ex-MP it is alleged to have had sex with a boy and has not been questioned by the police. Simon Danczuk MP was told not to “out” Parliamentarians as suspect paedophiles, as it could kill him.
Warning - video has very graphic descriptions
'Cabinet Minister in seized child porn' by James Fielding
Sunday Express - 23 February 2014
A former Cabinet minister was featured in a video seized by customs
officers during a child porn raid more than 30 years ago.
The MP appeared on amateur footage shot in Amsterdam, the Sunday
Express has been told. The video, discovered on a coach travelling
from the Continent, was seized at Dover in 1982, following intelligence
that the politician was involved. A number of child porn films were
retrieved, including a video showcase of 34 British boys who had been
smuggled into the Netherlands from care homes in Britain. Another video, with the title Amsterdam Tramway Museum, had a few minutes of tram footage before flickering into hardcore images of children being abused.
A customs source would not say whether the ex-MP took part in any abuse
on camera but added: "This person, a member of the Cabinet, was
involved and that's why officers had to seize the video. Department
heads later took over and that was the last seen of the material."
An HMRC spokesman said: "We can find no trace of these videos so are
not in a position to confirm in any way if a prominent MP was involved."
There is a cover-up - government will like you to think that there is no depravity in power. If big Cyril Smith got covered up then how many others?
The Paedophile MP: How Cyril Smith Got Away with It
How MP Cyril Smith got away with child abuse
During his lifetime Cyril Smith was one of the UK's best-known politicians. But a new investigation shows that security services held on to a file with evidence of the Liberal MP's child abuse.
Cyril Smith, the Rochdale MP who died in 2010, was a larger than life figure.
His jocular personality and his regular appearances on chat shows made him one of the best-known politicians in the country.
But an investigation by Channel 4's Dispatches programme shows that UK security services held on to evidence of the Liberal MP's child abuse.
In the late 1960s Lancashire police carried out several investigations into Smith's behaviour, compiling an 80-page file. The suggestion is that police were ready to prosecute.
However, veiled threats from local liberals meant the case was dropped and the file locked away in a safe at Special Branch, which has responsibility for national security. Labour MP Jack McCann, Smith's predecessor as MP for Rochdale, also spoke to the DPP on Smith's behalf.
By 1977, the Liberal party was the junior party in a pact with the country's ruling Labour party. MI5 now also took an interest in Smith's background.
Former Special Branch detective Tony Robinson told Dispatches he was contacted by MI5, who requested he send them the file by special courier. By now Lancashire police, Special Branch and MI5 knew about the allegations.
Lord Steel, who as David Steel led the Liberal party between 1976 and 1988, says he asked Smith about the allegations of child abuse and accepted his denial of wrongdoing.
In Rochdale, Smith set up a hostel, Cambridge House, supposedly to help boys in need.
Dispatches spoke to one man, Kevin Griffiths, a former resident at the hostel, who first told the police about the Rochdale MP's behaviour.
Mr Griffiths recalls how, on one occasion, he stood naked in front of Smith "and he ran his hands all up and down my thighs, inside my legs, and touched my private parts".
Smith went on to help set up another institution in Rochdale, Knowl View School, for which he held a set of keys. It was there that Chris Marshall, then eight years old, became Smith's youngest known victim.
And the Metropolitan police have confirmed to Dispatches that during the 1980s Smith was a visitor to the Elm guest house in south west London, where a paedophile ring was reported to have been active.
http://www.channel4.com/news/cyril-smith-child-abuse-mi5-rochdale-elm
Benefits System
To declare an interest; I have been seriously ill - being forced to retire after a couple of operations went wrong at Papworth in 1997. Details are on my skilled.org (to be uploaded). Since then my health has got a lot worse - I had an aneurysm rupture in 2010. I survived only because of being on the MRI scanner at hospital at the time. There were complications, which meant that I was transferred from Addenbrookes ICU to Papworth ICU and back to Addenbrookes ICU again. I had to be induced into a coma, given a tracheostmy and put on kidney dialysis. It left me with even more health problems as my lungs were damaged and it split my artery from chest to stomach so I now have another aneurysm which my surgeon says is unsafe to operate on.
