10:10 Climate Change Death Threat Video

This is the NASTY 10:10 climate change death threat video.  Produced by film director Richard Curtis who is married to and works with Emma Freud,  great-granddaughter of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Her younger brother is Matthew Freud, the husband of Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth Murdoch.



Don't tell me these people are stupid or do not understand the power and meaning of this production.  It sends a deep subliminal message; a serious threat.  Very nasty and very dangerous.

It looks like it backfired - the 10:10 campaign took down the video and 'apologised' for its content, but I would have thought they could have worked-out the stupidity of the theme from the outset.

I am crediting them with a modicum of brains I know, but my suspicion is:

a) they knew the video would have to be pulled but between times it would make a splash and draw the subject a greater level of attention than if it was just scientific and balanced.

b) they wanted to make a subliminal violent threat to people - especially children - to make them fear the social consequences of not accepting and submitting to the great GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.  They made fully considered death threats to children.

Teaching our children 'man-made climate change' theory in school is political indoctrination - not science.  And the problem is exacerbated by teachers who think it is fact based rather than conceive, even momentarily, that they are teaching a false and faulty theory.

If they talk about CO2 induced climate change they should also discuss with equal gravity the detail and arguments against the theory.  But they do not even start to understand the real science AND POLITICS behind the subject they pontificate on.

They lap-up the ready-made resources and spew them out as facts.



Here is another video, this was paid for by OUR GOVERNMENT.



This advert was directed specifically at our children. I tell a lie. This is not OUR GOVERNMENT any-more - it is just a part of the governmental enforcement arm of the global corporate, we are set to become tax slaves and CO2 taxation is how they intend to sell this rubbish to the human herd.


Here is another paid for by the UN who will be taking the carbon taxes and building their planned world government with this funding:




Here is one from PlaneStupid (a fully infiltrated stooge organisation) again aimed squarely at children:




This is a joyous contribution from Greenpeace - this lad needs more sleep:

Why We Should Keep Our Bank Cheque Books

Cheques are a powerful tool.  They enable 'people', non-banking enteritis or non-states, to 'create' money - just on the power the note/cheque promises to fulfil.  If someone you trust enough offers you a 'post-dated' cheque you prospectively will accept it; if that is in your interest.  This could be done with a simple letter - effectively a promissory note - but with a cheque the simple mechanism is in place to easily realise the money - pay in into your bank and draw cash - whenever the date and payee name is valid.

In theory people could use trusted 'open' cheques (with no payee named and maybe undated) to trade and barter without paying the cheque into a bank, just so long as the cheque's issuer is trusted by each party who in turn accept it (effectively a demand promissory note). This indeed once happened with counter-signed Banker's Drafts, they would often change hands until banks started to refuse to accept the counter signing as valid (on grounds of fraud prevention) and now do not issue drafts at all.

If the next step of government is to remove 'cash' from society and use various auditable and identifiable means of electronic payment devices in its place, that is all fine-and-dandy apart from for the black economy - transactions that are done 'for cash'.

With the advent of 'digital cash' what will replace paper-money/cash in the black economy?  Gold?  Bags of dope?  Signed cheques from enteritis who have an established creditworthiness (trust) in the public mind?

Call me suspicious because I do suspect there is an underside to this motion: to end the use of cheques. And I suspect my synopsis above is not so far from that truth; that it is all about making people find tax-avoidance progressively harder to carry-out. (and bank cashless-transaction charges no doubt).

See: Promissory note - From Wikipedia

See: Bills of Exchange Act 1882

An example of a 'trusted open note/cheque' would be shopping vouchers for say Tesco or Waitrose, postage stamps, etc. I would accept a few of those right now.

But we can only replace cheques if we still are 'allowed' - by the state - to have cash! 
See: Is a cashless society on the cards?

On the other hand; the people will do much better to revert to our own form of currency.  Since our money already is not actually issued by government at all; it is all raised through the banking system and is 'taxed' therefore by interest charges and inflation (a 'tax' that goes directly to the issuing bank).

Gold is one option for underpinning state-free currency.  Any number of trusted gold investment companies can sell paper notes (cash) which can be simply exchanged for real-gold - just like the old days - you can pay me with those!

