We had a really great day out yesterday in Leigh and watched them win in style against Whitehaven.
Unfortunately Leigh have nevertheless been relegated. If they had played as well as they did yesterday through the season they would have avoided this fate.
However the future beckons and I'm sure they will be promoted at the end of next season.
Knowing his strong support for his constituency I had hoped to see the esteemed MP and Health Secretary Andy Burnham at this vital match.
Alas he was nowhere to be seen.
Today when questioned about his absence on television while visiting a new NHS school academy in Wythenshaw (whatever that is),I believe he said that the people of Leigh must stick together.
He did not seem to show his feelings of solidarity yesterday as shown by his absence.
In reality I did not expect to see him. Leigh is just a meal ticket to him.
He has no real allegiance to the town. He could be representing any other until now safe seat. He is just a government lackey, allegiance to the Labour Party and himself but not the people.
I'll bet when election time comes he will be seen all over the town.
With luck it will be too late for him, a sham campaigner from a discredited government.
After the match we went to a club and were AMAZED at the support for the BNP there.
You'd better show your commitment to Leigh a bit more Mr Burnham or you may be in for a shock next year.
Monday, 7 September 2009
AT WHAT AGE DOES A HUMAN BEING BECOME RACE-CONSCIOUS?
How about six months?
In other words, before they can understand a word, and years before they have had any interaction with anyone of a different race. And this is pretty much all children. One can only suppose black babies are the same, but in reverse.
The BNP is given a hard time for being race-conscious. You’d think they’d start by giving a hard time to their own children first, wouldn’t you. Fancy that – criticizing us for doing what even their own babies do as a matter of course.
So ignore the idiots who criticize you, and all of the BNP, for being race-conscious, because it’s perfectly natural to prefer your own kind … just like any other species on this planet. It’s just the way nature works.
Read - it's fascinating
Morg
.
In other words, before they can understand a word, and years before they have had any interaction with anyone of a different race. And this is pretty much all children. One can only suppose black babies are the same, but in reverse.
The BNP is given a hard time for being race-conscious. You’d think they’d start by giving a hard time to their own children first, wouldn’t you. Fancy that – criticizing us for doing what even their own babies do as a matter of course.
So ignore the idiots who criticize you, and all of the BNP, for being race-conscious, because it’s perfectly natural to prefer your own kind … just like any other species on this planet. It’s just the way nature works.
Read - it's fascinating
Morg
.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
A MOTLEY BUNCH OF FOOLS.
Apologies for the poor quality of this picture but it represents the quality of the people pictured.
Many in Wigan will have been unaware of this momentous meeting of political giants which took place at a local Labour Club recently. I was informed about the meeting but had a prior engagemant which prevented me from questioning these tireless campaigners for the people of Wigan.
Recognisable even in this picture is the ubiquitous ex Cllr Franzen who has still refused my challenge to a debate.
His co pannellists include a muslim woman and according to the blurb, representitives from the Socialist Workers Party and the Respect Party.
Ex Cllr Franzen, the furher of the CAP in Wigan seems to have peculiour allies for one who proclaims his allegiance to the "community" in Wigan.
What has a muslim woman got to do with our community? How many of that religion live here?
Which community does ex Cllr Franzen represent, those who have been replaced in their jobs by immigrants or those who wait endlessly on council waiting lists for a house only to be leapfrogged by asylum seekers whose cause he seems to endlessly promote?
Why is he associated with the Socialist Workers Party (surely a contradiction in terms) which attacks us, the BNP, with claw hammers, which has a policy of "British Jobs for British Workers" as a policy? Does he object to this policy or is his community based elsewhere?
Which workers is he trying to protect? certainly not the British Workers.
The Respect Party is party to this violence but it seems only respects views which co incide with its own. Not much respect for other views then.
Why was Dave Nellist invited when he is too extreme even for the Labour Party?
I don't know whether his wealthy friend George Galloway turned up, he was probably in his villa in Portugal, nor do I know how many attended this epic meeting. I have had no reports of crowds in Enfield Street trying to get in.
