Miko Peled Part 1

1. Why a "two state" solution is a fantasy that will never happen

2. Why one state - with democracy for all - is the solution just as Switzerland and Belgium managed to pull disparate nations together

3. How Israel rules its territory and why, given how it operates today, it is a racist, terrorist state

4. "The most shameful day in the history of the Jewish people" - and it took place not long ago

5. Why Israel will never attack Iran (only an idiotic US can be drawn into such a misadventure)

Note: To all the "Israel-as-it-is uber alles" folks, I could not possibly be less interested in reading your ravings. Save your keystrokes. Watch the videos and learn something.

Your position that Israel is entitled to carry on any way it pleases without adhering to international law and basic human decency is morally indefensible. 

ZIONISTS MURDER BRITISH SOLDIERS 1946

Zionist Bombing In Jerusalem 1946 

 

 

 ZIONIST JEWS THE WORLDS FIRST TERRORISTS.

 What do Britains "Friends of Israel think about that ?

Labour Friends of Israel

Chair
Andrew Gwynne MP
Vice Chairs
Andrew Dismore MP
Louise Ellman MP
Gary Titley MEP

Policy Council
Stephen Byers MP (Chair)
David Blunkett MP
Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Adam Ingram MP
Denis MacShane MP
Alun Michael MP
Don Touhig MP

Convenor
Anne Snelgrove MP

Parliamentary Executive
Fabian Hamilton MP
Sharon Hodgson MP
Joan Humble MP
Eric Joyce MP
Ashok Kumar MP
Stephen Ladyman MP
Andrew Miller MP
Dan Norris MP
Nick Palmer MP
Terry Rooney MP
Dari Taylor MP

Chair (House of Lords)
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

Peers
Lord Archer of Sandwell
Lord Clarke of Hampstead
Lord Clinton-Davis
Lord Davies of Coity
Lord Glenamara
Lord Haskel
Lord Janner of Braunstone
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
Lord Mitchell
Lord Turnberg
Professor Lord Winston
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC

Conservative Friends of Israel

Director
Stuart Polak

Political Director
Robert Halfon

Projects Director
Stephanie Leven,

Research Manager
Nathalie Tamam,

Secretary
Julie Tamir,

Membership Secretary
Charlotte Polak,

Parliamentary Group
Chairman
James Arbuthnot MP

Vice Chairmen
Sir John Butterfill
James Clappison MP
Secretary
David Amess MP

Officers
Alistair Burt MP
Lee Scott MP
Theresa Villiers MP

Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel Europe
Timothy Kirkhope MEP
Honorary Officers
President
Baroness Shephard of Northwold

Vice Chairmen
Jeremy Galbraith
Betty Geller
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Stanley Cohen
Michael Heller

Vice Presidents
Sir Timothy Sainsbury
Lord Lane of Horsell
Sir Michael Latham
Lord Sanderson of Bowden
Lord Steinberg
Lord Thomas of Gwydir

Executive Board
Richard Harrington (Chairman)
Lance Anisfeld
Lorraine da Costa
Jonathan Gough
Andrew Heller (Hon. Treasurer)
Steven Kaye
Edward Lee
Howard Leigh
Stephen Massey
David Meller
Jonathan Metliss
Gary Mond
Stephan Shakespeare
Barry Welck
Hilda Worth

Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel

President
Sir Alan Beith MP

Chair
Cllr Monroe Palmer

Vice-Chair
Gavin Stollar

Secretary
Matthew Harris

Treasurer
Alexander Gilbert

Policy and Research Officer

THIS IS WHY YOU NEED TO VOTE

Scientist that Discovered GMO Health Hazards Immediately Fired, Team Dismantled

Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.

Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world’s most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland’s prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for  public hearing.

But rather than be praised for their honest assessment into this genetically-tampered potato, Pusztai and his colleagues were chastised by industry-backed government authorities, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose office was discovered to have secretly contacted RRI just hours after Pusztai and his team announced the results of their study on television. For speaking the truth, Pusztai was immediately fired from his position, and his team dismissed from their positions at the school.

Research out of Egypt finds similar results – GMOs cause severe, long-term health damage

As reported recently in Egypt Independent, similar research by Hussein Kaoud from Cairo University‘s Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene also made some fascinating, though politically incorrect, discoveries about the effects of GMOs on the body. After feeding nine groups of rats varying combinations of GM soy, corn, wheat, and canola, Kaoud and his team observed that these genetic poisons clearly obstructed the normal function of the animals, affirming Pusztai’s research.

