The Warthog resigns

The governments attempts to be inclusive often mean they take on some unsuitable people, just last week Cameron took on several new faces because pressure groups were telling him he didn't have enough women, not that he didn't have enough competent MP's (debatable at best) Still there was one face left who probably should have been pushed and that was Baroness Warsi the Minister for Faith and Communities.
BBC.

David Cameron has defended government policy on Gaza after outgoing Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi called it "morally indefensible".
The prime minister said he had been "consistently clear" in calls for peace, adding that he agreed the crisis in the region was "intolerable".
Lady Warsi resigned on Tuesday morning, arguing that the government was not doing enough to alter Israel's actions.
She said she had tried without success to shift the government's position.

Basically she wanted the government to support the terrorist group Hamas who are linked the the mass murdering ISIS against the Israelis. She then waits until a ceasefire is more or less in place and then resigns making a big fuss in the process.
Thing is, the government have got it pretty right about Israel and Gaza in that it's absolutely none of our bloody business. I know there are people out there who wish differently, but it isn't.
My problem with Warsi though is that she's not competent, she lost a by-election, got bumped up into the House of Lords and then is offered a cabinet post. Basically she was simply there because she was female, coloured and muslim which ticked three diversity boxes. But as Minister for faith and communities she was only interested in one faith and one community and the more stricter members of that faith hated her anyway because she was a woman.
Basically she was and is an islamopanderer,  a token muslim for the Tories to parade until she jumped before she was pushed probably after the next election. She was crap at her job and carried her prejudices into her work as well.
All in all, she won't be missed and I reckon Cameron thinks he's well shot of her.

That's not the only reason...

It's one of those articles which makes you shake your head and wonder if the minister involved has a clue about what the public actually think, or rather that he's putting a spin on things to try and explain to himself the whys and wherefores of a situation.
Telegraph.

Energy Minister Greg Barker has said on-shore wind farms have turned public opinion against renewable energy.
The rush to develop on-shore wind farms is “over” and has damaged the renewable energy agenda, the Energy and Climate Change Minister said. Mr Barker promised that future wind farms would be developed off-shore, the Mail on Sunday reported. “We put certain projects in the wrong place,” he said. “Some planners have been too insensitive to the impact on the landscape and it has turned public opinion against the wider renewable agenda. “We are very clear about the need to limit the impact on the countryside and landscape. It is quite clear the expansion of the on-shore wind rush is over.”

Yes they're unsightly, however most people who don't live beside one hate them too and there are many reasons other than their sheer ugliness. There's the cost, something that ministers and politicians of both sides realise is concerning the public. There's the environmental damage that mounting a turbine on a massive concrete plinth causes, not just the size of the thing. There's the fact that even the most 'in use' turbine is only active about 20% of the time and generates electricity at five times the cost of a standard gas powered generator which works all the time. They kill birds, are difficult and expensive to maintain and essentially are a massive drain on the taxpayer by green taxes.
But no, the minister thinks people have turned against them  because they put some in the wrong place. Whilst I'm sure that turned some people who have to live next to them against them, I'm pretty sure that the other reasons I mentioned are the primary source of rejection... that and the fact that most people have come around to the idea that global warming and renewable energy is a scam of the highest order and being used by politicians to enrich themselves and enviroloonies to wreck western civilisation.
Deluding yourself that your beliefs are the correct ones despite mounting public opposition is the remit of the politician, making excuses in the form of a mealy mouthed apology is another.
Telling the truth as ever seems to be beyond them....

Lies, damned lies and global warming statistics...

They still can't admit that they got it wrong as that would also mean they conned us out of billions in cash to feed the rabid green god and its bird mincing temples (and line their pockets). But they have started the climbdown by saying that it's only 'warming' at half the rate they said it was and we won't be growing cacti in an English country garden...
Mail.