No I'm sorry ex Cllr Franzen the people of Wigan do not like you. You are too abrasive and your views too extreme and you DO NOT PUT WIGANERS FIRST which I would have thought was imperative even for an ex councillor.
The people of Wigan can see where your sympathies lie and they are not with them and that is why YOU WERE BOOTED OUT.
Many in Wigan will have been unaware of this momentous meeting of political giants which took place at a local Labour Club recently. I was informed about the meeting but had a prior engagemant which prevented me from questioning these tireless campaigners for the people of Wigan.Recognisable even in this picture is the ubiquitous ex Cllr Franzen who has still refused my challenge to a debate.
His co pannellists include a muslim woman and according to the blurb, representitives from the Socialist Workers Party and the Respect Party.
Ex Cllr Franzen, the furher of the CAP in Wigan seems to have peculiour allies for one who proclaims his allegiance to the "community" in Wigan.
What has a muslim woman got to do with our community? How many of that religion live here?
Which community does ex Cllr Franzen represent, those who have been replaced in their jobs by immigrants or those who wait endlessly on council waiting lists for a house only to be leapfrogged by asylum seekers whose cause he seems to endlessly promote?
Why is he associated with the Socialist Workers Party (surely a contradiction in terms) which attacks us, the BNP, with claw hammers, which has a policy of "British Jobs for British Workers" as a policy? Does he object to this policy or is his community based elsewhere?
Which workers is he trying to protect? certainly not the British Workers.
The Respect Party is party to this violence but it seems only respects views which co incide with its own. Not much respect for other views then.
Why was Dave Nellist invited when he is too extreme even for the Labour Party?
I don't know whether his wealthy friend George Galloway turned up, he was probably in his villa in Portugal, nor do I know how many attended this epic meeting. I have had no reports of crowds in Enfield Street trying to get in.
No I'm sorry ex Cllr Franzen the people of Wigan do not like you. You are too abrasive and your views too extreme and you DO NOT PUT WIGANERS FIRST which I would have thought was imperative even for an ex councillor.
The people of Wigan can see where your sympathies lie and they are not with them and that is why YOU WERE BOOTED OUT.
AND ABOUT TIME TOO
Just click on this and have a read that will make you happy, if only for today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6823364.ece
Morg
.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6823364.ece
Morg
.
Friday, 4 September 2009
TALES FROM THE No 10 FUHRERBUNKER
ESTABLISHMENT 'COLLUDING IN PLIGHT OF SICK MAN BROWN'?
"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us "In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled." Three years ago, an Opposition MP told nby "He is on extremely heavy doses of cutting-edge anti-depressants, but so far they have made little difference". And during the last fortnight, another high-ranking government source claimed "He is now on pills which restrict the foods he can eat and what he can drink. He is losing the sight of his good eye quite rapidly. It's a mess, and nobody knows what to do".
Rumours have circulated about Gordon Brown's health for a number of years. As long ago as 2004, Simon Heffer wrote in the Spectator that he displayed many signs of Asperger's syndrome: humourlessness, lack of irony and obsessional behaviour patterns. Nby itself ran a long piece in February 2007, predicting fairly accurately how Brown's rigid responses to given situations would prove to be inappropriate, and his behaviour in the end dysfunctional. We noted at the time 'If the Labour Party can organise seventy-three signatories to a document of intent named 'Anyone but Gordon', then there must be something about the man which might make him unfit to be Prime Minister'. In fact, we had already been advised by then that the PM had been on large doses of SSRI anti-depressants - the class of drugs derived from Prozac.
The overall story is well known in lobbyist circles. A senior member of this group told us that "Brown is in a very dark place. Sarah [hiswife, Mrs Brown] has begged him on several occasions to seek help, but he resists most offers of advice." Yet another popular journalist said "I'm afraid all the stories about him throwing things around and screaming at secretaries are entirely true. He behaves impeccably in public and can really turn on the charm when he needs to in private - but inside the bunker he behaves appallingly. He's also binging on junk food late at night - you can see he's gaining weight".
