Tuesday, 28 February 2012


I watched the programme featuring the EDL on television last night and imagined it would be the usual smear job on anything vaguely patriotic.

There was some arrogant portrayal of the members as working class soccer hooligans, but the programme did demonstrate the dedication of Tommy Robinson against the muslim onslaught which threatens our country.

The police in the programme were shown to be invariably against the EDL but tolerant to the extremist muslims who are against our country.
These ugly b**ggers should not be in our country but are allowed to promote their extreme views when English people are made to keep quiet.
They openly say that they want sharia law here and when they get it they will subject the rest of us, the native populations to their intolerant medieval ideology.

It was interesting that Luton had out a multiculti circus? no doubt at ratepayers expense to sooth the alien invaders which played to an audience of ?.

Nobody seemed interested in seeing this alien crap.
Of course many other local authorities put on similar exhibits at our expense in an attempt to brainwash the local people. It is sad that through our council tax we are forced to pay for our own brainwashing, and they hope demise.

Someday we will have our revenge and those implicated will face justice.

I respect the EDL and its work and believe with a bit better organisation they could create a movement which would tally with the views of most Brits and be unstoppable.

That's what they need. Organisation.
Cells should be created in many towns and with a code word demonstrate, all at the same time time at short notice. The authorities would not have time to respond and ban demonstrations.

I believe in democracy, the rule of the law and ballot box, but the powers in control are denying us our rights. If this situation carries on I fear trouble in the streets.
If our people continue to be oppressed they will eventually wake up.

Remember the rights of the ordinary people. Remember the Chartists and Peterloo.

We, the people fought and got our just rights in the past and we will do it again.

However the longer this undemocratic sore festers the worse it will be, so let's sort it out before it is too late and while we still have the upper hand.

I was inspired by the effort put in and the risks taken by this organisation which only seeks to defend our country.

If the programme was expected to show the EDL in a bad light it failed badly.

After seeing it I may enrol as a member.

Sunday, 26 February 2012


I read today of the man who at the airport made a comment that if he had to remove his scarf for security reasons, why should the person? in front of him in a burka go straight through.
He was just making a logical comment but was detained and told that you could not say those things nowadays.
It is said that a muslim woman was offended by his comments.

Well I am offended by these third worlders who are in my country.
I am even more offended by the power they seem to have in the affairs of my country.

I don't even want to have to look at the ugly women who have to cover themselves up to prevent others fancying them. Some chance if they are as ugly as their menfolk.

I was brought up to believe that we had free speech in OUR country.
I know that is not the custom in the third world cesspits whence these uninvited people stem.

BUT is it not time we started to protect our freedom of speech?
Are we free or are we not?

If we all, as British patriots could unite we could unleash a backlash against our oppressors and sort it out.

The method is obvious but I am constrained by the fact that if I spell it out I could be in trouble with the authorities.

Think about what you could do to destroy this cancer in our country and as British people come together and do it.

Let's stop this assault on our freedom in our country. They did it in Tunisia and Libya.
United we can do it here but we are too comfortable to take a stand.

We need a martyr to say "Arise Britain and take your country back".

Someday I may sacrifice myself for my country in that cause.

Saturday, 25 February 2012


Although I have issues with the running of the BNP (but not the policies) I take this opportunity of congratulating them on their demonstration against muslim violence and paedophilia in Rochdale and Hyde.
I also welcome the Party's abandonment of the proscription of the EDL which has done sterling work in publicising the muslim cancer in our midst.

Without these demonstrations little would have been heard of the paedophile muslim perverts who so abuse our young girls.
The police have ignored this scandal for years in case it harms "community relations"
The papers in hock to the Marxist NUJ have been notable in their absence of reports on this scandal, concentrating instead of nasty things said to touchy overpaid black soccer players who are happy to take advantage of the white man's money but object when someone calls him black.

If the police and media continue to brush this paedophile scandal (a direct result of third world aliens being allowed in our country without our permission) the only way to bring it to the notice of the public is for street demonstrations.
These will continue and get more intense as our people feel ever more beleagured and abandoned by the police and media. More will rally to the cause of the defence of our land and people.

We hope violence will not occur but the patience of the people is wearing thin.
We as British people feel that we are under a tyrrany, just as many people in the Middle East have been and still are.

Someday we will regain our country as other countries have. I hope we do not have to gain it by violence but as recent events abroad have shown matters can change quickly.

The powers that be should not imagine that things will always remain the same. Gadaffi did as did Mubarak and now Assad and look where that got them
Our government should listen to the people, our people whom they are supposed to represent or they could suffer the same fate.

Having said that we must as nationalists put aside all previous arguments, forgive insults and concentrate on what unites us.
Only inflated egos of the leaders of the parties including the BNP prevent this.
We are all nationalists, patriots and love our country.

Can we not put our differences aside, concentrate on what unites us and work for our country.

United we could be an unstoppable force in spite of the PC police and media.

Come on you leaders. Get together and have constructive talks and form a nationalist grouping and save our country.

Egos are not important.

Our country and future is.

In the meantime boycott any foreign businesses, and support your own.

You know it makes sense.

Friday, 24 February 2012


The days are getting lighter, warmer and spring is on the way and yet,

Because of the daily dose of bad news and betrayal of our country by those supposedly running it.

Every day Cameron has a new "initiative" often concerning such matters of importance as racism in football.
I don't give a st**f about either of these topics but am concerned that the MOD has given an order for four RN supply ships worth £400 million to South Korea.

Their excuse is of course economy and they have said that British shipyards did not bid for the order. I don't believe that one.
Possibly some of our shipyards need upgrading but how do they manage that when our own navy will not give them orders?
How will we retain what little engineering skills we have and train new apprentices when we give valuable orders to foreign firms?
The government seems to have found £200 million for Somalia. Surely it could find the money for a tax break to the shipbuilding industry, a break which is a fraction of the bonuses just handed out to our loss making governernment owned banks, or the amount Philip Green "saved" from his business in cheap foreign tat by transferring his tax to his wife in Monaco

Such assistance would be a step to secure PRODUCTIVE jobs and have a multiplier effect in the steel and associated small companies.
But no. All effort is expended on assisting the unemployed to gain employment as shop assistants and burger flippers. One of his latest ideas to combat unemployment was tax breaks for those employing servants,very helpful to city types.
Do they not realise that the money they are spending in Korea or giving to Somalia has to be paid for by production here in Britain and nowadays by borrowing?

Or is it all part of a plan to finally put the last nail in the coffin of our country to satisfy their rich friends in the City and othere who profit at our demise?

I believe it is.
Just think if we had a government which supported, not through subsidies but low taxes for engineering, ships etc, coupled with an efficient management we could be as prosperous as Germany where they put industry as top priority.
But they won't. They will just continue to support the banks at our expense as well as every fly blown terrorist country.