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.
Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

By exaggerated the mean they lied to us of course, it's the old gi-go priciple, garbage in = garbage out and they knew they were putting garbage into their equations, the CRUtapes proved that along with their determination to make the situation what they wanted it to be rather than what it was. After all, funding was involved and greedy politicians along with senior civil servants saw a scam they could latch onto by way of directorships in 'environmental' companies so were prepared to shower climate scientists and organisations with a bit of cash so long as they kept coming out with what they wanted to hear... which sadly wasn't the truth.
However a good few scientists out there along with some intrepid journeyman investigators lifter the lid on the scandal and the green wars started between those who knew that warming was a lie and those who wanted to believe it was true or who were prepared to lie in order to cover up the true facts of the matter. It soon became obvious that the warmists were losing, the public aren't stupid and a series of cold winters made it obvious that the planet was if anything getting colder. Still, why let facts get in the way of funding? So the wars went on and the insults grew as it became clear that the warmist camps were fighting a nasty rearguard action to hold onto the taxpayers cash for as long as possible.
Even today they cannot admit just how wrong they were and just how badly they tried to dupe us. Even today they are still suckling at the now reduced cashflow coming their way.
One day the term 'climate scientist' will be an insult of the highest degree in a lot of circles, I suspect a lot of climate scientists know this. But that's what greed gets you and they really weren't the worst of it, the enviroloonies and the political types are even worse. The enviroloonies still believe they have all the answers whilst the political types will just move onto the next scam.
Greed and extremism make for the most terrible of combinations, don't you think?

Give it a rest

The University of East Anglia infamous for its Climate research Unit and its lying researchers has another waste of space working for its Media Studies Dept. Dr Brett Mills head of the dept wrote in European Journal of Clinical Studies that Sir David Attenborough's various wild life programmes do not show enough of the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. You really can't make this stuff up...
MSN News.

A study carried out by The University of East Anglia has shown that Attenborough's BBC programmes do not depict enough gay animals.
The study, led by Dr Brett Mills, claims that the programmes too often create narratives of animal life based around the traditional heterosexual family unit, even though those animals may be gay.
Dr Mills says, 'Heterosexuality is upheld as the norm in wildlife documentaries and the idea of the family it presents is one which equates the family with heterosexuality.
'The central role in documentary stories of pairing, mating and raising offspring commonly rests on assumptions of heterosexuality within the animal kingdom.
'This is despite a wealth of scientific evidence which demonstrates that many non-human species have complex and changeable forms of sexual activity, with heterosexuality only one of many possible options.'

Now it may well be that certain animals are queerer than a queer thing being queer, however it's all down to interpretation of the commentator and researcher, it's not as if we can ask the animals now is it?

Picture courtesy of Daily Mail

 As you can see from Dr Mills' comments, he simply does not know what actually might be going on but is interpreting the data to suit his study rather than the observed behaviour of Sir David, it may well be that he's right, though I rather suspect that most people will go with Sir David and presume that Dr Mills has some form of axe to grind or is being funded to 'normalise' gay behaviour despite most of us not giving a damn and not wishing to have our noses rubbed into the constant litany of gay propaganda.
Media studies has a pretty bad rep when it comes to academic esteem and clearly Dr Mills is a leading light in its never ending search to plumb the depths of inanity by studying what people watch and reinterpreting it to fit the desires and agenda of the powers that be.
Then again, as with the CRU tape scandal, East Anglia university has a reputation for mercenary academic behaviour and following the money, churning out any old rubbish so long as the funding is there. As gay rights seems to be the big thing on the agenda with Cameron's government, it's not too surprising we're being hit with drivel like this.

The march the BBC didn't want you to see

The BBC follows certain narratives, male = bad, female = good, white = racist, any other skin tone = salt of the earth. EDL = evil fascist/racist/islamophobic scum. Muslims = religion of peace/misunderstood/better than anyone else. Israel = bad, Palestine = good. The narratives never really change unless the consensus from its left wing ideals change and as the hard of thinking left have never come up with anything new in the way of original thought since the 1930's it's not too likely now.
The BBC because of this will not show you anything which makes their narrative suspect such as this pro Palestine march in London.

Here we have a march by Muslims and assorted idiots leftists in London where the police were on numerous occasions attacked violently by the marchers. Had this been the BNP or the EDL it would have been headline news paraded out to enforce the BBC's idea that only the so called right cause trouble on the streets. It's notable that they didn't mention the left wing support of the student riots, nor during the London riots that most taking place weren't white. Indeed they praised certain (Sikh and Turkish) communities for defending their patches whilst condemning other (white) communities for doing exactly the same.
The usual banners are on display parading the usual lies using terms such as holocaust, apartheid, starvation etc all without a basis in truth and all believed as items of faith by Muslims, the left and anyone who seeks to demonise the Israeli state.
There's clearly an attempt to create a two tier solution to justice in the UK where the majority indigenous groups are getting a second class service and representation in the media and in the justice system. This will only breed resentment until it finally explodes.