However, our investigation suggests that there is a more important reason for the PM's weight gain: he is now on a different class of drugs, for which ballooning weight is one of the least dangerous side-effects.
These drugs are called Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs). Before the arrival of Prozac derivatives, they were the first line of attack when dealing with severely depressed patients. But a senior physician told us last month "A GP would have to be insane to prescribe MAOIs these days - SSRIs are safer, with far fewer side-effects. Apart from anything else, it's almost impossible to get hold of them".
This is indeed correct. In 2003, SKB withdrew their MAOI brand-leader Parnate because of the dangers it represented, and also because SSRIs had none of the disadvantages. However, at the time several regional mental health units reported that for some patients, SSRIs were nowhere near as effective.
Thus there is evidence that, having tried and seen no help from the newer generation of drugs, Gordon Brown has now been put onto MAOIs. If this is true, then he is indeed in a desperate state - as we shall explain.
This evidence was handed to us inadvertantly. The senior source referred to at the start of this piece mentioned "the latest nonsense - a huge list of things he can't eat or drink because of the drugs he's on...most importantly, cheese and Chianti". Every doctor in Britain would recognise these contraindications instantly: for they are the two great verbotens for people taking MAOI drugs.
As long ago as 2001, prescribing psychiatrists described MAOIs as 'the last resort now we have better drugs'. However, for all their downsides (several thousand people around the world have died as a result of ignoring the dietary advice re MAOIs) this older class of drugs has one huge advantage: for severe depression and obsessive compulsive disorder it remains very effective.
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is relatively common. Most of us display some obsessive features in everyday life, but under stress a minority of people become borderline or actual OCD in their behaviour, and need medication to control both this and the depression which almost always presents soon afterwards. The most obvious symptom is a compulsive need to carry out functions such as hand-washing or counting almost incessantly. (The Asperger's syndrome 'Rain Man' personality displays these too, but the two conditions are easily separable on other bases. Our view is that Brown has OCD, not Asperger's syndrome.)
Gordon Brown's symptoms are obvious when viewed in this light: the constant repetition of phrases, and an almost embarrassing (for his Party) need to spray every Parliamentary answer with statistics. Lifting out of poverty, the Tories are the do-nothing Party, global problems require global solutions - these and myriad others have been repeated over and over ad nauseam. Equally, the six million lifted out of poverty, twelve million helped by mortgage benefits, two million new jobs created: when interrogated, these figures often prove to be illusory, but they - and the constant speech repetition - represent Brown's unconscious means of controlling the severe anxiety that accompanies depression with OCD.
We have no means (as yet) of proving his use of MAOIs, although the 'long list of forbidden foods'
is the nearest one will get to a smoking gun - short of a written, signed diagnosis or prescription. We also cannot be certain how long the PM has been taking them, but the remark 'the latest nonsense' suggests that this is a relatively recent development. On average, a heavy dose of MAOI therapy would start to display some results within twenty days to six weeks. Gordon Brown has reportedly returned from 'easily his longest break from Downing Street' feeling 'very much refreshed and up for it'. It is more than likely he took the uncharacteristically long break on medical advice. And it will be interesting to note whether his behaviour changes.
One feature unlikely to change is the increasingly obvious difficulty he has finding his way to and from podiums, and lack of peripheral vision. This (according to a senior, medically-trained source) is the result of failing sight in the one eye he has left. We found so many confirmations of this story from so many sources, it seems to us impossible for it to be pure invention. It appears to be universally recognised in the Cabinet and upper echelons of the Civil Service.
So: here we seem to have a man (unless huges cadres of non-colluding senior people are liars) on a rarely used, dangerous drug to control his mental state - and getting close to a stage of serious disablement in relation to his eyesight. As this would clearly make any such person wholly unfit to fulfil the Premiership - especially in the dangerous, broken world we now inhabit - why hasn't the story broken more widely? Why hasn't the Opposition leapt on it? In answering this question, we need to delve into the murkier waters of Gordon Brown's psyche - and the cynical guessing-game that passes for public service in the House of Commons....on all sides.