To make a general comment; with all the propaganda from the media and people like IDS and Lord Freud, I wonder if those who say 'people on benefits are scroungers' think the same when they cannot get another job after being made redundant at 50 plus (with untold thousands of younger and fitter workers being imported) - or become too sick to work themselves. Somehow I think not - these people likely then realise just how stupid they have been.
ATOS - DWP lackies?
ATOS almost killed me. I had a 'medical' due with ATOS in 2009 but they contacted my GP and admitted my health was too bad and I need not come.
I filled in the form last year (2013) and informed them my condition had greatly worsened as explained above after the ruptured aneurysm in 2010.
I also informed them about the current large aneurysm - which was growing every year and how it may be very injurious for me to attend with the stress (knowing how their 'medicals' work). I also advised them that my surgeon had told me it is very important that my blood pressure is well controlled below 140/80. I have high blood pressure anyway without this added worry (only mildly controlled with medication). On the form I wrote they should contact the GP again (or surgeon). Needless to say they sent a letter telling me I had to attend - to which I rang to see if it was not a 'mistake'.
I was told I had to go. I was holding my chest in pain through 50 minutes of interview until the nurse finally (presumably thinking holding chest was a ploy) took my blood pressure. She promptly cancelled the 'medical' as the systolic BP was high at 165. All documented and official ATOS audio is available.
BTW: "fraud is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party" http://www.sfo.gov.uk/fraud/what-is-fraud.aspx.
News February 2014 is that ATOS are to be dumped - great. However, the new lackies will still be acting for the DWP. We need proper medicals taking a persons illness into account (not ignored). How *everybody* will want to be treated if it was THEMSELVES or their children who was seriously ill.
Here is somebody secret filming whilst working for ATOS:
It seems the new bosses taking over from ATOS (MAXIMUS) are just as bad.
One quote from a new employee in America: "It seems like not one person knows what is going on. Things change on a daily basis and they expect you to make these insane quotas, they are not about their employees they are about the numbers. The turnover is the worst I have ever seen. Forget going to HR with a problem either because they will not help you. My manager is probably the worst, I don't think anything that gets said is ever the truth. They will write you up for nothing. This place is a joke, I can't wait to get out of here."
Advice to Management: "Just give up, your employees are not happy, your managers lie, the team leads are horrible to other employees and don't have a clue as to what is going on. I'm pretty sure the federal government could find a way better place to do business with."
http://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Employee-Review-MAXIMUS-RVW2291973.htm
GDP to surpass pre-financial crisis levels.
Would you believe that some idiots use GDP as an indicator of our material standard of living.
It is usually those corrupt people in government at the time and their supporters.
Can you fix your old car or buy a new one with our countries GDP figure - does it pay your increasingly higher utility bills?
No - you cannot and no it does not.
The wealthy are the only ones that are ever prospering - the gap between rich and your pay gets ever wider.
Greedy fat cats give themselves massive wage rises and bonuses - whilst holding down your wages.
As I have said hundreds of times - it is clearly is now no longer just greed - it is avarice - insatiable greed.
The government must think we are all mugs.
BTW: For idiot trolls supporting this Tory run government - GDP is NOT a measure of PERSONAL income.
The Diesel Scam
Quote: Diesel's popularity with motorists has surged, but its green image was an illusion.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/06/diesel-scandal-cheap-fuel-choking-cities
No - you are wrong - it was not an illusion - it was a deception.
Why are these liars not brought to account - we have been poisoning our children because of their lies.
They are criminals causing grievous bodily harm and death - why are the cowardly government not making them culpable?
Presumably because they do not want to be made culpable when they have been found out to have been lying to us..
Is this Fraud?
We bought a new boiler and it broke down after the guarantee ran out. BG said boilers are not covered by the Sale of Goods Act (an untruth) but told us that we could pay for a pricey maintance contract though or pay for the repair. Which we were forced to do. It was either that or pay thousands for a new boiler. Clearly we are not the only ones made to pay with BG - or is it just boilers - or is BG alone in this bad practice. There are likely millions of us.
The Sale of Goods Act states: "For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances". The boiler broke down again 9 months after the repair, possibly with a different bit. If so we have to pay again. For ignorant employees; the goods as a whole have to be 'fit for purpose', not just parts of it. If you paid thousands for something is it of satisfactory quality if it broke down every 9 months with a different bit?