False flag

I rarely use wikipedia as a source, particularly on current events and movements, it's run by people I don't trust and whose political affiliation is suspect to say the least, look up the EDL page for example a bigger pack of lies and conjecture as you're ever likely to find, based mostly upon articles by the movements enemies. However for some things it's ok...

False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colours; that is: flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations and can be used during peace-time.

And so we come to Anders Breivik, held up as an example of right wing hate and an Islamophobe, mass murderer and probably tied to every anti-islamist in the world, well according to the left anyway. They certainly tried to pin him to the EDL referencing the fact that he was a member of the EDL forum. Which is true enough, though the couple of posts he made in the intro section gave no hint of his real agenda. he even decried the EDL in his manifesto as not being radical enough, still that's never stopped the left from giving up a resounding smear job.
Yet something he did in his trial pictures gave me pause...

It's the salute,that's not a right wing salute, that's the salute of a left wing revolutionary...

Wikipedia, again.

The raised fist (also known as the clenched fist) is a symbol of solidarity and support.

During the Spanish Civil War, it was sometimes known as the anti-fascist salute. The traditional version of the salute, originally a symbol of the broader workers' movement, became associated with the parties of the Comintern during the 1920s and 1930s. Since the Trotskyists were forced out of the Comintern, some Trotskyists have made a point of strictly raising the left fist in the tradition of the Left Opposition.

• Albanian National Liberation Front

• April 6 Youth Movement

• American Indian Movement

• Anarchist Black Cross

• Black Panther Party

• Democratic Labour Party of Brazil

• Earth First!

• Women's Liberation

• Food Not Bombs

• International Brigades

• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

• International Socialist Organization

• Italian Radical Party

• Jewish Defense League

• Kach

• National Equality March

• Occupy Wall Street

• Otpor

• Parti Sosialis Malaysia (Socialist Party of Malaysia)

• Partido Socialista (Portugal) (the socialist party of Portugal)

• People's National Party

• Revolutionary Socialist Workers' Party (Turkey)

• Red Front Fighters' League

• Saor Éire (1967-1975)

• Socialist International

• Socialist Party of England and Wales

• Socialist Workers Party (Britain)

• Socialist Youth Front

• United Farm Workers

• Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front

Now it might be that Breivik is just playing mind games, I am though wondering if Breivik is actually of the left trying to smear the nationalist movements. Certainly the opinion of the nationalist movements is that the man's an utter loon and what he did was an abomination. Though the left and islamics in general do have an almost monopoly on abominations, they certainly aren't above false flag operations of this kind.
Certainly raises a few questions as to his real motives...

Unintended consequences

 On Monday Channel 4 aired its flagship programme Dispatches Proud and prejudiced about the EDL and Muslim extremists coming to blows in Luton. It can be viewed Here for a while, it will no doubt make its way to youtube eventually.
Here's also some bits that didn't make it too the programme.

 

If the intent was somehow or other to try and equivocate the EDL with Islamic extremism, then it was a massive fail, people are not stupid, the know the EDL don't blow up buses and tubes, don't nail bomb cafés and don't burn poppies on Remembrance day or call our soldiers murderers and rapists.
If the intent was to somehow put people off the EDL then it was also a massive failure, I moderate the EDL forum, I can tell you that the membership increased from the airing of the programme by (at least) 20,000 not counting the interest shown on facebook, so again another massive fail.
The UAF have also realised this and have bitterly whinged about the programme makers

Channel 4′s Proud and Prejudiced documentary, shown on Monday 27 February, was an irresponsible piece of programme0-making that has handed a boost to the English Defence League, UAF believes.

It was clear before the broadcast that the EDL saw this high-profile TV coverage as an opportunity to recruit and raise funds for its organisation of racist and fascist street thugs.