They are quite happy to offshore production in the "interests of efficiency"
Our banks liabilities are unknown but are far bigger than admitted.
A suggestion. Sell RBS to Korea and let them take all their experts and liabilities with them.
But then would Korea want to have these "valuable" assets and the "expertise" they would bring?

They wouldn't touch them with a lifeboat pole from one of the ships they are building "for us"


Last Tuesday I attended a meeting in Tameside to hear Andrew Brons's opinions on the future of nationalism and the form it may take.
A video is on the "Ideas" website.

A highlight of the meeting for me was meeting so many old friends from the BNP before that organisation had been destroyed by the present leadership. It was like a reunion and heartening that though many attendees had become inactive or joined in other organisations the bond of nationalism was still there.
There was a full room in spite of the event being by invitation only in order to avoid disruption by hardened "Griffinites" and was thus low key.

It is a sad state of affairs when long term activists are frightened of their erstwhile colleagues that they fear to publicise such events.

In his speech Andrew was his usual reasonable and moderate self when he put forward the options available to us, the pros and cons of each.
No name calling ("vermin" "scumbag" etc, the language of the gutter). Andrew is far too cultured and polite than that and puts his points over in a reasonable manner

He urged us not to join one of the several disparate new groups which he said would tend to lead to division and separation of the various groups.
He advised that an umbrella grouping be set up under Jim Lewthwaite's "Democratic Nationalist" name in order that like minded people could keep in touch and even stand in elections.
This grouping could later reconnect with the other groups to which so many have drifted, not because they have any problems with the policies of the BNP, only disappointment and disgust at the way it has been run down deliberately or otherwise by the incompetent leadership. They feel they need a home and a party in which to belong.

And that is the core of Andrew's message. Drifting off in different directions will tend to separate people.

Our project must be to keep some semblance of nationalist unity so that when the present leadership of the BNP is ousted we can once again come together as a united cause for the sake of our country.

I realise that this can seem like inaction but that is better than the wrong action.
After the May elections we will have a better idea of the best policy to adopt, but the message I take from the meeting is that in future --

WE MUST UNITE ALL THE GROUPS and in the meantime keep the contacts open between these groups.

OUR TIME WILL COME but only when nationalism is free of those in the BNP who seem intent on destroying it.

There was discussion as to the best way forward in the question and answer session with various opinions, but all agreed with the importance of keeping in touch.

Another such "nationalist unity" meeting will be held next month. BNP hierarchy not invited I believe.

Monday, 20 February 2012


When I was at school in the "forties" I learnt that in our country we had free speech unlike many others.
In the Communist bloc people had to pretend to be communist and join the party if they wanted a job. Disent or a contrary opinion could mean a spell in the gulags.
Similarly in Nazi Germany you had to be a party member and obey orders to avoid a concentration camp.
Even in the West in "The Land of the Free" any hint of a Communist opinion would land you in trouble.

Eventually the yoke of dictatorship was thrown off in the Soviet bloc and the books thrown open to demonstrate the tyrrany of the system. Similarly with the defeat of the nazis its hidden horrors were shown.

At last we thought the majority of the western world was free and people could articulate their thoughts without penalty.

Alas no such luck. A new Orwellian totalitarian system has arisen where pepole are afraid to give vent to their thoughts and opinions.

What is it? The "Race Industry".

According to the rules instigated slowly and surreptitiously by this well funded industry to utter a "racist" word is one of the most hienous crimes of all.
If a child utters a word considered by this body as racist it can blight his prospects of employment for life. If an adult, the sack without compensation and possibly with loss of pension.

All this is said to be done in the interests of equality but again some are more equal than others.
Black and other ethnic organisations are tolerated and even subsidised and encouraged while societies to promote the interests of "whites" are deemed racist.
Black organisations can not be tarred with the racist brush (pun intended)

All this makes native Brits frightened of speaking freely. If a topic vaguely racist is aired they seem obliged to preface their remarks with "I'm not racist but"
You never hear a black man say this.

Muslim hate clerics can promote death and destruction to non believers with impunity.
When terrorist outrages are committed the police visit "community elders" to reassure them that all is well.

Similarly when blacks riot the police take a softly softly approach to avoid inflaming feelings. Blacks are promoted above their capabilities in a show of diversity as it seems black criminals do not like being arrested by white officers.
I would not know, never having been arrested, but being arrested in MY country by someone born abroad would stick in my craw.

Why am I going on like this?

Well last week a seven year old child was threatened with being tagged racist after asking a dark boy at school whether he came from Africa, an innocent question I would have thought and with no malice.
His mother refused to sign that her son was racist. She insisted he isn't and I am sure that is so. It is only later when he realises the damage multiculturalism and immigration has done to his prospects that it will dawn on him that there is a logic to this so called racism.

It is not that we feel we are better, it is just that this is our only country and we want it for us. We have never been asked if we wanted this brave new world(some democracy).

If I had been the mother I would have been tempted to say my child is not racist but I am. The danger with that strategy would be that Social Services would be called and the child put into care.
Nothing must interfere with the brainwashing of our children.
Much of the deterioration of educational standards is down to the policy of promoting teachers on the grounds of their PC credentials which usually means a poor teacher as well.

So how do we counter this insidious brainwashing of our children?

Well we can take heart. In the USSR and Nazi Germany when people could speak freely they expressed the thoughts they always had but which of necessity had to lie dormant.

Also the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

When white kids are discriminated against at school, overlooked for promotion on grounds of positive discrimination and see their neighbourhoods degenerating into squalid ghettoes they will hold their tongues but the feeling of injustice will remain and will erupt in the future.

What can we older folk do.
Well they can't touch me, I'm retired so I shall continue to speak my mind, not in an agressive way but a factual one. I shall keep pointing out to my descendants the disadvantages they suffer.

It is not so hard and I am heartened by the seething anger many young Brits feel about the situation but dare not express it.

I can and so I state without any shame that as a patriot--


That is something I DO have in common with blacks as they are the most racist of all.

Saturday, 18 February 2012


In spite of our straightened financial circumstances and front line services being severely cut it seems some departments are immune from any cuts.
The "Diversity and Citizen Directorate" of the Metropolitan police and its 36 staff is safe.
This virtuous group, headed by the daughter of immigrants on it is said £80,000 per year will continue to promote the interests of ethnic minority employees and deals with gender, disability and sexual orientation and race.

Three years ago it urged staff to "celebrate" the contribution of Roma gipsies to London's culture and diversity.
The total cost of this worthy operation must have cost well in excess of three million. No actual police duties, criminals arrested of course.Nothing must be allowed to detract from the more important work of diversity.

If this were all and the only example of police waste it would be bad enough but the above PC charade only refers to the Met.