Again - "fraud is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party" http://www.sfo.gov.uk/fraud/what-is-fraud.aspx.
Ofcom allow ISP's to sell slow speed broadband at high speed prices. They also allow ISP's to falsely sell unlimited broadband which is in fact limited. This allowed our ISP (Supanet) to cut the 'fair usage' to 15 Gigabyte without telling us and then try to defraud us i.e. we had to either to upgrade our supposed 'unlimited' service to a fixed limit at extra cost or pay a charge for our 'overuse'. At least Ofcom admitted that our ISP acted wrongly - we won our case against the corrupt ISP. Unfortunately though Ofcom would not check who else our ISP did this to. So - do not think this is an isolated 'mistake'. They, like all other regulators, are merely PR for their industry - nothing more than damage limitation.
Regulators all protect greedy corrupt bosses with the smallest action i.e. individual compensation when they can get away with it - and massive fines paid by customers and investors at worst. They may think they do it to protect the markets - but it has the opposite effect - hence the recent bank crash.
YOU PAY THEIR FINES
GSK fined $3bn (£1.9bn) July 2012
The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday.
Despite the large fine, $3bn is far less than the profits made from the drugs. Avandia has made $10.4bn in sales, Paxil took $11.6bn, and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9bn during the years covered by the settlement, according to IMS Health, a data group that consults for drug makers.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/03/glaxosmithkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals
You pay their fines - so why should they be worried?
GSK fined $490bn (£297m) September 2014
GlaxoSmithKline has been found guilty of bribery by a Chinese court and has agreed to pay a fine of 3bn yuan (£297m) to the government in Beijing.
At the same time, the former head of its China division, Mark Reilly, and other GSK executives are facing two- to four-year jail terms, according to the state news agency, Xinhua. Reilly was accused of running a "massive bribery network".
The bribery case involved allegations that GSK sales executives paid up to 3bn yuan to doctors to encourage them to use its drugs.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/19/glaxosmithkline-pays-297m-fine-china-bribery
The Chinese courts can prosecute individuals for lesser crime - yet our courts cannot - was this just for PR?
See end of page for Defamation
INTJ personality - my personality test for those interested
It’s lonely at the top, and being one of the rarest and most strategically capable personality types, INTJs know this all too well. INTJs form just two percent of the population, and women of this personality type are especially rare, forming just 0.8% of the population – it is often a challenge for them to find like-minded individuals who are able to keep up with their relentless intellectualism and chess-like maneuvering. INTJs are imaginative yet decisive, ambitious yet private, amazingly curious, but only if their interest is piqued.
Smart and unconventional
INTJ_1With a natural thirst for knowledge that shows itself early in life, INTJs are often given the title of “bookworm” as children. While this may be intended as an insult by their peers, they more than likely identify with it and are even proud of it, greatly enjoying their broad and deep body of knowledge. INTJs enjoy sharing what they know as well, confident in their mastery of their chosen subjects, but owing to their Intuitive (N) and Judging (J) traits, they prefer to design and execute a brilliant plan within their field rather than share opinions on “uninteresting” distractions like gossip.
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." ~ Harlan Ellison
A paradox to most observers, INTJs are able to live by glaring contradictions that nonetheless make perfect sense – from a rational perspective. For example, INTJs are simultaneously the most starry-eyed idealists and the bitterest of cynics, a seemingly impossible conflict. But this is because INTJ types tend to believe that with effort, intelligence and consideration, nothing is impossible, while at the same time they believe that people are too lazy, short-sighted or self-serving to actually achieve those fantastic results. Yet that cynical view of reality is unlikely to stop an interested INTJ from achieving a result they believe to be relevant.
Independence personified
INTJs radiate self-confidence and an aura of mystery, and their insightful observations, original ideas and formidable logic enable them to push change through with sheer willpower and force of personality. At times it will seem that INTJs are bent on deconstructing and rebuilding every idea and system they come into contact with, employing a sense of perfectionism and even morality to this work. Anyone who doesn’t have the talent to keep up with INTJs’ processes, or worse yet, doesn’t see the point of them, is likely to immediately and permanently lose their respect.