Again though the UAF have so diluted the language that racist and fascist these days are just insults without meaning any more, the EDL are not racist (Islam is a religion) and not fascist as they are not a political party and have attracted members from all over the political spectrum from left and right, in a sense they are apolitical.
This is the same UAF who just elected, as its Vice Chair, the Islamic Forum Europe’s Azad Ali.
Just to recap:

• Azad Ali opposes democracy “if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia”
• Azad Ali sued the Daily Mail for suggesting that comments on his blog showed that he was “a hardline Islamic extremist who supports the killing of British and American soldiers in Iraq by fellow Muslims as justified”. He lost.
• Azad Ali used to attend talks by the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in Europe: Abu Qatada.
• Azad Ali wants Ismail Haniyeh – leader of the genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation, Hamas – to be the Caliph of the next Caliphate.
• Azad Ali admired the Al Qaeda and recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki and had this to say about him on the Islamic Forum of Europe’s blog: “I really do love him for the sake of Allah, he has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing.”
• Azad Ali’s show on the Islam Channel was sanctioned by OFCOM for its failure to maintain due impartiality in its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, including in relation to comments on Mahmoud Abbas. That’s because he’s a Hamas supporter.
• When an undercover reporter for Dispatches exposed Azad Ali’s political views, he threatened them on his radio show, saying: “We’ve got a picture of you and a lot more than you thought we had. We’ve tracked you down to different places. And if people are gonna turn what I’ve just said into a threat, that’s their fault, innit?”

H/T Harry's Place.

It will be interesting to see how the so called anti-fascists justify having a real fascist in a position of power, then again I doubt they'd notice, the hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds when it comes to having vipers in their midst.
So, in the end the EDL came rather well out of the programme much to the dismay of the powers that be and their footsoldiers in the UAF and the liberal left.
Seems the British people aren't so worried about the EDL as they are about whom the EDL oppose.

Gilding the lily

Argentina must know they are onto a loser (again) when the rhetoric over the Falklands Islands reaches the stage of them accusing the UK of having nuclear missiles on the islands.
Telegraph.

The South American country's foreign minister claimed that Trident nuclear missiles were being carried on board a submarine deployed to the region by the Royal Navy.
It comes as tensions continue to rise over the islands, which are claimed by the Argentinians as their territory.
The allegation was immediately rebuffed by a senior British diplomat, who also described claims by the Argentinians that military bases on the island could be used to launch attacks on South America as "absurd".
Hector Timerman, the Argentinian foreign minister, accused the British of sending the nuclear submarine into a nuclear-free zone and lodged a formal protest at the United Nations.
He said Britain was "militarising the region" after the Royal Navy sent one of its most advanced warship to the islands, and as Prince William enters the second week of his six-week tour of duty there as an RAF search and rescue pilot.

Now whilst it wouldn't surprise me at all that the UK has at least one nuclear submarine in the area, it's most unlikely that they'll have trident nuclear missiles on board, nor given the restrictions surrounding the first use of such a weapons system should Argentina worry their silly little heads over any such inclusion. Personally I don't know who they are trying to fool over such a claim, but it certainly isn't the UK, if anything it's likely to backfire as their own people might not be so keen as their government to see the UK crack open a can of liquid sunshine over Buenos Ares anyway. (we wouldn't, but these aren't exactly sophisticates here) As an example of one-upmanship it certainly leaves a lot to be desired and wont exactly make their case (not much of a case anyway) if they go whinging to the UN over it.
I'm a bit surprised that they believe the nuclear free zone myth too, perhaps they'd better have a word with an ex Labour councillor or two to see just exactly how far that claim will get you, as in nowhere at all. I suspect the USA occasionally has a few nuc's running through the area and I doubt the Argentines would have the balls to complain if a carrier fleet were to sail round the horn either.

A protest outside the Argy Embassy earlier today.

There was a protest outside the Argentine Embassy earlier today, apparently there was one arrest for burning a flag, no doubt the charge will be “Burning a flag whilst not being Islamic”

It's illegal and it won't work, but just watch them try

It comes to something when the head of the UK region of the EU (Aka David Cameron) steps into the realms of fantasy by asking his apparatchiks to come up with proposals that are counter to EU regulations and since they border on prohibition will probably have the opposite effect to the one they are looking for.
Telegraph.