Brown rules by fear and smear. He always has done, and it is the main thing he is known (and hated) for in the Labour Party. A former Cabinet Minister told nby in early 2008 "Nobody ran against Gordon because nobody could face the slur, innuendo and blackmail that would go with it. When he gets going, Brown and his little coterie of spinners are animals". Several similar observations appeared in national newspapers during late 2007. There has also remained the rumour that even Blair himself eventually fell foul of this, and left not of his own volition but as a result of threats from the Brown camp. That must remain as conjecture: but given his alleged track record of not entirely legal actions, Blair would have had a lot to be frightened about.
The PM evokes a certain degree of loyalty from close confidantes, but the main reason why no Brown staffer has broken ranks is that this would mean the end of the meal-ticket: either Brown would fall, or he would deny...and bury the whistle-blower. Luncheon Vouchers are also behind the remaining silence in the Parliamentary Party as a whole. Two senior Lobby correspondents have confirmed to us in the last three weeks that "even the most anti-Brown camp think there's no alternative to Brown". Nearly all Labour backbenchers now expect a rout, but think that if Brown were ousted they would be wiped out. Comically, the exact opposite view pertains in the Tory Shadow Cabinet, where "they're so terrified of Labour dumping Brown, they'd do anything to leave him precisely where he is".
This bears further examination on a number of levels. Three of our sources confirmed the general view that the parlous state of Brown's health is well-known among Conservative bigwigs. That they collude in an allegedly dangerously ill man remaining in charge of Government (purely to ensure their own victory) is selfish cynicism of the worst kind - and a damning charge to which, if and when the truth of this matter comes to light, they will have no defence. It also reinforces the electorate's feeling that senior Cameron Tories are woefully lacking in confidence - or convincing alternatives to what the Government is doing.
As to whether Brown is a liability or an asset for voters, the latest poll (30.8.09) in the Guardian showed that Brown's ratings have actually fallen as 'signs' of economic green shoots have become apparent. In short, when it comes to the Machiavellian 'keep him where he is' strategy, New Labour have called it wrong. As ever, they are probably being too clever for their own good.
Perhaps more disturbing is the passive political bias (and dereliction of Constitutional duty) represented by the obvious collusion in any cover-up about the Prime Minister's health problems throughout the senior ranks of the Civil Service. One of the main sources of this story told us, "It's a farce, and utterly disgraceful. There isn't a mandarin in Whitehall who's unaware of Brown's condition - they tittle-tattle the tale wherever they go, dining out on their inside knowledge, and yet won't lift a finger to bring it to the public's attention. We are being let down at every turn by the spineless Establishment running this country".
One can appreciate how a similar situation developed from 1935 onwards in relation to the King's relationship with Mrs Simpson. But it is hard to understand why the press - especially the right-wing press - haven't had a harder go at nailing this story in 2009. The tabloids are too busy shouting threats into celeb letter-boxes, and the more liberally inclined papers may well share the New Labour view that loyalty is their duty at this stage of the game; but that seems unlikely - and what of Dacre at The Mail, or the Telegraph, still fresh from its huge success in blowing the lid off the expenses scandal?
The answer usually comes back 'there's no physical evidence, and it's an easy story to deny - to dismiss as just another anti-Brown smear campaign'. But perhaps the clues about MAOI usage by the Prime Minister make it much harder to deny....and much easier to get written confirmation. For if it's true, Brown's entourage must be sending out strict dietary requirements ahead of his regularly catered public engagements; one could even monitor what he eats on such occasions.
Not Born Yesterday lacks both the sources and resources to do this job. The sole purpose of this piece is to get matters to a stage where the story is out in the public domain, such that the real people who count in Britain - the voters - can make their own minds up about it. And - who knows? - to create a situation in which the Opposition might at last do its duty, and question the PM's fitness for office on these well-known (if not as yet well-documented) bases.