Rules, limitations and traditions are anathema to the INTJ personality type – everything should be open to questioning and reevaluation, and if they see a way, INTJs will often act unilaterally to enact their technically superior, sometimes insensitive, and almost always unorthodox methods and ideas.
This isn’t to be misunderstood as impulsiveness – INTJs will strive to remain rational no matter how attractive the end goal may be, and every idea, whether generated internally or soaked in from the outside world, must pass the ruthless and ever-present “Is this going to work?” filter. This mechanism is applied at all times, to all things and all people, and this is often where INTJ personality types run into trouble.
...yet not everything can be analyzed
INTJs are brilliant and confident in bodies of knowledge they have taken the time to understand, but unfortunately the social contract is unlikely to be one of those subjects. White lies and small talk are hard enough as it is for a type that craves truth and depth, but INTJs will go so far as to see many social conventions as downright stupid. Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in INTJs as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
INTJs are defined by their tendency to move through life as though it were a giant chess board, pieces constantly shifting with consideration and intelligence, always assessing new tactics, strategies and contingency plans, constantly outmaneuvering their peers in order to maintain control of a situation while maximizing their freedom to move about. This isn’t meant to suggest that INTJs act without conscience, but to many Feeling (F) types, INTJs’ distaste for acting on emotion can make it seem that way, and it explains why many fictional villains (and misunderstood heroes) are modeled on this personality type.
INTJ strengths and weaknesses
INTJ Strengths
High self-confidence. INTJ personalities rarely doubt themselves or care much about their perceived social roles, expectations, etc. Consequently, they are not afraid to voice their own opinions. This exudes confidence and reinforces the INTJ’s self-esteem even further.
Quick and versatile mind. INTJs are very good at improving their knowledge of (often diverse) topics and fields that interest them. People with this personality type take pleasure in tackling intellectual challenges, and their natural curiosity pushes them forward as well.
Jacks-of-all-trades. The most important strength of any INTJ is their mind. Other personality types pride themselves on being artistic, intuitive, convincing, athletic, etc. In contrast, INTJs excel at being able to analyze anything that life throws at them, uncovering the underlying methodology and then applying it in practice. Consequently, INTJ personalities are usually able to become what they want to become—be it an IT architect or a high-flying politician.
Independent and decisive. People with the INTJ personality type are ruthless when it comes to analyzing the usefulness of methods or ideas. They could not care less if that idea is popular or supported by an authority figure. If the INTJ believes that it does not make sense, only overwhelming rational arguments will convince them otherwise. This strength makes them efficient and impartial decision-makers, often at a very young age. INTJs also tend to be quite resistant to conflicts, usually remaining rational and calm in an emotionally charged situation.
Hard-working and determined. INTJ personalities can be very patient and dedicated if something excites or intrigues them. They will work hard to achieve their goals, often ignoring everything else. That being said, INTJs may also appear lazy in situations that do not require them to flex their mental muscles. For instance, they may take risks and not study that hard at school, knowing that in all likelihood, they will be able to tackle the tests anyway.
Imaginative and strategic. INTJs are very good strategic thinkers, often using this strength to devise multiple contingency plans in both professional and personal situations. They like to plan ahead and be prepared, imagining all the potential scenarios and consequences.
Honest and direct. People with this personality type hate playing social games and putting comfort or social expectations above honesty and facts. INTJs tend to see these activities as pointless and irrational, preferring inconvenient truth over a comforting lie.
Open-minded. INTJ personalities do not mind being proven wrong and enjoy being exposed to something they were not familiar with. They will embrace a competing theory if it makes more sense, regardless of the existing traditions or expectations. Not surprisingly, INTJs also tend to be fairly liberal in a social sense, believing that many social norms are outdated and unnecessarily restrictive.
INTJ Weaknesses
Arrogant. There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Some less mature INTJs may overestimate the importance of their knowledge or analytical skills, seeing most other people as irrational or intellectually inferior, often making their opinion known.
Perfectionists. INTJ personalities loathe inefficiency and imperfection, trying very hard to iron out all the flaws and analyze all possibilities. If left unchecked, this trait can easily become a weakness, slowing down their work quite significantly and frustrating people around the INTJ.