Lancashire police has a similar department with a staff of about five led this time not by a black person but by a representitive of another so called disadvantaged group,a homosexual to see that there is no homophobia in Lancashire in the police or anywhere else.
They are not on the beat of course but doing the important work of collating alleged homophobic or racist incidents from their cosy warm offices.

It is interesting that these groups are always headed by a person from a so called minority group who always have an agenda to promote their cause and seek advantages over the "normal" ethnic Brits. We are thus themselves disadvantaged twice, first by being forced to pay for what we have not requested and being discriminated against at our own expense.

This situation is no doubt replicated throughout all police "services"(not forces) and the sums devoted to this cause must be enormous.

So when you are attacked or burgled and the police are too busy to attend you can rest assured that the important work is continuing in the office and all homophobic and racist comments recorded.

But that is not all.

Local authorities, while cutting down front line staff in the street maintenance, social care and refuse collection on account of cost imperatives will still ring fence diversity departments in their costly little empires.

The total costs must run into hundreds of millions, costs which add to our rates and taxes, costs which cost jobs and do not deliver the services to which we are entitled.

I believe this army of tax sucking parasites should be sacked with no compensation or given jobs which benefit our communities.
It will not happen of course and our country will keep sinking under the heavy load of these unproductive leeches.

THE PC AGENDA IS TOO ENTRENCHED and will remain so until we do hit the buffers .

BUT HIT THE BUFFERS IT WILL, and we will get the services we pay for at a lesser cost.

THIS MADNESS CAN NOT CONTINUE and logic and fairness WILL eventually prevail.

Friday, 17 February 2012


Why is our government making such a song and dance about the turmoil in Syria?
Have they not done enough damage in Libya and Egypt where the new "free" governments are implicated in torture and persecution against minorities.
What will happen in the future nobody knows but it is likely that muslim fundamentalists will gain control.

In Libya it was easy. Gadaffi was persuaded to give up his arms and so was unable to defend his regime.

This fact will not have been un noticed by Assad in Syria, a well armed state and there is no way we could intervene in what is a civil war.

I have no love for these Arab dictators but recent events have shown that replacing these strong men causes more suffering than if they had been left in place. In any case people do not like outsiders interfering in the internal p0olitics of a nation.

That is why Russia and China vetoed the UN resolutions lest it was taken as a method of poking our arrogant Western noses in the affairs of these countries.
And why is there no clamour for regime change in North Korea where there is much more persecution?
Because they are a nuclear power and that is the reason why Iran wants to join the nuclear club, so that they can not be intimidated by the USA, Israel, and its poodle supporters.
And who can blame them?

Bad as these regimes are they will in all likelyhood be replaced by even worse regimes but in any case these are matters internal to the countries concerned and nothing to do with us.

I have a feeling however that turmoil in the Middle East and the consequent disunity among the Arabs could have been engineered to prevent a united front against Israel when it proceeds with its promised attack on Iran.

I don't like the Iranian regime , but they are no threat to us and we could buy oil from them as does China but we wage economic war against them and our oil prices are going up as a consequence.
Yes they are belligerent towards Israel, but from England's point of view who cares? it is not our problem. I don't care if they blow each other off the face of the earth so long as our country is not involved.

Iran and Syria are no threat to us if we keep our noses out but we are paying the penalty in terrorism and oil prices because of our perceived support for Israel.

In the meantime China has access to cheap oil and is undercutting us financially.

It is time we realised who our friends are. We have none and must stand on our own feet and make our own way in the world by trade alone.
If it suits our interests go for it, if not ignore it and don't take sides.

Our governernment must realise that they were elected to promote our interests in a highly competitive world and that should be the first and only priority.



Wednesday, 15 February 2012


As a lapsed Cof E member and now an agnostic I take issue with the militancy with which Prof Dawkins attacks religion as well as the secular fundamentalists who have succeeded in getting prayers banned at council meetings.

I do not see why it should bother them what other people believe or do.
I believe religious tenets are more suitable to primitive societies as explanations of events which were not then understood and to give simple people's lives a sense of meaning.

I wish I could believe in the last part but to me wishing something was true and life had a higher purpose does not make it true.
I believe we are too small and insignificant to understand the vast universe and thus remain agnostic, but if others have faith and it helps them then OK.

Having been brought up to it I do find a sense of peace and connection with our past in a Christian church. Christianity is part of our heritage and whether logical or not should be respected as should those who believe in it.

Islam though has and never had a place in our national conciousness nor should it in future.

Baroness Warsi's defence of Christianity is I believe a Trojan Horse, the thin end of the wedge.
Her ultimate goal as a muslim is the supremacy of that religion and its inevitable replacement of Christianity. Her advocacy of Christianity is a ploy to lull us to sleep and facilitate her foreign creed.

Both Christianity and islam are in my opinion based on superstition, but there the similarity ends.

Our country and traditions have been built on Christian principles of tolerance and love while islam advocates Holy wars.

Think about it.

Under which religion would you rather live Christianity or islam?
Under which religion would other faiths and beliefs be tolerated? It sure as Hell is not islam

So I do not see the hand of tolerance from the overpromoted "Baroness" I see a not so subtle attempt to further advance the triumph of her militant barbaric creed.




Sunday, 12 February 2012


As I have said previously I have no interest in football but the furore over Suarez's refusal to shake Evra's hand has appalled me.

Suarez was alleged to have said some "racist" word to the thin skinned black Evra and was fined £40,000 and eight games for it.
No mention of what may have been said by Evra to Suarez. Race was the issue and must be punished. No matter that Suarez may himself have a bit of black in his genetics Evra cried like a soft child to the authorities and had Suarez punished.

I have never played the soft game of Soccer but have played a bit of Rugby Union in my time and on the field insults and even blows were exchanged.
We did not complain to the ref about verbal insults and shook hands after the game.
I have not heard of incidents like this in Rugby and there are many black players in that game.
They are obviously not so touchy.

It was suggested a few weeks ago that this should be the case in so called racial insults after the game, but this was considered unacceptable by the authorities.
Comments in the heat of the moment do not matter and a handshake after the match puts the matter to an end, and any racial comments put behind with a pint together.

In this case Evra, like a spoilt child had a severe penalty imposed on Suarez who in any case he was not being racist, but just using a Spanish word. He was not convicted of anything but nevertheless lost money and games because Evra would not let the case drop.

And Evra expected Suarez to shake his hand?
He must have been deluded.

It's like me being asked to shake hands with someone who has cost me thousands.

Now the PC FA have prevailed on Dalgleish and Suarez to apologise.
Money and power talks but you know that their thoughts will remain the same.

If people like Evra with thin black skins (an anatomical oxymoron) can not stand the rough and tumble of insults in the so called English game then perhaps they should return to their African homeland where they could display their undoubted skills but receive less of the white man's money.

P S did you see Owen Farrell of Wigan win the match for England in the man's game, Rugby against Italy?
His kicking was superb. It made one proud to be a Wiganer.