©2009 Not Born Yesterday and John Ward.
Blatantly ripped off from here:
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/09/sick-man-of-europe.html
Morg
.
"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us "In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled." Three years ago, an Opposition MP told nby "He is on extremely heavy doses of cutting-edge anti-depressants, but so far they have made little difference". And during the last fortnight, another high-ranking government source claimed "He is now on pills which restrict the foods he can eat and what he can drink. He is losing the sight of his good eye quite rapidly. It's a mess, and nobody knows what to do".
Rumours have circulated about Gordon Brown's health for a number of years. As long ago as 2004, Simon Heffer wrote in the Spectator that he displayed many signs of Asperger's syndrome: humourlessness, lack of irony and obsessional behaviour patterns. Nby itself ran a long piece in February 2007, predicting fairly accurately how Brown's rigid responses to given situations would prove to be inappropriate, and his behaviour in the end dysfunctional. We noted at the time 'If the Labour Party can organise seventy-three signatories to a document of intent named 'Anyone but Gordon', then there must be something about the man which might make him unfit to be Prime Minister'. In fact, we had already been advised by then that the PM had been on large doses of SSRI anti-depressants - the class of drugs derived from Prozac.
The overall story is well known in lobbyist circles. A senior member of this group told us that "Brown is in a very dark place. Sarah [hiswife, Mrs Brown] has begged him on several occasions to seek help, but he resists most offers of advice." Yet another popular journalist said "I'm afraid all the stories about him throwing things around and screaming at secretaries are entirely true. He behaves impeccably in public and can really turn on the charm when he needs to in private - but inside the bunker he behaves appallingly. He's also binging on junk food late at night - you can see he's gaining weight".
However, our investigation suggests that there is a more important reason for the PM's weight gain: he is now on a different class of drugs, for which ballooning weight is one of the least dangerous side-effects.
These drugs are called Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs). Before the arrival of Prozac derivatives, they were the first line of attack when dealing with severely depressed patients. But a senior physician told us last month "A GP would have to be insane to prescribe MAOIs these days - SSRIs are safer, with far fewer side-effects. Apart from anything else, it's almost impossible to get hold of them".
This is indeed correct. In 2003, SKB withdrew their MAOI brand-leader Parnate because of the dangers it represented, and also because SSRIs had none of the disadvantages. However, at the time several regional mental health units reported that for some patients, SSRIs were nowhere near as effective.
Thus there is evidence that, having tried and seen no help from the newer generation of drugs, Gordon Brown has now been put onto MAOIs. If this is true, then he is indeed in a desperate state - as we shall explain.
This evidence was handed to us inadvertantly. The senior source referred to at the start of this piece mentioned "the latest nonsense - a huge list of things he can't eat or drink because of the drugs he's on...most importantly, cheese and Chianti". Every doctor in Britain would recognise these contraindications instantly: for they are the two great verbotens for people taking MAOI drugs.
As long ago as 2001, prescribing psychiatrists described MAOIs as 'the last resort now we have better drugs'. However, for all their downsides (several thousand people around the world have died as a result of ignoring the dietary advice re MAOIs) this older class of drugs has one huge advantage: for severe depression and obsessive compulsive disorder it remains very effective.
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is relatively common. Most of us display some obsessive features in everyday life, but under stress a minority of people become borderline or actual OCD in their behaviour, and need medication to control both this and the depression which almost always presents soon afterwards. The most obvious symptom is a compulsive need to carry out functions such as hand-washing or counting almost incessantly. (The Asperger's syndrome 'Rain Man' personality displays these too, but the two conditions are easily separable on other bases. Our view is that Brown has OCD, not Asperger's syndrome.)
Gordon Brown's symptoms are obvious when viewed in this light: the constant repetition of phrases, and an almost embarrassing (for his Party) need to spray every Parliamentary answer with statistics. Lifting out of poverty, the Tories are the do-nothing Party, global problems require global solutions - these and myriad others have been repeated over and over ad nauseam. Equally, the six million lifted out of poverty, twelve million helped by mortgage benefits, two million new jobs created: when interrogated, these figures often prove to be illusory, but they - and the constant speech repetition - represent Brown's unconscious means of controlling the severe anxiety that accompanies depression with OCD.