Likely to over-analyze everything. INTJs tend to believe that everything can be analyzed, even things that are not necessarily rational, e.g., human relationships. They may seek logical explanations and solutions in every situation, refusing to rely on improvisation or their own emotions.
Judgmental. INTJs reach their conclusions very quickly and stick to them. Even though people with this personality type tend to be open-minded, they have little patience for things they consider illogical, e.g., decisions based on feelings, irrational stubbornness, emotional outbursts, etc. An INTJ is likely to believe that someone who behaves in this way is either very immature or irrational; consequently, they will have little respect for them.
May be insensitive. INTJ personalities often pride themselves on being brutally honest and logical. However, while their statements may be rational and completely correct, they may not take into account another person’s emotional state, background, individual circumstances, etc. Consequently, the INTJ’s directness and honesty may easily hurt other people, thus becoming a major weakness in social situations.
Often clueless when it comes to romantic relationships. Many INTJs are likely to have difficulties dealing with anything that does not require logical reasoning, and this weakness is especially visible in interpersonal relationships. They may overanalyze everything, get frustrated trying to understand how the other person thinks, try to use a nearly scientific approach to dating, or just give up altogether.
Loathe highly structured environments. INTJ personalities do not respect rules or regulations just because they are there; they need to be confident that those restrictions make sense. Consequently, INTJs strongly dislike environments that are built on blind obedience, traditions, or respect for authority. They are likely to challenge the status quo and clash with people who prefer stability and safety.
INTJ personality and emotions
The INTJ personality type is perhaps the most enigmatic and controversial of all. Idealistic visionaries, unemotional robots, brilliant strategists, socially awkward geeks, fearsome debaters – these are just a few examples of the numerous labels that INTJs seem to be able to get.
There is usually little middle ground with strong expressed INTJ personalities – other types either find their quirkiness mysterious and attractive, or feel uncomfortable and get offended. The INTJs themselves are either proud of their traits and wear them like a badge, or see themselves as eccentrics and do their best to mimic the behavior of other people, trying to blend in. These attitudes soften as people grow and develop, but they tend to be very black-and-white at a younger age.
The Achilles' heel
One of the most significant sticking points is the INTJs’ handling of emotions. Most INTJ personalities pride themselves in remaining rational and logical at all times, seeing most emotional displays as a sign of weakness and irrationality. As people with this personality type also tend to be very honest and straightforward, it is no surprise that they are often seen as insensitive. Some INTJs may go even further, claiming that they have no feelings or emotions at all, and that anyone who does is weak and irrational.
Ironically, INTJs can be just as emotional, if not more so, than any other personality type. Everything depends on how we define and handle emotions – for instance, there is a world of difference between breaking down in public and simply being thoughtful or amused. For most INTJs, public displays of emotion are outside of their comfort zone and consequently they will do their best to restrain themselves. However, this does not mean that INTJs have no feelings – rather, they tend to be good at channeling their emotions and using logic to keep them in check.
Why all the shields?
One of the reasons behind the cold exterior is that people with the INTJ personality type tend to be very proud of their knowledge and abilities – revealing emotions or even acknowledging that they exist may be a frightening prospect, especially if the INTJ in question is younger and secretly not as confident as they would like to be. In such cases, the INTJ will shield themselves with coldness and rational arguments, allowing their Thinking trait to act like a protective big brother to the weaker, less developed Feeling trait.
Second, logic and rationality play a dominant role in the INTJ decision-making process – feelings usually only come into play when their Thinking trait cannot come up with a rational solution to a difficult problem. To give an example, if an INTJ is upset, they will not need to tell everyone around them that they are upset – on the contrary, they will focus on identifying why they are upset and then coming up with a logical solution to their problems. Alternatively, they will channel that energy into something productive.
Emotions will always influence the decisions that the INTJ is making, at least to some extent – it is impossible to separate the two, even though most people with the INTJ personality type try hard to make decisions and solve problems without involving their feelings.
How we process is also how we feel, and how we feel is also how we process – this applies to INTJs as well. However, people with this personality type find it quite easy to deal with those emotions internally, without exposing them to the outside world, and this is why they may radiate that aura of logic and detachment.