 

“I recorded the alteration of different organs, shrinkage of kidneys, change in the liver and spleen, appearance of malignant parts in the tissues, (and) kidney failure and hemorrhages in the intestine,” said Kaoud about the effects of GMOs as observed in the test rats. “The brain functions were touched as well, and the rats’ learning and memory abilities were seriously altered.”

In Kaoud’s case, his groundbreaking findings will soon be published in the respected journals Neurotoxicology and Ecotoxicology. But it remains to be seen whether or not the scientific community at large, which is heavily influenced by biotechnology interests, and the political structures that control it will accept the results as valid,  or pull a similar character assassination on Kaoud and his team as punishment for defying the status quo.

What all this clearly illustrates, of course, is that modern science can hardly be considered the independent, truth-seeking, “gold standard” of interpreting and understanding reality that many people mistakenly think it is. The truth about GMOs, as uncovered by mounds of independent research, is that they are inadequately safety tested, at best, and deadly at worst. But this fact remains shrouded in deception, thanks to the corporatized, pro-GMO culture of mainstream science.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/11/23/scientist-that-discovered-gmo-health-hazards-immediately-fired-team-dismantled/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

VILE RACIST FOREIGNER ATTACKS INNOCENT LONE WHITE WOMAN FROM BEHIND - RACIST ATTACKS AGAINST WHITES CONTINUE UNABATED

ANOTHER PIECE OF SCUM THE TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT, BANKS, LOCAL COUNCILS, LOCAL POLICE, THE JUDICIARY, SCHOOLS, so called CHRISTIAN LEADERS (Satanists) ETC ALLOWED INTO THIS COUNTRY without asking the INDIGENOUS POPULATION if they wanted to be replaced inin the Country OUR ANCESTORS FOUGHT VALIANTLY TO KEEP. 

Our time will come, slowly, slowly, slowly the People are waking up and their anger builds until one day the pressure gets too much and then BEWARE ALL THOSE LISTED ABOVE. It won't be the Immigrants who will bear the brunt, well not at first.
Everyone one who has facilitated, promoted end encouraged Immigration shall be the first ones to PAY THEIR TRAITOROUS DUE.

Then we will go for the IMMIGRANTS/FOREIGNERS.
Every single PASSPORT, Right to Reside, Human Rights to Family LIfe, Foreign Criminals will all be REPATRIATED.
For those who want to go a Generous resettlement Package will be offered to those willing to go.

Then a check on all Immigrants who have entered the country since 1997 will have their Passports and Risidency REMOVED.
Those who argue on Human Rights to their "RIGHT TO FAMILY LIFE" Doesn't give them ANY HUMAN RIGHTS that the family has to live in Britain.
If it's true love they will not hesitate to leave Britain and go and live in the Mother Country of the Immigrant/Foreigner they fell in love with.
There they can live their lives according to their laws and customs, considering they hate British Culture and want to have their culture DOMINATE OURS.

WE allow the WORLDS MOST EVIL AND PSYCOPATHIC  FOREIGNERS TO LIVE IN OUR COUNTRY WITHOUT EVEN THE COURTESY TO CHECK THEIR BACKGROUND THOUROUGLY.

No wonder our Pensioner lie terrified at night unable to sleep,
Our Children are being Violently Racially and Verbally attacked on a daily basis,  Groomed, plied with Drugs and Alchol by Muslim Paedophile Grooming Gangs who are taken to seedy rooms where Pakistani men of ALL AGES, from 20 - 70 are raping, gang raping, pimping out and, in certain cases MURDERING OUR CHILDREN (See Charlene Downes, Kriss Donald, Gavin Hopley, Mark Clayton, ).
The Government, Police, the SS social service (very much like the nazi SS), are all involved.
GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIARY PAEDOPHILES ARE FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT PAEDOPHILE  RING.
JIMMY SAVILE, FIND OUT WHO HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH.

Whilst all this goes on, and all we do is NOTHING, then why should the PTB care.
They know we won't do anything as the BRITISH ARE NOW COWARDS, TERRIFIED IN THE HOMELAND OF THEIR ANCESTORS.

A COUNTRY FIT FOR FOREIGN FILTH.