The Prime Minister has ordered officials to develop a scheme in England to stop the sale of alcohol at below 40p to 50p a unit in shops and supermarkets.
Ministers could copy Scottish proposals, which would ban the sale of alcohol below 45p a unit, or bring in a more sophisticated system of taxes based on the number of alcohol units contained in the drink.
Both options would cost drinkers an estimated extra £700 million a year, with any extra tax revenue potentially going to the NHS. The Daily Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister personally ordered the radical “big bang” approach, which will be included in the Government’s forthcoming alcohol strategy. It was due for release next month, but has now been delayed until February.
A recent official study found that setting a minimum price of 30p per unit would prevent 300 deaths a year, 40p about 1,000 deaths, and 50p more than 2,000 premature deaths.
The Downing Street diktat has led to intense Whitehall discussions and disagreements over how the minimum price, which has widespread support among the medical profession, can be introduced. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is said to favour taxing drink on the basis of alcoholic units. The Business Department has warned that forcing firms to charge a minimum price could be illegal under European law. 

The kicker really is in the last sentence, minimum pricing is not allowed under EU law, something that has also escaped the Scottish government and I suspect the first legal challenge will bring it tumbling down.
However lets assume they get their way, what do they think is going to happen when they try to block access by price fixing a product that the public want? Booze cruises will suddenly become very, very popular and very, very lucrative for some again. At the moment it's not as cheap as it used to be to get your drinks and cigarettes from the continent, but it's still cheaper than getting them here if you are within easy driving distance and buy in bulk to offset your fuel costs. Make the price of booze higher in this country and the only people rubbing their hands will be the ferries and the good Burghers of Calais (and other continental retail outlets) That's assuming of course that those whose vice of choice is booze just don't simply move onto something else that's probably worse and more addictive. Still you just know they are going to try as the government will try and persuade the hard of thinking out there that it's for their own good, whilst most of us will see it for what it really is, a cash grab. After all, it's well known that the figures for a supposed safe daily intake per unit of alcohol were just plucked out of thin air as the Pub Curmudgeon points out here back in 2008.
Nor will the proposed levy help out pubs, the damage there was done by another piece of invidious legislation in the smoking indoors ban, smokers simply stopped going top pubs and their non smoking mates stopped going with them, preferring to buy cheap supermarket specials and drink around someone's house rather than go somewhere a third of their mates (at least) are pretty much banned from.
It is not the job of the government to legislate away our pleasures, they can (try to) advise but that is all but using legislation as a form of social engineering is doomed to failure as it simply plays into the hands of the criminal elements. People like a drink, the government makes the price of drinks too high, people will find other outlets, it really is as simple as that, yet the ptb cannot grasp it, or simply don't care.

Pandering

This is what multiculturalism ends up as.
This is what diversity will get you.
This is what happens when you go soft on minorities because of the above.
This is what lowering standards to get minorities into positions of authority (aka tokenism) brings you.
This is what failure to assure excellence in our education system has brought us too.
This is the price we now have to pay for the failure of the political classes, socialists and the MSM to listen to the concerns of the ordinary people of England.
Our cities burn, minorities riot, the followers of a foreign and malignant fascistic political system dressed in the trappings of a religion have been allowed to settle in numbers in some of our cities and demand their own laws. The indigenous population have been derided by politicians as being bigoted to even question it. When they marched in protest they were called Nazi's, scum, vermin, knuckle draggers, right wing and racist, yet it was not they who rioted.
And when the dust settles, the cover up will begin, those who burned our cities and attacked our police and ordinary folk will claim victim status yet again, it's already happening on the BBC as excuse after excuse is trotted out about cuts and police brutality by so called community leaders.The usual soundbite fools like Ken Livingstone are being dragged out too to try and put a political slant on the mindless looting by trying to blame the current government for a mess of the previous governments making.
There have even been attempts by some on the left to draw parallels with violence exhibited at EDL protests in an effort to divert blame or ameliorate the situation, save only the EDL have never burnt buses, set fire to buildings, looted shops, attacked homeowners and robbed them. These were the same people who hunted desperately for any kind of link between Anders Brievik and the EDL even to the extent of inventing a few.
This is what happens when those in power and their accomplices simply don't listen to ordinary people.