So, to summarize – INTJ personalities can be very sensitive and have very deep feelings. Even though these emotions will be shielded from the public view by their Thinking trait and will (usually) not be the deciding factor in the INTJ decision-making process, this does not mean that INTJs should be seen as, or should aspire to be, cold-blooded and insensitive geniuses living by the mantra that emotions are for the weak. This is not the case and is not going to happen.
INTJ relationships
INTJ personalities are likely to have significant difficulties when it comes to relationships. INTJs spend a large part of their lives in their heads; consequently, what they see and understand intuitively can be much more advanced than a “bland” reality. As a result, someone with the INTJ personality may find it challenging to merge that fantasy and those high requirements with reality. Unfortunately, their superior logic and imagination may actually hinder the INTJ when they start looking for a partner.
A plan for everything
People with this personality type are likely to apply a rational approach to dating and relationships as well. An INTJ is likely to have a “checklist” in their mind long before they actually start thinking about a relationship. It is also likely that “he/she must be rational” will be at the top of their list of criteria—and this is exactly what usually holds the INTJ back, especially if they are male.
There are certain rules (e.g., do not appear too interested) and types of behavior (e.g., a girl should not start the conversation) that a person interested in finding a dating partner is expected to follow, and unfortunately for INTJs, the majority of people will follow those rules. Even those potential partners who an INTJ would normally see as rational will probably yield to societal expectations. Consequently, INTJs are likely to get quite disappointed after the first few attempts at dating and may even start thinking that everybody else is either irrational or intellectually inferior.
INTJs are bewilderingly deep and intelligent people, bringing a lot of stability and insight into their romantic relationships, but that extraordinary intelligence is also their main enemy in this area.
Paradoxically, someone with the INTJ personality is most likely to attract a romantic partner when they are not actually looking for one. As most INTJs have difficulties with dating and relationships, their self-confidence takes a major hit in those situations, and the INTJ then overcompensates by showing off their intelligence, which makes them even more unattractive. Only when the INTJ returns to his or her usual self does their self-confidence start glowing again, which makes it much easier for them to attract a partner.
What am I supposed to say now?..
INTJs are uncomfortable expressing their feelings or trying to understand the emotions of other people. They also have a tendency to always trust their knowledge and understanding. Not surprisingly, INTJs can sometimes inadvertently hurt other people, especially during the dating phase and even later in the relationship. The mind of the INTJ personality is geared toward looking at conflict situations as logical puzzles worthy of analysis, which does not always help when their relationship partner does not share the same notion of fun.
That said, if both partners manage to survive the rocky start during the dating phase, it is very likely that the relationship will be very deep and strong and the INTJ will do everything they can to ensure it stays that way, as long as their significant other reciprocates. INTJs are likely to be very imaginative and enthusiastic partners - however, it is important that the INTJ does not fall into a habit of spending more time theorizing about intimacy than communicating with their partner.
What if it does not work out?
People with the INTJ personality type may terminate the relationship if they are confident that it is at risk of breaking down, and they will not look back. INTJs’ approach to dating is quite similar: they will not keep trying if their mind is telling them that the likelihood of a strong relationship is very low. However, the calm exterior can be deceiving; it is more than likely that the INTJ will feel very hurt inside and spend extensive amounts of time figuring out what went wrong, especially if they had devoted a lot of time to dating or making the relationship work.
Preferred partners: ENFP and ENTP types, as their Extraversion (E) and Prospecting (P) traits counterbalance INTJs’ Introversion (I) and Judging (J) traits. INFJs are also a very strong match as the intuitive connection between INTJ and INFJ is likely to be instantaneous.
INTJ friends
It is not easy to become an INTJ’s friend. People with this personality type value rationality and intelligence more than anything else and tend to automatically assume that most of the individuals they meet are likely to be less intelligent than they are. Most would probably call it arrogance; INTJs would rationalize this as a natural filtering mechanism and argue that most people simply bore them. Consequently, INTJs tend to have very few good friends, but they also do not really see the need to have a big social circle.
INTJ personalities are very independent and self-sufficient. They see their friends more as intellectual soul mates than as sources of social validation and assurance.