We have no means (as yet) of proving his use of MAOIs, although the 'long list of forbidden foods'
is the nearest one will get to a smoking gun - short of a written, signed diagnosis or prescription. We also cannot be certain how long the PM has been taking them, but the remark 'the latest nonsense' suggests that this is a relatively recent development. On average, a heavy dose of MAOI therapy would start to display some results within twenty days to six weeks. Gordon Brown has reportedly returned from 'easily his longest break from Downing Street' feeling 'very much refreshed and up for it'. It is more than likely he took the uncharacteristically long break on medical advice. And it will be interesting to note whether his behaviour changes.
One feature unlikely to change is the increasingly obvious difficulty he has finding his way to and from podiums, and lack of peripheral vision. This (according to a senior, medically-trained source) is the result of failing sight in the one eye he has left. We found so many confirmations of this story from so many sources, it seems to us impossible for it to be pure invention. It appears to be universally recognised in the Cabinet and upper echelons of the Civil Service.
So: here we seem to have a man (unless huges cadres of non-colluding senior people are liars) on a rarely used, dangerous drug to control his mental state - and getting close to a stage of serious disablement in relation to his eyesight. As this would clearly make any such person wholly unfit to fulfil the Premiership - especially in the dangerous, broken world we now inhabit - why hasn't the story broken more widely? Why hasn't the Opposition leapt on it? In answering this question, we need to delve into the murkier waters of Gordon Brown's psyche - and the cynical guessing-game that passes for public service in the House of Commons....on all sides.
Brown rules by fear and smear. He always has done, and it is the main thing he is known (and hated) for in the Labour Party. A former Cabinet Minister told nby in early 2008 "Nobody ran against Gordon because nobody could face the slur, innuendo and blackmail that would go with it. When he gets going, Brown and his little coterie of spinners are animals". Several similar observations appeared in national newspapers during late 2007. There has also remained the rumour that even Blair himself eventually fell foul of this, and left not of his own volition but as a result of threats from the Brown camp. That must remain as conjecture: but given his alleged track record of not entirely legal actions, Blair would have had a lot to be frightened about.
The PM evokes a certain degree of loyalty from close confidantes, but the main reason why no Brown staffer has broken ranks is that this would mean the end of the meal-ticket: either Brown would fall, or he would deny...and bury the whistle-blower. Luncheon Vouchers are also behind the remaining silence in the Parliamentary Party as a whole. Two senior Lobby correspondents have confirmed to us in the last three weeks that "even the most anti-Brown camp think there's no alternative to Brown". Nearly all Labour backbenchers now expect a rout, but think that if Brown were ousted they would be wiped out. Comically, the exact opposite view pertains in the Tory Shadow Cabinet, where "they're so terrified of Labour dumping Brown, they'd do anything to leave him precisely where he is".
This bears further examination on a number of levels. Three of our sources confirmed the general view that the parlous state of Brown's health is well-known among Conservative bigwigs. That they collude in an allegedly dangerously ill man remaining in charge of Government (purely to ensure their own victory) is selfish cynicism of the worst kind - and a damning charge to which, if and when the truth of this matter comes to light, they will have no defence. It also reinforces the electorate's feeling that senior Cameron Tories are woefully lacking in confidence - or convincing alternatives to what the Government is doing.
As to whether Brown is a liability or an asset for voters, the latest poll (30.8.09) in the Guardian showed that Brown's ratings have actually fallen as 'signs' of economic green shoots have become apparent. In short, when it comes to the Machiavellian 'keep him where he is' strategy, New Labour have called it wrong. As ever, they are probably being too clever for their own good.