Hatchet jobs

There is a saying that "A lie can be halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on" and this seems to be the case in speculation about Anders Brehing Breivik and his links to the so called "Far Right" in the UK.
Guardian.

Anders Behring Breivik, the man accused of the murder of at least 92 Norwegians in a bomb and gun massacre, boasted online about his discussions with the far-right English Defence League and other anti-Islamic European organisations.

Well, I can't speak for all the EDL, I'm just an ordinary guy who supports them, however I can confirm from what I do know from various people higher up in the organisation is that until yesterday the EDL had not heard of him before.
Mail.

He is thought to have posted messages on a Norwegian website expressing admiration for the EDL and an extremist group called Stop Islamification of Europe.
It is Breivik’s online profile that has provided the authorities with most information about him so far.
His Facebook page, which was blocked soon after the killings, listed his interests as bodybuilding, ‘conservative politics’ and freemasonry. He also had a liking for violent video games and American TV drama series Dexter, about a forensic blood spatter pattern expert with the Miami police who hunts down and kills criminals in his spare time.

Express.

THE Right-wing psychopath behind ­Norway’s bloodbath was involved with the English Defence League, the Sunday Express has learned.

Twisted Anders Behring Breivik, who left 92 dead in a co-ordinated bomb and gun rampage, advised the EDL how to stir up anti-Islamic hatred.

He not only admired the far-Right group, but also harboured dreams of setting up Norway’s version to combat the country’s growing Muslim population.

This is also untrue, there already is a Norwegian Defence League, has been for months and no they haven't heard of him either.

PRESS RELEASE FROM NDL
It is with disbelief and sadness that we have received news of the tragedy at the government building and on the island.
Our goal has always been to provide information about the conflict between Western values and Islam, violence and terror is the means … we firmly reject.
The terrorist acts be connected with a person who is against multiculturalism and Islam, we must emphasize that the suspect has never been a member of our organization.
People who advocate violence, racism or extremism has been and will be banned from NDL.
This is in every way a setback for the debate in Norway. For us who want a fair debate, this is a situation we fear will be used against us. Our values are freedom of speech, equality, peace and democracy. It is our fear that the discussion will now end up in a track where our arguments are met with hatred and incoherent arguments.
But today is the day our condolences, thoughts and sympathies are with survivors, relatives of those killed, AUF and the Norwegian people.
A total NDL condemns the terrorist attacks on 22 July 2011. A date that will forever stand as a day of mourning in the country’s history.
Admin in NDL

I also have a few questions about this entire incident myself, perhaps they'll be answered one day though it might take a while.

1. If Anders Behring Breivik was anti-Islam, why didn't he attack a mosque rather than government buildings on a day when the government was not working?
2. How come he only set up his Facebook and twitter accounts 5 days ago. Straight away he is on FB with right wing stuff, and only one tweet. According to the Huffington Post he did have a Stormfront account which is no longer available and the Stormfront site is also apparently down.
3. I do not believe that one man could assemble and prime a massive car bomb and set it off, all on his own. Then slip away, disguise himself as a policemen, travel 20 miles across the land connecting the two fjords, commandeer a boat (or passage on a boat) to travel across to the island, carrying nothing more than the unremarkable weapon a police officer would normally have to hand (as he doesn’t seem to have excited any suspicion until he opened fire on the assembled teenagers) whereupon he shoots 70+ people dead (some of the 93 deaths so far, for which he is responsible are by drowning while trying to escape). The A team couldn’t have managed that and there were 4 of them. And their adventures were fiction.
4. If, as we are told, the Norwegian Prime Minister was due at the Island that day, why was the place not crawling with security as you just know it would be days before any such visit.

Personally I don’t believe that a ‘right wing Christian conservative’ gunman who hates Muslims and admires the EDL went berserk alone to kill 100 teenagers simply because that’s what right wing Christian conservatives do. Yet that, despite the evidence is exactly what the press want us to believe.

Sorry, but you're wrong

Speed cameras, two words that polarise opinions to a certain extent from those that see them simply as revenue raisers to those who think they reduce speed and save lives.