INTJs will happily come up with new ways to improve and deepen the relationship, but they will not be dependent on their friends emotionally. Furthermore, it is quite unlikely that the INTJ will enjoy physical manifestations of feelings (hugs, touches, etc.), even with close friends.
No crying on my shoulder!
INTJ friends will also find that people with this personality type are very difficult to “read.” Not only are INTJs comparatively unemotional, they are also likely to try to suppress emotions that get through their mental filters.
Emotions are definitely the INTJ’s Achilles’ heel, so they do their best to not let them through, in fear of breaching that shield of logic and rationality. And vice versa, INTJs may be quite insensitive when it comes to their friends’ feelings. In all likelihood, the INTJ would honestly have no clue how to react to something on the emotional level.
Not for the faint hearted
INTJs have no difficulties relaxing and enjoying themselves among close friends. Their renowned sarcasm and dark humor make INTJ personalities great storytellers, as long as the audience can understand (and withstand) their jokes. This is one of the reasons why INTJs are usually very fond of Analysts (NT) or Diplomats (NF) – they can read between the lines and follow the INTJ’s train of thought. In contrast, Observant (S) types are likely to find this personality type quite frustrating.
People with the INTJ personality type tend to be truly gifted and bright individuals, seeking personal growth and development, and encouraging their friends to follow the same path. If the INTJ is able to connect to another person at this level, their friendship will likely be strong and long-lasting. INTJs are generally very “low maintenance” friends, who do not require much attention or constant contact. They understand the value of privacy and independence and will actually push their friends to become more independent as well.
INTJ parents
INTJ personality traits are not usually considered ideal as far as parenting is concerned. INTJs tend to be very rational, perfectionistic, and relatively insensitive individuals, which goes against the stereotypical image of warm, caring, traditional parents.
However, it could be said that this is simply a reflection of the fact that society is dominated by more sensitive and traditional personality types. In contrast, INTJ parents are more likely to focus on making sure that their children grow up to be able to make independent and rational decisions.
Not surprisingly, people with the INTJ personality type will probably have difficulties supporting their children emotionally. INTJs are used to suppressing their own emotions and will struggle if their child is very sensitive. There are many other personality types that have difficulties in this area, but INTJ personalities are likely to find this especially difficult.
INTJs will be excellent advisors when it comes to planning, rational advice, help with studies, etc., but they are unlikely to know how to react when their child asks for their help with a matter that is emotional in nature.
That being said, most INTJ parents will be able to ensure that their children are very well prepared to deal with the challenges that life throws their way. They will likely be demanding yet liberal and open-minded parents, encouraging their children to develop and use their own mind instead of trying to protect them from the world as long as possible.
INTJ careers
INTJ personalities are known for their ability to digest difficult and complex theories and principles relevant to their careers and then convert them into clear and actionable ideas. INTJs are excellent strategists, possessing intuition and confidence that allow them to devise and implement challenging, long-term plans without many problems. These skills can be tremendously valuable in the right career path.
People with this personality type are great at jobs that involve planning, strategy, and application of complex theoretical principles. For instance, you could find many INTJs among project managers, system engineers, or marketing strategists. These are often their best career choices.
Typical INTJ careers also tend to put a lot of importance on independent thinking. INTJs love difficult challenges and strongly detest routine, doing whatever they can to avoid or automate mind-numbing tasks.
It is difficult to imagine an INTJ willingly choosing a strictly administrative or teamwork-focused role. They excel as “lone wolves” and the best INTJ careers revolve around this trait, giving INTJs enough breathing space to use their creativeness and dedication without being constantly questioned by other team members.
Thou shalt not cheat
People with this personality type put effectiveness and competence above everything else. Consequently, the best INTJ careers reward personal initiative and determination. INTJs believe that everyone should do their best to complete the task to the highest possible standard and loathe individuals who use social activities and networking rather than merit to get ahead on the career ladder.
There really is no easier way to lose the respect of an INTJ than to show that you believe social skills and relationships are more important than professional competence. INTJs have very high standards, especially when it comes to their own work, and are likely to put in an extraordinary amount of effort to get the job done. Consequently, typical INTJ careers reward inventiveness, dedication, and insightfulness.
Where is my drawing board?