Perhaps more disturbing is the passive political bias (and dereliction of Constitutional duty) represented by the obvious collusion in any cover-up about the Prime Minister's health problems throughout the senior ranks of the Civil Service. One of the main sources of this story told us, "It's a farce, and utterly disgraceful. There isn't a mandarin in Whitehall who's unaware of Brown's condition - they tittle-tattle the tale wherever they go, dining out on their inside knowledge, and yet won't lift a finger to bring it to the public's attention. We are being let down at every turn by the spineless Establishment running this country".
One can appreciate how a similar situation developed from 1935 onwards in relation to the King's relationship with Mrs Simpson. But it is hard to understand why the press - especially the right-wing press - haven't had a harder go at nailing this story in 2009. The tabloids are too busy shouting threats into celeb letter-boxes, and the more liberally inclined papers may well share the New Labour view that loyalty is their duty at this stage of the game; but that seems unlikely - and what of Dacre at The Mail, or the Telegraph, still fresh from its huge success in blowing the lid off the expenses scandal?
The answer usually comes back 'there's no physical evidence, and it's an easy story to deny - to dismiss as just another anti-Brown smear campaign'. But perhaps the clues about MAOI usage by the Prime Minister make it much harder to deny....and much easier to get written confirmation. For if it's true, Brown's entourage must be sending out strict dietary requirements ahead of his regularly catered public engagements; one could even monitor what he eats on such occasions.
Not Born Yesterday lacks both the sources and resources to do this job. The sole purpose of this piece is to get matters to a stage where the story is out in the public domain, such that the real people who count in Britain - the voters - can make their own minds up about it. And - who knows? - to create a situation in which the Opposition might at last do its duty, and question the PM's fitness for office on these well-known (if not as yet well-documented) bases.
©2009 Not Born Yesterday and John Ward.
Blatantly ripped off from here:
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/09/sick-man-of-europe.html
Morg
.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
The news that the Party may be forced to change its constitution to include non Caucasians has caused a great deal of consternation which was of course the intention of the Equalities Commission.
The joy of that body in my opinion is premature.
They think our main opponents are black and asian people when in reality the people who are most against us and whom we must fight are the Marxist Left who under the guise of Common Purpose seek to destroy our country and subsume it into the grater Europe Fascist state.
One only has to note the colour of the scruffy demonstrators against our events to see that they are all (apart from ugly Weyman) white.
It seems that ethnics are not overly concerned by our constitution unless paid by the state.
So why is this requirement being imposed on our party?
Because the State is in fear of our progress.
It is said that ethnics could infiltrate our Party and take it over. A moments thought would show that white Brits could much more easily infiltrate us and they have done but have eventually been detected. How much more difficult therefore would it be for a black man to do so.
I know of several mixed race people, born in this country and believing in our ideals who wish to join the Party for the best of reasons but are prevented from doing so by our present rules. I have been told by Asians that they agree with our policies.
The main criterion for membership I believe is an acceptance of our policies and FULL integration into our way of life.
This would exclude muslims and people not born here.
The policies of the Party would not change nor would they need to. If anyone did not agree with our policies they would be expelled as is the case in other parties.
It would show that we are NOT a racist party and thus deprive the UAF of ammunition and show them up for what they are, anti British traitors.
I believe this ruling could be a blessing in disguise and gain us support, votes and money and lead us eventually to power which after all is the ultimate aim.
The" Law of Unintended Consequences "springs to mind. Remember the leaking of the list was meant to weaken us but we gained members after it.
Far from destroying us I think it will strengthen us in our fight to get rid of the other corrupt parties and unite all those who wish a better and more prosperous independent Britain.
The joy of that body in my opinion is premature.
They think our main opponents are black and asian people when in reality the people who are most against us and whom we must fight are the Marxist Left who under the guise of Common Purpose seek to destroy our country and subsume it into the grater Europe Fascist state.
One only has to note the colour of the scruffy demonstrators against our events to see that they are all (apart from ugly Weyman) white.
It seems that ethnics are not overly concerned by our constitution unless paid by the state.
So why is this requirement being imposed on our party?
Because the State is in fear of our progress.
