A LOCAL BLOG SUPPORTING THE BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIGENOUS BRITISH PEOPLE AND ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE OF WIGAN AND LEIGH IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM, THE TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT AND FOR OUR BIRTHRIGHT. - "NO FOREIGN PRINCE, PERSON, PRELATE, STATE OR POTENTATE HATH, OR OUGHT TO HAVE, ANY JURISDICTION, POWER, SUPERIORITY, PRE-EMINENCE, OR AUTHORITY, ECCLESIASTICAL OR SPIRITUAL, WITHIN THIS REALM" (ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS 1689)
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.
So Theresa, FOR ONCE SHOW YOU ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE INDIGENOUS BRITS.
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?
After forever being told TWO COMPLETE LIES by the authorities, which actually if true should cancel one another out.
1) WE HAVE AN EVER INCREASING AND AGEING POPULATION ?
Do we?
2)WE HAVE THE HIGHEST TEENAGE PREGNANCIES IN EUROPE ?
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.
But we are NOT BEING ALLOWED TO REPLACE OURSELVES, if we do then we have to get into ABORTIONS, DAY AFTER PILL, MADE TO LOOK LIKE A FREAK ON JEREMY KYLE (BELITTLE THE WHITE SCUM WHO DARE TO HAVE CHILDREN WHEN THEY ARE YOUNG), you know the CHAVS, or LAYABOUTS, SINGLE MOTHERS (blame that on the DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY UNIT) so TAKE THEIR KIDS OFF THEM.
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?
Instead we don't encourage the birth of the INDIGENOUS POPULATION we IMPORT IMMIGRANTS TO FILL THE PLACES OUR YOUTH SHOULD FILL BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH YOUTH, IT'S THE HIGHEST TEENAGE PREGNANCIES IN EUROPE YOU SEE.
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.
I wonder if WIGANS TWO LABOUR MPs COULD CLEAR MY CONFUSION UP ?
WHAT IS IT -
THE HIGHEST TEENAGE PREGNANCY'S IN EUROPE (should mean we have a plentiful supply of OUR OWN PEOPLE TO REPLACE) AN AGEING POPULATION (we should have a lowering of our AGEING POPULATION due to the HIGH INDIGENOUS BIRTHS to these TEENAGE MOTHERS (HIGHEST IN EUROPE), and if OUR YOUTH are NOT REPLACING OUR AGED WHY ?
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 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 ?
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.
In a display of touching gratitude for our gift of billions of pounds in aid the Indian government has repaid us by threatening to buy inferior French war planes rather than ones made by British Aerospace.
Not many months ago Cameron was stating that aid was good for our economy and would help our exports. This has now been shown to be untrue.
No doubt the French used some jiggery pokery to get the order. Their government of whatever colour ALWAYS puts the French interest first however deceitful the methods needed to be employed.
OUR government on the other hand likes to "play the game" and display its caring and multicultural credentials in foreign affairs. The last delegation which was supposed among other things to have promoted the aircraft sale was heavily infiltrated with Asian people promoted above their abilities and only on account of the colour of their skin.
What did the Indians think about thuis display of neo colonialism?
Obviously nothing.
So why do we demean ourselves and donate money we have to borrow (£40 million per day) to a country with more billionaires than we have and who own large parts of British industry?
Because Cameron wants to show his fluffy careing credentials to all and sundry, and a fat lot of good it has done him.
As my wife's mother used to say "proffered goods stink". They are not appreciated.
When I was a child a relation of mine was given sixpence to by a kind shopkeeper to buy some sweets. She promptly took the money to the shop next door which she said had better sweets.
So giving is not always reciprocated especially when the gift is not asked for.
I however prefer to donate to charities of my own choosing and at my discretion and not to be compelled to by taxes.
So what should our reaction to this gross ingratitude be?
STOP ALL AID TO INDIA.
The money saved (a billion pounds) could be spent on projects which benefit us and our industry.
Reduce national insurance costs on our manufacturing industries, thus making them more competitive in international trade.
This policy could be replicated with all the foreign aid projects which unacceptible as they are are made even worse by the fact that the money does not go to the intended poor as was stated by an Indian last night but are syphoned off by corrupt officials both in the recipient countries and those administrating these funds here.
We, as a country can compete on equal terms with any others but we are beset by regulations and taxes which dilutes our competitiveness internationally.
There are too many ways we could rescue our industries and jobs to be detailed here but on this topic, if the £13 billion of borrowed money squandered on this unappreciated foreign aid was diverted to manufacturing in our country thus giving us a return on our investment we would be in a better position to face the financial armageddon which threatens us.
Our government is supposed to look after our interests not those of others. That is what a nationalist government would do.
The government must know what they are doing. If not they are not fit to govern.
If they do know they are--
TRAITORS, and with luck will face justice in the future and a justice more severe than that meted out to the ex Sir Fred Goodwin, for they have damaged our country far more.