As I said yesterday when he kicked the goals--
GOD BLESS FARRELL,WIGAN AND St GEORGE. and I was not referring to you Tony.

Friday, 10 February 2012

Moslem Comedienne Shazia Mirza says - White People are Scum

Moslem Comedienne Shazia Mirza says - White People are Scum


Thursday, 9 February 2012


First of all let me state that I have not the slightest interest in football(Soccer that is) but feel forced to comment on the Terry, Capello saga.

When Israel is threatening Iran and a Syrian civil war in progress, and our country's parlous national finances the media are awash with this trivial episode.


Terry is alleged to have said something which mentioned a black player's colour, something he has obviously a complex about even though the colour of his skin as allegedly stated by Terry is true.
Terry could have used far more crude and insulting words with impunity and thus got away with it.
He could have used physical violence and only lost a few games as punishment.

Yes these blacks certainly a hang up about their colour/race, possibly a feeling of inferiority. After all they have a lot to feel inferior about for apart from an ability in sport and rhythm music those of African origin have acheived little.

However that is or should be their problem, but we have become so brainwashed that Terry has been sacked before the trial, which again should not be needed in a country where free speech was once cherished.

But it got worse. Capello was forced to resign because of statements criticising the witch hunt aganst Terry. A foreigner standing up for British justice, that must be a first.

I can understand that in a team it is important for players to work together to achieve success but there are many cases of players on ths same team who have fallen out when on opposing teams working well together even after physical confrontations (well there are in Rugby).

This morning it was said that we should have an English manager for our national side. Black people are evidently English if born here it seems.
So it is alright to discriminate against white Europeans but not touchy blacks.

Now I don't really object to black sportsmen being on our national teams but I DO object to this touchyness about skin pigmentation when they are "insulted"
If they wish to be considered "English" perhaps they should act English and they could more easily blend into our society (if you close your eyes)

"Sticks and stones etc".

But of course that will never happen. Our country has been so brainwashed and infected with this NWO crap that those in authority will prevent it.

This case is exemplified the mindset of those in the BBC who ban the use of the word "extremist" against muslim terrorists who wish to take over our society and have advocated killing of non believers while the words "extreme right" is routinely used against those patriots who wish to preserve our way of life by electoral means.

1984 is already here although not noticed by many people.
Can we rid ourselves of this pernicious doctrine by peaceful means?

I don't know. It will be hard but prevail in the long term we will, hopefully by fair means, but in the end--



British children from poorest homes 'being failed at school'

British children from poorest homes 'being failed at school'

White British pupils from working class homes are more likely to fail at school than any other ethnic group, sparking fresh concerns that a generation of young people are being consigned to a life on benefits.

The announcement will fuel fears that thousands of children from the toughest backgrounds are being failed at school – leaving many without the skills needed for a decent job.

It came as Sir Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted’s chief inspector, warned today that too many schools used deprivation and troubled family backgrounds as an “excuse” for underperformance, suggesting they could be placed on a Government hit-list for failing to raise standards.

Read the rest here -



Now here's the TRUTH - "It came as Sir Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted’s chief inspector, warned today that too many schools used deprivation and troubled family backgrounds as an “excuse” for underperformance, suggesting they could be placed on a Government hit-list for failing to raise standards."


Just a small point..it looks like we (the INDIGENOUS BRITISH) are an ETHNIC GROUP.

Who fights for OUR ETHNIC RIGHTS ?


The Dangers of Aspartame

Next time your out shopping just check the ingredients of some of the soft drinks, ASPARTAME is in most of them.

Tuesday, 7 February 2012


Midland care home nurse accused of wiping elderly patient's bottom with a coat hanger

A MIDLAND care home nurse is facing a disciplinary hearing for allegedly wiping an elderly patient’s bottom with a broken coat hanger.

Nolulamo Mdubeki, known as Joyce, of Stafford Road, Cannock, will appear before the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) for a misconduct hearing.

Mdubeki was working at Richmond Hall Care Home, in Stonnall Road, Aldridge, when the claims were made over her treatment of a resident.

The alleged incident with the coat hanger is claimed to have occurred at the home on September 19, 2009.

Mdubeki no longer works at the care home as she resigned ahead of a disciplinary investigation.

A tenant eviction notice has been placed on the Mdubeki’s family home, which currently lies apprently abandoned.

Neighbour Jim Brown said the nurse went on holiday to her home country of South Africa three months ago but has not returned.

“No-one has seen Joyce for months,” said Mr Brown, who attended Chadsmoor Methodist Church with the nurse every Sunday. The landlords have been round looking for her, and the church minister.

“Joyce told us she stopped working at the care home because of her hip.”

A spokeswoman for Richmond Hall Care Home said: “The nurse was suspended immediately and the allegations reported to the appropriate authorities.’’

She said the nurse resigned prior to a disciplinary investigation being launched which ‘‘if proven would have led to her dismissal’’.

‘‘Richmond Hall received the nurse’s resignation prior to our disciplinary investigation which if proven would have led to her dismissal.

“All the information has been passed on to the Nursing and Midwifery Council to make a decision regarding the nurse’s professional future.”

The care home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 64 people. If found guilty of the misconduct charge, Mdubeki faces being struck off the nursing register, a suspension or conditions being placed on her working practices.

The NMC hearing takes place tomorrow.





BBC tells its staff: don’t call Qatada extremist

The BBC has told its journalists not to call Abu Qatada, the al-Qaeda preacher, an “extremist”.


A British court has called Qatada a “truly dangerous individual” and even his defence team has suggested he poses a “grave risk” to national security.

Despite that background, BBC journalists were told they should not describe Qatada as an extremist. The guidance was issued at the BBC newsroom’s 9.00am editorial meeting yesterday, chaired by a senior manager, Andrew Roy.

According to notes of the meeting, seen by The Daily Telegraph, journalists were told: “Do not call him an extremist – we must call him a radical. Extremist implies a value judgment.”

The guidance was criticised by experts and MPs. Maajid Nawaz of Quilliam, a counter-extremist think tank, accused the BBC of “liberal paralysis” over Islamic extremism, saying journalists must be honest about Qatada’s record. He said: “A radical is someone who is different from the norm. An extremist is someone who promotes extreme views and actions, like killing innocents.”

James Clappison, a Conservative member of the Commons home affairs select committee, said the guidance was unjustifiable. He said: “Given the evidence about this man, it makes you wonder what you have to do for the BBC to call you an extremist.”

BBC staff were also cautioned against using library images suggesting the cleric is overweight, because he has “lost a lot of weight”.

A BBC spokesman said: “We think very carefully about the language we use. We do not ban words – the notes are a reflection of a live editorial discussion about how to report the latest developments on this story.”