But the gold market is still vulnerable to manipulation since the self-same bankers who create the money today also keep their wealth in gold and control the gold market.

Paper promise notes could replace this that simply represent one hour of work.  A Doctor may charge ten units for one hour of medical advice, a night watchman may charge half a unit per hour for sitting keeping an eye open.

An employer will pay staff with notes issued by a trusted issuer of notes that most people and companies will accept.

That is really what we all have for sale and by what everything is represented; human effort.  Be it making something and getting it to the store or digging minerals from your land.  All boils down to human effort.

Coroner's Inquest Must Return a Verdict on the Death of Dr David Kelly

It was Mr Blair who immediately called for an urgent inquiry following the death of Dr David Kelly. Lord Woolf subsequently demanded a veto over the appointment of judges to conduct public inquiries and now the Commons Public Administration Committee call for public comment on inquiries terms of reference.

It was the findings of this inquiry which ultimately supplanted the process of the coroners inquest. Dr Kelly is the only British citizen who has been a single victim of an incident resulting their sudden death and yet not had a coroners inquest return a verdict.

The Hutton inquiry was not the appropriate means by which to conclude the cause of Dr Kelly's death. Lord Hutton's remit was to 'urgently' examine the 'circumstances surrounding' the death of Dr Kelly. An inquiry of this type usually relates to an incident - such as a rail disaster - where individual's cause of death is not so much at question but rather to question the cause of the incident itself. The terms of reference given to Lord Hutton are no wider in their scope.

The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, should have been allowed to concluded his inquest before the Hutton inquiry commenced. Failing this the coroner should not have subsequently waited for Lord Hutton's findings. His delay in reconvening the coroners inquest anticipated Lord Hutton may drawn a conclusion in his report as to the probable cause of death. Lord Hutton should not have attempted to draw a conclusion as to the cause of death as this was outside of his remit and the "rigours that are normally undertaken at a coroner's inquest simply were not fulfilled" (I quote coroner Dr Michael Powers).

Nothing obvious was to be gained by so very 'urgently' commencing Lord Hutton's inquiry. Indeed it was inappropriate to have urgently commenced the inquiry without the coroner having first confirmed how Dr Kelly died. From the outset this was a prejudicial conclusion of the Hutton inquiry. An inquest's verdict of suicide and murder has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. If the coroner had returned an open verdict the thrust of the Hutton inquiry would have been wholly different or perhaps not occurred at all.

There are a great deal of very disconcerting facts surrounding the circumstance and nature of Dr David Kelly's that need further politically independent detailed examination, with evidence taken under oath, by a coroner in an inquest.

This is because the standard of proof applied at an inquest is usually the civil standard – the coroner and jury must be sure that it was more likely than not (on the balance of probabilities) that the facts have been found proven to support the verdict. There are exceptions: if the verdict of suicide or unlawful killing is reached, it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (this is the criminal standard).

Therefore there remains a reasonable doubt: The finding of suicide should have been proven beyond reasonable doubt but as the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry was not given under oath a reasonable doubt consequentially must remain.


Hence I remain focused on this legal aspect. All other matters are far more speculative and open to cheap-shot criticism; at least until such time they have been fully examined in a court under oath.

The Nine Principles of Policing

The following set of principles, which lay out in the clearest and most succinct terms the philosophy of policing by consent, appeared as an appendix to A New Study of Police History by Charles Reith (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956). Reith was a lifelong historian of the police force in Britain, and this book covers the early years of Metropolitan Police following the passage of Sir Robert Peel's 'Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis' on 19 June 1829. Reith notes that there are particular problems involved in writing police history, owing to the loss or destruction of much early archive material, and, probably for this reason, the principles appear without details of author or date.

 

However, it seems most likely that they were composed by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, as the first and joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. Rowan was a military man and Mayne, fourteen years his junior, a barrister. Rowan retired in 1850 leaving Mayne as sole Commissioner until his death in 1868. The sentiments expressed in the 'Nine Principles' reflect those contained in the 'General Instructions', first published in 1829, which were issued to every member of the Metropolitan Police, especially the emphasis on prevention of crime as the most important duty of the police.