INTJs tend to have excellent analytical and creative skills. They are highly unlikely to choose or enjoy customer-facing or teamwork-oriented careers; these are definitely not the best choices for INTJs. As already mentioned, INTJs are brilliant strategists and planners, but they do best alone or in small teams. People with this personality type will gladly accept someone else’s authority and leadership, as long as they see that individual as competent.
These traits make INTJs excellent engineers, military strategists, programmers, system analysts, lawyers, or freelance consultants. These are typical INTJ career paths, and their performance in these areas is often very impressive.
INTJ in the workplace
Most of us will spend a huge percentage of our life at work. This is why we believe that discussing how different personality types behave in the workplace is important. What drives them or makes them miserable? How can you create a mutually beneficial and productive relationship with a specific personality type? How should you handle conflicts with them?
Let’s talk about the INTJ personality type in this case. What should you know about an INTJ colleague? An INTJ manager? Or maybe an INTJ subordinate? We are going to tackle these questions one by one.
INTJ Colleagues
Fiercely independent at work, people with the INTJ personality type are “lone wolves”
Love challenges, especially if they get complete responsibility (no need to share the glory)
Prefer working alone, mostly because they believe that others are only going to slow them down
Enjoy brainstorming in the workplace, as long as the discussion does not descend into arguments over details
Have perfectionist tendencies and very rarely give up
Cannot stand inefficiency or colleagues who refuse to use more efficient methods
Loathe manual work, especially where it can be automated
See little point in networking, socializing, or small talk at work
Intensely private and likely to deflect personal questions
Very sarcastic and highly likely to make fun (in their own minds) of less insightful colleagues by making them read between the lines
Dislike phone calls and prefer e-mail instead
Brilliant masterminds and analysts, able to recognize various undercurrents and tension between certain colleagues in the workplace and avoid them (INTJs are unlikely to use this knowledge to their advantage though)
Extremely judgmental—people with the INTJ personality type are likely to have very little respect for colleagues they believe are incompetent
Beware of a quiet INTJ during the brainstorming session; it is quite unlikely that they have nothing to say. The more likely explanation is that they do not respect you enough to bother airing their opinions.
INTJ Managers
Have very high standards when it comes to professional competence
Willing to give their subordinates a lot of freedom at work
Casual and relaxed, valuing independent thinking more than protocol
Despise schmoozing or attempts to manipulate—this will not work on an INTJ
Likely to treat subordinates as equals
Respect people with strong opinions, even if they contradict their own views—as long as arguments are nonemotional
More interested in strategy than tactical implementation
Strive for efficiency in the workplace—do not take the risk of telling an INTJ manager that you have always done things this way
Highly respect and reward initiative
Do not mind being proven wrong if someone else’s argument is better
Will not get involved in office gossip or socializing
INTJ Subordinates
Only respect the manager if they are actually competent—titles mean nothing to someone with an INTJ personality
Have no problems criticizing their manager’s statements if they believe the manager is intelligent enough to reconsider their position if proven wrong.
Accept and actually enjoy criticism at work, as long as it is followed by valid arguments
Unlike most other personality types, INTJs rarely see managerial positions as desirable; they would rather be well-paid experts. People with this personality type are unlikely to be a threat to their managers from this perspective.
May become frustrated when not given enough freedom at work
Are likely to strongly resist attempts to pigeon-hole them into specific, well-defined roles
http://www.16personalities.com/
For those that falsely claim this is defamation (to stop criticism) - perhaps BG or Ofcom: The UK Defamation Act 2013 "provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned". However, you already have address & email, it is documented so I would like to see you try deny what you did.
The Act also "introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair comment" - so I really cannot lose. The fact of the matter is that all this is documented - so is not libelous either in truth or honest opinion.
Key areas of UK Defamation Act 2013
includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation
removes the current presumption in favour of a jury trial
introduces a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public interest"
provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned
introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair comment.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html
garry anderson gini coefficient
Here is evidence of grade inflation - try be objective. How likely is it that the number of cleverest have more than doubled in such a short space of time to 20+%?
Countries with similar Gini coefficients can have vastly different inequality levels:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-workers-have-had-the-worst-wage-growth-in-the-oecd-except-greece-a7773246.html