CCTV police officer 'chased himself' after being mistaken for burglar

An undercover police officer "chased himself round the streets" for 20 minutes after a CCTV operator mistook him for suspect.

The junior officer, who has not been named, was monitoring an area hit by a series of burglaries in an unnamed market town in the country’s south.

As the probationary officer from Sussex Police searched for suspects, the camera operator radioed that he had seen someone “acting suspiciously” in the area.

But he failed to realise that it was actually the plain-clothed officer he was watching on the screen, according to details leaked to an industry magazine.

The operator directed the officer, who was on foot patrol, as he followed the "suspect" on camera last month, telling his colleague on the ground that he was "hot on his heels".

The officer spent around 20 minutes giving chase before a sergeant came into the CCTV control room, recognised the “suspect” and laughed hysterically at the mistake.

You can read the rest of Constable hardys fine outstanding work here -



The news that the islamic terrorist Abu Quatada is not to be deported and released this week will horrify the majority of British people.

It has, so she says, horrified Theresa May the Home Secretary who says she will appeal (no doubt at great cost) to the judges.

This ugly thug who after entering our country on a false passport has cost us £millions in benefits and legal fees while preaching his hate, but has been allowed to stay by judges (unelected) under EU laws which have had their goalposts changed to allow such a ruling.

The government including the home secretary are supposed to act in our interests and ensure our safety. That is their job.
They should not allow themselves to be overridden by judges.

Human rights legislation is invoked to prevent him being sent back to his own country to face charges of terrorism even though the British government has the reassurance he will not face torture in his own country.

If he was a computer "nerd" working in his bedroom he would be sent back as they threaten to do with sending Gary McKinnon to the USA where he will probably not survive.

On "Human Rights" we have also rights.

We have the rights to be kept free from attack by those who wish to do so.

We have the right to object to paying taxes to fund the dross of the world and the lawyers who make a good living out of them.

We have the human right (denied) to say who we want in our country and even the right to not have to keep looking at their ugly faces.

WE HAVE THE HUMAN RIGHT to be masters in our own country, again denied.

It's time the Government acted in OUR interests for a change and sent him back.

They have the political power and that trumps the decisions of the EU or any other legal cabal.


Or are you too afraid of the Limp Dems or the EU or are you in hock to the overpaid traitors who call themselves judges?


It is currently unknown exactly how many youngsters have taken part in the scheme.

Parents say they have been forced to inspect their child's arm for any sign of the implant.

Health chiefs have defended sexual health services going into schools, saying teenage pregnancies had dropped by 22 per cent as a result.

But campaigners from the Family Education Trust say the implant fuels the flames of promiscuity by giving girls licence to have underage sex.

Norman Wells, director of the trust, has urged health chiefs to look at ways of discouraging sexual activity amongst children in the first place.

He said: "Schemes like these inevitably lead to boys putting pressure on girls to have sex.

"They can now tell their girlfriends: 'You can get the school clinic to give you an implant, so you don't have to worry about getting pregnant.'

"They'll tell them they don't have to face the embarrassment of going to see their doctor, and it's all confidential so their mum doesn't need to know a thing.

"Parents send their children to school to receive a good education, not to be undermined by health workers who give their children contraceptives behind their backs.

"Health authorities should be looking for ways of discouraging young people from engaging in sexual activity in the first place.

"The last thing they should be doing is fuelling the flames of promiscuity and the sexual health crisis with schemes that treat parents, the law and basic moral principles with contempt."

One mother, whose 13-year-old daughter was given the implant, has called the scheme "morally wrong".

She claimed the school had gone ahead without consulting their family doctor.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, said the pupils had to simply fill out a questionnaire about their medical history.

They then underwent a consultation with health experts before receiving the contraceptive but there was a lack of follow-up appointments.

She said: "I feel really angry about this.

"I agree that teaching teenagers about sexual health and contraception is very important but this is a step too far.

"To perform a minor surgical procedure on school grounds, without parents knowing is morally wrong.

"I'm told a long list of checks were made before she had this implant but how many 13-year-olds are aware of their full medical history?

"I cannot understand how this is allowed to happen.

"Teenagers have the right to protect themselves and she did the right thing by seeking advice but to not be checked after such a procedure is totally wrong.

"Luckily I now know but many other parents are unaware their daughter has one.

"I have spoken to a lot of parents at the school and they were horrified to find out this was happening.

"As parents we want to protect our children and I feel that has been taken away from me."

Alan Whitehead, Labour MP for Southampton Test, has now been asked to look into the matter.

He said: "This contraceptive implant clearly requires a surgical procedure which ought to be undertaken in suitable and appropriate conditions.

"I am not sure whether the services that are being offered at the moment enable this it happen and that is what I am going to be looking into."

Health chiefs have defended the scheme, insisting letters were sent to all parents at participating schools in 2009 when the service was launched.

It was then left to individual schools to inform parents of all future students joining, either by letter or in the prospectus.

They also say reports are showing that teenage pregnancies have dropped by 22 per cent since sexual health services went in to schools.

In Southampton there were as many as 136 pregnancies among 13 to 15 year olds in 2001 and 2003, this fell to 106 in 2007-2009.

A spokeswoman for Solent NHS Trust and NHS Southampton said: "We are committed to ensuring local young people are able to access clinically appropriate sexual health support.

"This helps them to avoid unwanted pregnancies and protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections.

"One element of this is commissioning a sexual health service for young people that is provided in nine secondary schools across the city.

"The service is provided by trained staff and includes offering information, advice and support to students.

"It also includes chlamydia screening, condom distribution, pregnancy testing, providing a range of contraception methods and referral to other services.

"Since the service was introduced there has been a reduction in the number of under 16-year-olds who have become pregnant.

"The service is provided by Solent NHS Trust which undertakes detailed medical assessments for all patients attending any sexual health clinic.

"In addition, all young people under the age of 16 who visit sexual health services receive a full risk assessment.

"This is over and above national guidance and meeting all legal requirements."



I'm puzzled.

After forever being told TWO COMPLETE LIES by the authorities, which actually if true should cancel one another out.


Do we?


Do we?

Surely if we need to replace our aged population then with the HIGHEST TEENAGE PREGNANCIES IN EUROPE (teenage also covers the ages of 16-20) we can easily replace our aged population.


Doesn't it make sense that if we have an ageing population that you would be trumpeting the HIGHEST TEENAGE PREGNANCIES IN EUROPE AS CURE TO AN AGEING POPULATION, Would you not?


Now I'm not talking about young teenagers at school, as they shouldn't be having sex or be given CONTRACEPTIVES to assuage any guilt or fear of getting pregnant but is being pushed into immoral behaviour at such an early age in schools by being given CONTRACEPTIVES AT 13, THAT'S ANOTHER EDUCATION FAIL FOR OUR YOUTH, WHO TEACHES OUR YOUTH, LOONY LEFTWING FUNDAMENTALISTS OR INDOCTRINATED IGNORAMUS'S MASQUERADING AS TEACHERS AS THEY DON'T KNOW THEY'RE INDOCTRINATED AS THEY KNOW NO DIFFERENT, IT'S ALL THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT AND TOLD.