Reith notes that Rowan and Mayne's conception of a police force was 'unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public' (p. 140).

The Nine Principles of Policing

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

The Green Happy-Clappers

The green happy clappers do not think 'critically'.  This is very like a religion.  They take the doctrine eat it up and swallow it all.  It makes them feel a little righteous, sanctimonious even, whilst also wicked, guilty and sinful all at the same time (sexual repression I'll bet). 

They beg for crushing CO2 taxation and spitefully want it brought about to punish all - make all kneel, pay homage and sacrifice at the alter of St.AlGore.

It is earth worship in the most negative way - they think people are the problem and believe population reduction the solution.  It is fundamentalist anti-humanity-ism.  It is a death cult.

They are so often the same bunch who once would have said a great big NO to nuclear power but now shrug and say well it is better than 'global warming'.  At least Fukushima Daiichi has stuffed the truth of that notion in their face - if they care to pay attention to the under-the-carpet facts.

Yet the money and opportunity is stolen away from the oil-bearing nations. They are ruined instead, by favoured despots or war, precluded from being free to capitalise on their period of wealth; for fear they could become today and tomorrow's masters.

Instead; the opportunity is handed to India and China, amongst others too, to be lifted to economic parity - a parity that includes draining the wealth out of the western nations - us lot. All with help from the sleight of hand of the carbon credits sham.

This is an interesting aspect of 'green happy clapper' syndrome.  They feel like they are the modern thinkers and the people who deride their 'pre-packaged hip save-the-world life-style-choice - ready-to-wear on the sleeve - pulp' are just dumb old fashioned stick-in-muds.  Antiquated 'flat-earthers'- give me a break!.

But what the 'green happy clappers' do not get is they have been sold one giant pup.  They love it so much, it is so much a part of what they are, it is their 'big-eyed life-style brand-of-choice' that they fail to open their minds to the fact that they have been duped.  They are the product of mass media indoctrination, subliminal brainwashing, propaganda - call it what you like.

Instead, like the green evangelists they are, they want to convert all, they want to live their life in the green way, they want to make sacrifices.  They are lost in a false paradigm and any hint they have been fooled makes them just hunker down deeper into denial.

Why is 'thinking for yourself' antiquated?  Because part of the 'ready-made' conclusion they have absorbed is this CO2 idea is fresh, young, feisty, its edgy to be green.  Suckers!

By the time people awake, to really see what is happening and why, we risk being too weak and too controlled, by authoritarianism and propaganda, to save our nations and our hides.

The Twisted Labyrinth of the State

The oldest of ideas, which we persevere unquestioningly, is the concept of government; of having and needing a state.

Just how deep will we need to sink before it is evident to all that the state is good for nothing but being a self perpetuating false paradigm?

I think it will take a total collapse of social order when, after the state - at last - withers and dies, then people will see, without its encumbrance, that humans can organise and thrive in a truly liberal society.

All the answers to human existence lay in the natural world.  All we have to do is look there, ask the right questions and be open to the simple answers that have existed for time immortal.

We have woven such a twisted labyrinth; of rules, of laws and of decrees.  Whilst we are engulfed and throttled by the state's convoluted ineptness, the only solution we can yet still envision is to continue to make even more twists and turns in the futile hope it will somehow, after aeons of trying so, unwind.

The problem for those in a position to encourage the continuation of the state is that if 'the people' were allowed to enjoy the abundance the world does indeed posses, the people would then have time to 'stand and stare'.  And as soon as they do that they will see the blood-suckers for what they are and do away with them as soon as they can.

These 'blood-suckers' are not those who reap hand-outs, they are just there to feed from and make the sham of a democratic process look legitimate.  They are not the 'so called' civil servants, they are just rewarded enough to make them have the will to wish for the edifice's continuance.

The blood suckers are the hidden ruling oligarchy to whom the existence of the state is the entire mechanism by which they exercise control and by which they extort every drop they possible can till they own and control absolutely everything including us - the human herd - the livestock of this farm we gullibly think of as our world in perpetuity.

The edifice of state is a worn-out and failed construct.  Mankind will not thrive until it is free of the choking gags and chains the state allows to be imposed.