It is said that ethnics could infiltrate our Party and take it over. A moments thought would show that white Brits could much more easily infiltrate us and they have done but have eventually been detected. How much more difficult therefore would it be for a black man to do so.
I know of several mixed race people, born in this country and believing in our ideals who wish to join the Party for the best of reasons but are prevented from doing so by our present rules. I have been told by Asians that they agree with our policies.
The main criterion for membership I believe is an acceptance of our policies and FULL integration into our way of life.
This would exclude muslims and people not born here.
The policies of the Party would not change nor would they need to. If anyone did not agree with our policies they would be expelled as is the case in other parties.
It would show that we are NOT a racist party and thus deprive the UAF of ammunition and show them up for what they are, anti British traitors.
I believe this ruling could be a blessing in disguise and gain us support, votes and money and lead us eventually to power which after all is the ultimate aim.
The" Law of Unintended Consequences "springs to mind. Remember the leaking of the list was meant to weaken us but we gained members after it.
Far from destroying us I think it will strengthen us in our fight to get rid of the other corrupt parties and unite all those who wish a better and more prosperous independent Britain.
PARTY TRAITORS AND A FOOL OF A JUDGE
I used to hold Sadie Graham in high regard until she foolishly in a fit of pique broadcast on the blog her disagreements with some members of the Party.
We all have people who we like or dislike but the Party is more important than any individual.
Differences of opinion should be discussed PRIVATELY.
OK it was Matt Single who published the list but it was in the keeping of Sadie.To do so was irresponsible in view of the problems it was bound to cause to individual members and the party as a whole and makes me wonder whether they ever had the Party's interests at heart.
HOWEVER the paltry fine meted out by the judge shfor this crime and his subsequent comments showed how much the judiciary has been politicised.
To say that"there may be some members who do not deserve to be protected by the law" is the antithesis of impartiality.
There would have been an outcry if a judge had said that members of other parties, asylum seekers, thieves or drug dealers should not have the protection of the law. It shows that the judiciary treat us as second class citizens as ordered by their undemocratic masters.
The other statement that he was surprised that Matt Single claimed job seekers allowance because he prides himself on his Britishness, disregards the fact that wrong as he was he had previously paid into the system unlike many new arrivals to our country and was thus entitled to do so.
Yes they do consider our members as second class citizens for what?
Our crime? To work for the salvation of our country and its people. We have not hurt or bombed anyone nor have we given away our hard earned assets nor again sent our soldiers to fight in illegal wars.
This case is just another demonstration of the contempt in which the ruling classes hold our people and country.
The case against our constitution I will comment on later but suffice it to say that they will NEVER defeat us and our struggle for OUR rights goes on.
We all have people who we like or dislike but the Party is more important than any individual.
Differences of opinion should be discussed PRIVATELY.
OK it was Matt Single who published the list but it was in the keeping of Sadie.To do so was irresponsible in view of the problems it was bound to cause to individual members and the party as a whole and makes me wonder whether they ever had the Party's interests at heart.
HOWEVER the paltry fine meted out by the judge shfor this crime and his subsequent comments showed how much the judiciary has been politicised.
To say that"there may be some members who do not deserve to be protected by the law" is the antithesis of impartiality.
There would have been an outcry if a judge had said that members of other parties, asylum seekers, thieves or drug dealers should not have the protection of the law. It shows that the judiciary treat us as second class citizens as ordered by their undemocratic masters.
The other statement that he was surprised that Matt Single claimed job seekers allowance because he prides himself on his Britishness, disregards the fact that wrong as he was he had previously paid into the system unlike many new arrivals to our country and was thus entitled to do so.
Yes they do consider our members as second class citizens for what?
Our crime? To work for the salvation of our country and its people. We have not hurt or bombed anyone nor have we given away our hard earned assets nor again sent our soldiers to fight in illegal wars.
This case is just another demonstration of the contempt in which the ruling classes hold our people and country.
The case against our constitution I will comment on later but suffice it to say that they will NEVER defeat us and our struggle for OUR rights goes on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)