Monday, 6 February 2012


Councils admit: 'we can't reveal our top earners, it's too costly'

Councils have refused government demands to identify staff earning more than £58,200 a year because there are so many it would be an “onerous burden”.

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, ordered councils last year to publish details of high-earning staff and any spending of more than £500.

He urged an “army of armchair auditors” to pore over the data, identify waste and hold local government to account.

But council chiefs said they had so many well-paid staff the cost of listing them and their responsibilities could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. They also said staff safety would be at risk if the public knew how much they earned.

Other councils claimed that taxpayers lacked the “evaluation skills” to decide whether spending was good value for money and would fall victim to “misunderstandings”. Several insisted there was little demand locally for information on how they spent public money.

Mr Pickles said that greater transparency “drives down costs, cuts out waste and enhances trust” in the political system.

“It’s quite frankly insulting and not credible to say the public won’t understand spending data put online,” he said. “This is about a number of vested interests trying to dodge the sunlight of ­transparency and cover up their expenditure.

“You have to ask, what have they got to hide? The statutory code came into force in September but it was disregarded by a number of councils, which only published the salaries of the topmost tier of management.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea said: “It is felt the threshold of £58,200 is too low.

"A fair proportion of a large authority’s workforce is likely to exceed this threshold and so publishing this data, including job descriptions, budgets, numbers of staff and responsibilities represents an onerous burden on already stretched resources.”

It and others have since released the data.

Nottingham city council told the Whitehall consultation: “We feel that it is important that individuals have the right not to be named. In some cases there may be potential personal safety issues.”

It has refused to publish spending of less than £25,000, claiming residents would suffer “data-overload” if it disclosed smaller transactions.

“It is not possible for citizens to judge value for money, necessity of expenditure etc from the information given,” it said.

Oldham council said: “The spending limit of £500 risks unnecessary scrutiny on irrelevant areas, which leads to inappropriate, vexatious and at times trivial requests for information which takes the focus off the big issues and priorities.”

It said that disclosing staff pay “could lead to harassment and questions of a perceived worth of an individual as opposed to a specific post”.

Essex county council said disclosing spending could “lead to misunderstandings and lack of trust”.

Kent county council said revealing staff pay would be “infringing their personal privacy”, adding: “It implies a 'name and shame’ culture rather than one where we value our staff.”

Leeds city council told the consultation disclosing salaries and spending could breach the council’s “intellectual property rights”.

Þ North Somerset council, which is under pressure to cut £47 million from its budget, is considering giving its 61 councillors either iPads or laptops at a cost of £450 each. It says the proposal will save money by reducing the cost of printing and posting documents.

Responses 'Onerous’ task of listing staff paid £58,200

Kensington and Chelsea: So many staff earning more than £58,200 listing them all would be an “onerous burden”.

Essex county council: Taxpayers would struggle to assess value for money and suffer “misunderstandings”.

Nottingham city council: Staff safety could be put at risk if the public knew how much they were paid.

Leeds city council: Releasing information could breach “intellectual property” rights.

Knowsley borough council: There is “little public interest” in seeing how money is spent.


This is what Council Leaders think of the Local Taxpayer.

The quicker you vote into Councils Councillors who are anything other than the Lib/Lab/Conned (were all the same party only different colours), preferably Nationalist councillors, and hold these CORRUPT SCUM to account.

Only your VOTE can change things unless you prefer VIOLENT REVOLUTION ?

The World According to Monsanto (FULL LENGTH)

Directed by Marie-Monique Robin
Review by Jeffrey M. Smith

How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can they inflict? The breathtaking new film, The World According to Monsanto, features a company that sets the new standard. From Iowa to Paraguay, from England to India, Monsanto is uprooting our food supply and replacing it with their patented genetically engineered creations. And along the way, farmers, communities, and nature become collateral damage.

The Gazette says the movie “will freeze the blood in your veins.” The Hour says it’s a “horrifying enough picture” to warrant “fury.” But most importantly, this critical film opens our eyes just in time.

The film is the work of celebrated award-winning French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, whose three years of work on four continents exposes why Monsanto has become the world’s poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology. Combining secret documents with accounts by victims, scientists and policy makers, she guides us through a web of misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. And we learn how the company systematically tricked governments into allowing dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods into our diet—with Monsanto in charge of determining if they’re safe.

Deception, Deception, Deception

The company’s history with some of the most toxic chemicals ever produced, illustrates why they can’t be trusted. Ask the folks of Anniston, Alabama, where Monsanto’s PCB factory secretly poisoned the neighborhood for decades. PCBs are Monsanto’s toxic oils used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years and are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. But Anniston residents have levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. They all know their levels, which they carry as death sentences. David Baker, who lost his little brother and most of his friends to PCB-related diseases such as cancer, says Anniston kids used to run up to him, report their PCB level and ask, “How long you think I got?”

Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company “knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors.” One Monsanto memo explains their justification: “We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business.”

Monsanto also produced the infamous Agent Orange, the cancer and birth-defect causing defoliant sprayed over Vietnam. It contaminated more than 3 million civilians and servicemen. But according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the Environmental Protection Agency, “thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits” because “Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [the main ingredient in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen.” But his EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had allegedly falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, “If they were done correctly, [the studies] would have reached just the opposite result.”

Secret documents stolen from the FDA also reveal serious health effects from Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, called rBGH or rBST. In particular, the amount of a powerful hormone called IGF-1 is substantially increased in milk from treated cows. Samuel Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, says that approximately 60 studies link IGF-1 to “breast, colon, and prostate cancers.”

Cancer is also implicated in Monsanto’s showcase herbicide, Roundup. According Professor Robert Bellé’s research showing disrupted cell division, “Roundup provokes the first stages that lead to cancer.” Bellé, who is with the National Center for Scientific Research and the Pierre and Marie Curie Institute in France, says, “The tested doses were well below those which people normally use.”

Monsanto has promoted Roundup as harmless to both humans and the environment. But their advertised environmental claims, such as “biodegradable,” “leaves the soil clean,” and “respects the environment,” were declared false and illegal by judges in both the US and France. In fact, Monsanto’s own studies showed that 28 days after application, only 2% of the product had broken down. They were forced to remove “biodegradable” from the label.

Above the law

When Monsanto’s transgressions are reported to authorities, somehow the company is magically let off the hook.