PAEDOPHILE INNUEND0 AND THE SOHAM MURDERS -

Paedophile innuendo & the Soham murders: Something for the wannabe censors to think about.

 

When he was Home Secretary, David Blunkett discovered how disastrous the benefit of the doubt could be. Had Alistair McAlpine been Home Secretary at the time, what would he have done?

 

Ian Huntley…why was his past erased?

What follows is a disturbing tale of how ignoring circumstancial evidence and doubtful acquittal may have led to the deaths of two little girls, Holly Marie Wells and Jessica Aimee Chapman. They were murdered in the village of Soham, Cambridgeshire on 4 August 2002. The girls passed the home of local school caretaker Ian Kevin Huntley, who called them into his house and then murdered them. In December 2003 he was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with the High Court later setting a minimum term of 40 years.
After Huntley was convicted, it was revealed that he had been investigated in the past for sexual offences, but had still been allowed to work at Soham School  – as none of these investigations had resulted in a conviction.
This much many British citizens already know. But what most of them will not know is how potentially fuzzy and misleading the phrase ‘had still been allowed to’ actually is. And to learn more about this, we have to go back to a past involving Huntley…..and a local Labour Party bigwig on Humberside.

--------------

 The key figure in this case is a former social worker and Labour Councillor on Humberside called Colin Inglis (Above). When a 29 year old care home social worker in the 1980s, Inglis was accused of sexually assaulting a teenage boy. It never came to anything, but then in 1997, Inglis’s physical advances towards a teenage boy in the Spring Cottage care home were the subject of a further investigation. No charges were preferred.
Then on 4th December 2005, he was charged on 14 counts of indecent assault in relation to allegations of child abuse from his social worker period. And the trial was to say the least controversial – not least because, by now, Colin Inglis had managed to get himself elected as  a Labour Councillor…having along the way somehow become the Chairman of Humberside police authority.
Partway through the trial, Inglis was cleared of eight of the charges on the orders of the judge.

At the end of an epic trial, the jury cleared him of a further charge in little more than two hours. But it took considerably longer for them to arrive at a verdict – a majority verdict – on the five other charges. He was found Not Guilty. These five charges related to a man now 37 years old and a financial adviser. But the jury was not told that the complainant was among a number of other people who had made allegations against Inglis at the time.
I have no doubt that the merry band on the McAlpinite Committee investigating Innuendoist Activities would dismiss all this as scare-mongering smear tactics upon Colin Inglis. And they might have a case, were it not for two vital facts: first, Inglis had a close relationship with the top cop involved in the Soham murders, David Westwood. Second, Huntley had an abuse record as long as your arm that coincided with Inglis’s time in the same social worker/police authority where Huntley lived.
In August 1995, when Huntley was 21 years old, a joint investigation was launched by police and social services in Grimsby, after a 15-year-old girl admitted that she had been having sex with Huntley. Police did not pursue the case against Huntley in accordance with the girl’s wishes. But in March 1996, Huntley was once again investigated over allegations of having sex with an underage girl. Again he was not charged.
A month later, Huntley was investigated yet again over allegations of underage sex, but this allegation too did not result in a charge. The same outcome occurred the following month when he was investigated over allegations of having sex with a 13-year-old girl.
In April 1998, Huntley was arrested on suspicion of raping a woman. He admitted having sex with the woman but claimed it was consensual. The police decided not to charge Huntley.
In July 1998, Huntley was investigated by the police on allegations that he indecently assaulted an 11-year-old girl in September 1997. However, he was never charged, though in April 2007 he confessed that he attacked the girl. He was investigated over allegations of rape on a 17-year-old woman in February 1999, but no charges were made against him.
Now in law, of course, this means nothing more than suspicion. But when a third factor emerged later, the case went beyond any suggestion of mere suspicion: it became a catalogue of at best wilful stupidity by the authorities.