When Monsanto finally did share information on PCBs with the government, for example, Ken Cook says “instead of siding with the people who were being poisoned, [the government] sided with the company. . . . It was outrageous!” When William Sanjour’s EPA colleague, Cate Jenkins, asked the agency to review Monsanto’s flawed Agent Orange studies, Sanjour says, “there was no investigation of Monsanto. . . . What they investigated was Cate Jenkins, the whistleblower! They made her life a hell.”

When Richard Burroughs of the FDA held up approval of rBGH by demanding more rigorous and relevant testing, he was fired. He says, “They figured: ‘Well, if you’re in the way, we’ll get you out of the way.’. . . One day, I was escorted to the door and told that was it; I was done.” Senior government scientists at Health Canada testified that their superiors were pressuring them to approve rBGH and that Monsanto had offered them an alleged bribe of $1-2 million. The scientists were later reprimanded, punished, and eventually “dismissed for disobedience.” rBGH was never approved in Canada, Europe, and most industrialized nations.

When Professor Bellé went to his administration “to let the public know about the dangers” of Roundup herbicide, he was “ordered” not to communicate his findings “due to the GMO question lurking in the background.” That question about genetically modified organisms was in relation to Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops. Monsanto has the patent for 90% of the GMOs grown on the planet, and most of them are genetically modified specifically to tolerate applications of Roundup.

Corporate Coup d’état

Monsanto’s past manipulations were mere warm ups compared to the virtual government takeover used to approve GM foods. Author Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Foundation for Economic Trends, says, “I have never seen a situation where one company could have so much overwhelming influence at the highest levels of regulatory decision making.”

The problem Monsanto faced was that GMOs are inherently unsafe. They can create dangerous side effects. That was the overwhelming consensus by FDA scientists, according to 44,000 agency documents made public from a lawsuit. But the most important document, FDA’s official policy, claimed that GMOs were not substantially different. They were granted the status “Generally Recognized as Safe,” even though they failed to meet the normal criteria. Thus, no safety testing is necessary. If Monsanto declares their GM products safe, the FDA has no further questions.

Former FDA biotech coordinator James Maryanski admits on camera that the GMO policy “was a political decision,” not scientific. In fact, FDA political appointee Michael Taylor was in charge of the policy. Taylor was formerly Monsanto’s attorney and later their vice president.

Monsanto’s people regularly infiltrate upper echelons of government, and the company offers prominent positions to officials when they leave public service. This revolving door has included key people in the White House, regulatory agencies, even the Supreme Court. Monsanto also had George Bush Senior on their side, as evidenced by footage of Vice President Bush at Monsanto’s facility offering help to get their products through government bureaucracy. He says, “Call me. We’re in the ‘de-reg’ business. Maybe we can help.”

Monsanto’s influence continued into the Clinton administration. Dan Glickman, then Secretary of Agriculture, says, “there was a general feeling in agro-business and inside our government in the US that if you weren’t marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow, you were anti-science and anti-progress.” He admits, “when I opened my mouth in the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I got slapped around a little bit.”

Unlike Glickman, FDA’s Maryanski tries in vain to convince filmmaker Robin that GMOs are safe and that US regulation is adequate. But Robin had conducted four months of intensive internet research examining declassified documents, leaked internal files, scientific studies, trial transcripts, articles, and first hand accounts of whistleblowers. She was prepared.

In a priceless sequence, the film alternates between Maryanski’s assurances and public interest attorney Steven Druker reading formerly secret memos by agency scientists, describing the serious health damage that GMOs may cause. When Robin repeats these same quotes to Maryanski, he resorts to uncomfortable stuttering, stammering, and backtracking. When he ultimately tries to dismiss genetic engineering as completely safe, Robin nails him. She reads to Maryanski his own words from a 1991 memo in which he acknowledged that genetic engineering of a food supplement called L-tryptophan in the 1980s may have been responsible for a deadly epidemic that killed dozens and caused thousands to fall sick or become disabled.

Suppressing evidence of harm, attacking GMO scientists

When Monsanto’s GM crops hit American farm fields in 1996, virtually no safety studies had been published. The pro-GM UK government decided to commission Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the world’s leading scientist in his field, to design rigorous safety testing protocols that would convince a skeptical public to embrace GM foods. When Pusztai fed GM potatoes to rats, however, they developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, a damaged immune system, and inhibited growth of major organs. Moreover, Pusztai’s work implicated the generic process of genetic engineering itself as the cause. That is, any GM food already on the market might create the same problems in humans.

When Pusztai went public with his concerns, he was praised for his “wonderful work” by his director at the prestigious Rowett Institute. But according to a colleague, “two phone calls from Downing Street [the home of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair] to the director” resulted in Pusztai’s sudden dismissal after 35 years. His protocols were shelved and he was the target of a relentless smear campaign, designed to destroy his reputation while promoting that of GMOs.

UC Berkeley Professor Ignacio Chapela was also targeted after he published evidence that GM corn had cross-pollinated with indigenous Mexican varieties, forever contaminating “the world’s genetic reservoir of corn.” Just after his research was published in Nature, Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting false accusations on a biotech forum website, recruiting scientists to inundate the publication with demands to retract the study. When anti-GMO campaigner Jonathan Matthews analyzed the technical headers on the two’s emails, he traced Smetacek to a Monsanto computer, and Murphy to their PR firm. The two were apparently fictitious characters created to stir things up. Matthews says, “There’s no ethics at all in what’s going on here. It shows an organization that is determined to push its products into countries around the world and it’s determined to destroy the reputation of anybody who stands in their way.”

Monster corn and contamination by design

The film explores an ominous new development in Mexico that has yet to be reported in the scientific literature. Mutated and bizarrely shaped corn plants have been found “along the roadside or in people’s yards” or fields. Community organizer Aldo Gonzales says, “They are really monsters!” And whenever analyzed, the monsters turn out to be genetically engineered. Local scientists believe that when GM corn cross-pollinates with traditional varieties, some genetic effect disturbs the offspring.

One Mexican farmer realized the implications. “If we don’t manage to stop their spread in our fields, soon we’ll be forced to buy our corn seed because our own won’t work anymore?” Gonzales wonders if the contamination was intentional. He says, “Contamination only benefits multinationals like Monsanto.”

Intentional contamination of another sort appears to have happened in Paraguay, as illegal Roundup Ready seeds were smuggled in before GMOs were approved. Roberto Franco, Paraguay’s Deputy Agriculture Ministry, tactfully admits, “It is possible that [Monsanto], let’s say, promoted its varieties and its seeds” before they were approved. “We had to authorize GMO seeds because they had already entered our country in an, let’s say, unorthodox way.”

Once approved, large agribusinesses bought huge tracts and cut down the rainforest to plant vast Roundup Ready soybean fields. The GMOs allow them to spray by plane or mechanical spreader; to farm without farmers. Peasants who had worked the land for generations are forced out—100,000 each year leave rural areas to live in the shanty towns of the cities. In one small farm community that is holding out next to a soy field, sprayed Roundup kills their livestock and crops, and sickens their children.