---------------

The final astonishing episode in this tale occurred when the Home Secretary during the time of the Soham murders, David Blunkett, received a full report on the Enquiry about what went wrong in relation to the school’s seemingly mad decision to employ psychopath Ian Huntley. We are now in 2004 – nearly two years after the tragic deaths of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. On reading the report documentation, Mr Blunkett  immediately demanded the resignation of a top cop related to the case, David Westwood. Here’s why: the Enquiry criticised his Humberside Police force for deleting information relating to previous allegations against Huntley.
As if this isn’t bad enough – that is, the placement of former Humberside Police Authority Chairman Colin Inglis firmly in a frame of potential conspiracy to pervert justice – Mr Inglis and his colleagues now effectively told the Home Secretary to shove his request for Westwood’s dismissal. Furious, Blunkett announced that he would take legal action if Humberside Police Authority didn’t carry out his request to suspend him. Amazingly, the police authority had the brass neck to yet again ask David Blunkett ‘to reconsider his decision to order the suspension of David Westwood’.
Westwood had to go, and did. But this particular aspect of the case is creepy for one overriding reason: here we have a man with a history of sex abuse allegations and half-hearted acquittals to his name openly defying a Home Secretary insisting on the departure of a police associate whose force had conspired to erase crucial evidence about the past of a man who, soon afterwards, became one of the most infamous child-killers in British history.
It is creepy, I would contend, because clearly Colin Inglis had no fear at all of potential retribution.
In the aftermath of these murky circumstances, it has been the assumption of many people associated with this case that Huntley’s girlfriend Maxine Carr was the key to him going unsuspected. Her failure to expose Huntley’s lies in the early stages of the investigation (and donation of a false alibi) meant that police initially eliminated Huntley as a suspect. But as we can see, what’s emerged since – following more thorough piecing together of the facts over many years – is that without help of a different kind beforehand, Huntley would never have been let near Soham school in the first place. And had that happened, Holly and Jessica would almost certainly still be alive.

---------------

Circumstancial or not, the nature of this case has all the classic hallmarks of crony assistance in gaining employment, and then cover-up afterwards. The weakness of the vetting system which allowed Huntley to get a caretaker’s job at a school – despite four separate complaints about him reaching social services -   was shown up when Humberside Police (where all the alleged offences had taken place) stated that they believed that it was unlawful under the Data Protection Act to hold data regarding allegations which did not lead to a conviction. The Chairman of the police authority at this time was…..Colin Inglis.
That interpretation was and is total bollocks. It was roundly contradicted by other police forces who thought it ‘too strict an interpretation of the Act’. It feels to me, eleven years on, like a false passport allowing Ian Huntley to go about his ghastly work.
Neither I nor anyone else remote to events is in a position to make an unqualified accusation here. But some very, very disturbing questions remain. Not only that, the trail is just warm enough in 2012 – with enough people still alive – to ascertain the value or otherwise of these queries..if the Establishment flesh is willing. They are:
1. How did Inglis (with dark grey clouds over him about sex abuse) gain election to the post of Chairman of the Humberside Police Authority…or indeed any other position in public life?
2. Did Inglis have any dealings with Huntley during his social worker or CPA terms? If so, what were they?
3. How did Huntley evade capture and incarceration as an obvious sex-pest during the overlap period between his offences and the CPA rule of Inglis?
4. Why didn’t David Blunkett – a man familiar with Yorkshire Labour politics – look more thoroughly into the uniquely negative response of Inglis to his demand for Westwood’s head?
5. What exactly was the relationship between David Westwood and Colin Inglis, and why was the latter so desperate for the police constable to remain in place?
6. How on earth did the Labour Party then allow Colin Inglis to go on to become Lord Mayor of Hull? (On on 1 May 2008, he topped the poll in the Myton Ward of Hull to return to the Council, and in 201o he became Lord Mayor of the City.)
But the most fishy bit of this tale of a Hull infamous for its smell of piscean food processing came in this very year, 2012. For the ever-rhinoceros-skinned Colin Inglis tried to become one of the newly invented PCCs for Humberside.
However, on March 14th he was dumped from the Labour ticket as a prospective police and crime commissioner. Incredibly, a ‘source close to Inglis’ told the local media, “Colin will be bitterly disappointed by this. It is a snub, and it seems very strange that a man of his experience within the politics of policing hasn’t been put on the longlist.”
Perhaps we should look into the strange mentality of the source who thought rejecting a dubious bloke like Inglis for the PCC job was strange. Perhaps we should look into why Labour Big Beast John Prescott (who got the nomination) was then humiliatingly defeated in the ensuing contest. But most of all, we should definitely look very closely indeed at why the local Labour mafia flatly refused to comment on why it had firmly rejected the application of Colin Inglis at the longlist stage.