Destroying farmers

US family farmers also feel the heat. Troy Roush is one of hundreds accused by Monsanto of illegally saving their seeds. The company requires farmers to sign a contract that they will not save and replant GM seeds from their harvest. That way Monsanto can sell its seeds—at a premium—each season.

Although Roush maintains his innocence, he was forced to settle with Monsanto after two and a half years of court battles. He says his “family was just destroyed [from] the stress involved.” Many farmers are afraid, according to Roush, because Monsanto has “created a little industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers’ lives.”

Massive farmer suicides

In many countries where Monsanto monopolizes the seeds of certain crops, they eliminate non-GMO choices to force farmers to buy GM varieties. In India, for example, where Monsanto pushes their pesticide-producing Bt cotton, “there was no non-BT hybrid seed available in the market,” says agronomist Kiran Sakhari.

Farmers had to borrow heavily to pay four times the price for the GM varieties, along with the chemicals needed to grow them. In spite of glowing promises of higher yields by Monsanto’s ads, Bt cotton often performs poorly. Tragically, tens of thousands of indebted desperate farmers have resorted to suicide, often drinking unused pesticides. In one region, more than three Bt cotton farmers take their own lives each day.

Replacing Nature: “Nothing Shall Be Eaten That We Don’t Own”

Monsanto is the world’s largest seed company and many are concerned. Troy Roush says, “They are in the process of owning food, all food.” Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, “Its objective is to control all of the world’s food production.” Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, “If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs; it’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world.”

The World According to Monsanto is aptly named. It is about Monsanto seeking to recreate the world in its own image, for its own benefit. They intend to replace (and patent) the entire food supply. And since their genetic pollution self-propagates in the environment, it will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.

Such widespread permanent influence may not be safe with any individual or company. With Monsanto’s record, the results can only be catastrophic.

This powerful documentary might just inspire a global rejection of Monsanto’s plans for our world. If so, it will be the most important film in history.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, and director of The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America.

The World According to Monsanto is co-produced by the National Film Board of Canada, ARTE France, Image & Compagnie, WDR, and Les Productions Thalie.

Saturday, 4 February 2012


India tells Britain: We don't want your aid

India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.


Mr Mukherjee’s remarks, previously unreported outside India, were made during question time in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament.

“We do not require the aid,” he said, according to the official transcript of the session.

“It is a peanut in our total development exercises [expenditure].” He said the Indian government wanted to “voluntarily” give it up.

According to a leaked memo, the foreign minister, Nirumpama Rao, proposed “not to avail [of] any further DFID [British] assistance with effect from 1st April 2011,” because of the “negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID”.

But officials at DFID, Britain’s Department for International Development, told the Indians that cancelling the programme would cause “grave political embarrassment” to Britain, according to sources in Delhi.

DFID has sent more than £1 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to India in the last five years and is planning to spend a further £600 million on Indian aid by 2015.

“They said that British ministers had spent political capital justifying the aid to their electorate,” one source told The Sunday Telegraph.

“They said it would be highly embarrassing if the Centre [the government of India] then pulled the plug.”

Amid steep reductions in most British government spending, the NHS and aid have been the only two budgets protected from cuts.

Britain currently pays India around £280 million a year, six times the amount given by the second-largest bilateral donor, the United States. Almost three-quarters of all foreign bilateral aid going to India comes from Britain. France, chosen as favourite to land the warplane deal, gives around £19 million a year.

Controversial British projects have included giving the city of Bhopal £118,000 to help fit its municipal buses and dustcarts with GPS satellite tracking systems. Bhopal’s buses got satellite tracking before most of Britain’s did.

In India, meanwhile, government audit reports found £70 million had disappeared from one DFID-funded project alone.

Hundreds of thousands of pounds was spent on delivering more than 7,000 televisions to schools — most of which did not have electricity. Few of the televisions ever arrived. A further £44,000 of British aid was allegedly siphoned off by one project official to finance a movie directed by her son.

Most aid donors to India have wound down their programmes as it has become officially a “middle-income country,” according to the World Bank.

However, Britain has reallocated its aid spending to focus on India at the expense of some far poorer countries, including the African state of Burundi, which is having its British bilateral aid stopped altogether from next year.

The decision comes even though India has a £6 billion space programme, nuclear weapons and has started a substantial foreign aid programme of its own. It now gives out only slightly less in bilateral aid to other countries than it receives from Western donors.

Supporters of British aid say that India still contains about a third of the world’s poor, with 450 million people living on less than 80p a day. DFID says its programmes — which are now focused on the country’s three poorest states - save at least 17,000 lives a year and have lifted 2.3 million people out of poverty since 2005.

The junior development minister, Alan Duncan, said last week that cutting off British aid to India “would mean that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, will die who otherwise could live.”

However, Mr Mukherjee told the parliament last August that foreign aid from all sources amounted to only 0.4 per cent of India’s gross domestic product. From its own resources, the Indian government has more than doubled spending on health and education since 2003.

Last year, it announced a 17 per cent rise in spending on anti-poverty programmes. Though massive inequalities remain, India has achieved substantial reductions in poverty, from 60 per cent to 42 per cent of the population in the last thirty years.

Emma Boon, campaign director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It is incredible that ministers have defended the aid we send to India, insisting it is vital, when now we learn that even the Indian government doesn’t want it.”

As long ago as 2005, MPs on the international development select committee found that India “seems to have become increasingly tired of being cast in the role of aid recipient.” In their most recent report on the programme, last year, they said that British aid to the country should “change fundamentally,” with different sources of funding. The report praised a number of DFID projects, but questioned others.

As well as the Indian government, many other Indians are sceptical about British aid. Malini Mehra, director of an Indian anti-poverty pressure group, the Centre for Social Markets, said aid was “entirely irrelevant” to the country’s real problems, which she said were the selfishness of India’s rich and the unresponsiveness of its institutions.

“DFID are not able to translate the investments they make on the ground into actual changes in the kind of structures that hold back progress,” Ms Mehra said.

“Unless we arouse that level of indignation and intolerance of the situation, aid will make no difference whatsoever.”

Mr Mitchell last night defended British aid, saying: “Our completely revamped programme is in India’s and Britain’s national interest and is a small part of a much wider relationship between our two countries.

“We are changing our approach in India. We will target aid at three of India’s poorest states, rather than central Government.

“We will invest more in the private sector, with our programme having some of the characteristics of a sovereign wealth fund. We will not be in India forever, but now is not the time to quit.”

DFID declined to comment on why it had asked the Indian government to continue with a programme it wanted to end.



Couldn't think of a better reason why not to stop all Foreign Aid (BRIBE) to India and to spend this money on OUR OWN BRITISH BUSINESSES.