-------------

We are now at the lessons-drawing conclusions stage of this piece.
I fully agree with Lord McAlpine that baseless accusation and wild speculation in the media are things to be discouraged. However, where I differ from the pools-winning Peer is on the question of where informed hypotheses end and innuendos begin. You see, I have no desire to convict on the basis of hearsay and gossip…even though the BBC has effectively been convicted on the basis of threatened rather than actual litigation. No, what I would like is for those accompanied by very thick circumstancially paedophiliac clouds to be denied access to care system and educational institutions. Not sent to prison: just barred from access to children’s front or back bottoms and little willies.
The problem as I see it is this. As the case history above suggests very strongly, there is a discouraging silence among the police, local politicians, social workers and higher authorities when it comes to (a) discovering the background of applicants for positions allowing child access and (b) working out why and how – time and again – an odd alliance between those authorities seems to at best obfuscate or at worst eradicate WTF happened.
Now, were the information playing-field level, it would be a matter of simple analysis to establish these facts, and thus the use of innuendo, smear and pernicious suggestion could be banned from these islands. But the data pitch is about as level as the north face of the Eiger. So given the uncertain nature of this data-collection context, it seems to me a bit of a no-brainer that – for the purposes of judging an individual’s suitability for employment – billowing clouds of throat-assaulting smoke should be accepted as evidence of fire.
It is of course vital to retain a scrupulous focus on complete fairness in serious legal cases: ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is a fundamental tenet of any enlightened judicial system. But what those who so blindly support a blanket ban on all informed speculation forget is that, in many ways, sexual abuse of a child is almost the perfect crime when it comes to evading justice.
There are rarely any witnesses. The victims are often seen as fanciful…a perception hardened by spread of the pernicious psychiatric theory of ‘false memory syndrome’. It is an adult’s word against an immature child’s. Inventing a case for childish vengeance is not that dificult. As we saw in the case of Huntley, the police are wary of it as an area of crime. The kids themselves are traumatised and convinced they’ve been punished: in many cases, they have no grounds for judging the degree of abnormality involved, but they do in turn have a natural desire not to tell parents if they feel they have been bad in some way.
And of course last but not least, the defendant’s previous behaviour record is inadmissable as evidence.
Many McAlpinites would still regard the speculation as unsafe. But I can guarantee to all of them that not a single sane parent in Britain would object to overwhelming doubts being applied negatively to access vetting.
In short, as the law is often a complete ambulance-chasing ass, it is vitally important for procedures outside the Courts to err on the highly conservative side of decision-making in this regard. Particularly given the alleged proclivities of some Conservatives. And without wishing to labour the point vis-a-vis balance, especially give the quirky sexual desires of some Labour local politicians.
As I have said from Day One of this utterly gross episode in British socio-political history, Jimmy Savile got away with being a serially destructive pervert because far too many people either looked the other way, or gave him the benefit of the doubt. I have never tried to suggest that Lord McAlpine having a sexually deranged second-cousin is in any way a guide to Alistair’s own carnal preferences. But I would respectfully suggest that one man’s reputation versus the deaths of two young children is something of a no-brainer.

Hat Tip to John ward @

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/paedophile-innuendo-the-soham-murders-something-for-the-wannabe-censors-to-think-about/

 

  

 

NOT GRATEFUL TO US FOR FIGHTING THEIR BATTLES IN WWII THE POLISH MINISTER NOW THREATENS BRITAIN

Britain entered WWII after going to the aid of Poland after the country was attacked by Germany who wanted to Reclaim Prussia which was taken by Poland after WWI.

Why we had to sacrifice British soldiers lives for Poland I still don't know the answer.

But now, the Country we sent OUR MOTHERS,FATHERS, BROTHERS,SISTERS TO FIGHT AND DIE FOR NOW ATTACK BRITAIN WITH VEILED THREATS -

"In the Telegraph, London Mayor Boris Johnson writes that he has “absolutely no doubt” that David Cameron will veto demands for an EU budget increase. Writing in the Guardian, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski argues that in the event of a deal not being reached, “under annual budgets, payments for agriculture would increase – hardly a boost to innovation or better spending”. He warns that “We need more British common sense in the EU, but Britain also needs friends. An important test of our friendship is coming up.”"

Thanks to open europe for pointing this out.

Do our European neigbours recognise that Britain is now Corrupted and Broken and would struggle to defend itself against attack,(mainy due to FOREIGNERS being placed in positions of Power and Influence over the INDIGENOUS POPULATION) and now see us not as Friendly Ally but a weakened Country and Race and are now THREATENING US.