Express.

A bereaved mother will lead a protest against a county council's decision to axe speed cameras.

Claire Brixey's son Ashley, 20, was killed in a crash in Limpley Stoke, Wiltshire, in 2004 when the car in which he was a passenger landed upside down in a swimming pool after the driver lost control.

Ms Brixey, who lives in Standerwick on the Wiltshire/Somerset border, has been a road safety campaigner since the crash.

In the protest on Friday in Trowbridge, she will urge Wiltshire County Council to reverse a decision to end its road safety partnership scheme.

Yet government statistics reveal that speed cameras are totally ineffective at preventing the vast majority of accidents. Exceeding the speed limit was attributed to only 3% of cars involved in accidents. 97% of car crashes have nothing to do with breaking the speed limit.

Ms Brixey said: "I cannot just stand by while the council puts an axe to vital road safety services that save so many young lives here each year. They need to know how appalled local communities are about this. Most people fully support cameras and feel safer with them turned on.

"When I heard in the news the Government saying they were ending a 'war on motorists', I thought that all they were doing was enabling people to break the law and endanger lives by speeding.

You would think that Ms Brixey, as the loss of your son is colouring you view, however as for public support for speed cameras, well, there are two parts to this lie (and yes it is a lie, though Ms Brixey clearly believes it)...

In the first place the government and various supporters and vested interests have put huge resources into trying to convince the public that speed cameras are a good idea. It's not at all surprising that the non-driving population accepts the claims at face value - why would a non driver question the claims at all? Obviously they have convinced some drivers as well. What a shame they didn't put those resources into a real method for improving road safety. It is highly illogical to suggest that road safety can be improved by lying to the public about specific road dangers.

Part two of the lie involves the survey methods (and particularly the survey questions) which have been designated by the Department for Transport. The questions are quite obviously loaded to elicit the desired response.

With loaded questions and a misled public it should come as no surprise that they are able to claim that public opinion supports speed cameras.

SafeSpeed: analysis of official surveys of speed camera approval (click here)
Admiral Insurance: (independent survey)

Ellen Booth, campaigns officer for road safety charity Brake, said: "Increasingly, decisions being made on speed cameras are more about politics and less about facts.

"The fact is that speed cameras reduce speeding and save lives."

BRAKE is a fake charity with its own entry at fakecharities.org ... unfortunately, the fake charity site is down at the moment, however it is known BRAKE spend 50% of its income on salaries and the majority of its money comes from public funding, to no doubt tell the government what it wants to hear. However speed cameras actually appear to cause more accidents than they prevent, as speed cameras have triggered at least 28,000 crashes since 2001, according to new research.Anyone who drives will have noticed that people on seeing a speed camera will automatically brake, even if they are going below the speed limit, putting the vehicle behind in occasional danger. Accidents were reducing before speed cameras came along, cars were being made safer for drivers and pedestrians if hit, so speed cameras were not really a major cause in road safety, though most drivers had them twigged as revenue raisers early on in their lifespan.
So, sorry for your loss Ms Brixey, but you're wrong, speed cameras may save some lives, however as a cost effective solution to road safety, they make no sense at all, they don't reduce speed save in the narrow area they cover, they don't reduce accidents (and seem to cause a good few) and now that government funding is being removed from them, it seems councils don't think they are that effective either. Speed is not the problem, unsafe driving is and always will be the problem and artificial limits on speed are not the solution, some drivers can be perfectly safe driving at 100 mph on a motorway, yet others can frighten the life out of you at 30 mph on a built up area, it's down to ability and concentration, usually not speed.

Advertising

Advertising, love it or loathe it (usually loathe) is a ubiquitous part of todays life, with agencies and businesses trying to tell us how much we need/desire/want a product or service. Even the government is in on it, though in true Labour style they appear to be using it for propaganda as well as party political purposes.

Telegraph.

The Government has become the biggest spender on advertising in the country for the first time, new figures have disclosed. 

The revelation has drawn Conservative claims that ministers are using taxpayers' money to "buy the general election".

The Central Office of Information spent £207.9 million on advertising last year, more than any other organisation, according to Marketing magazine. 

The next biggest spender was Procter and Gamble, the consumer products group, which spent £155 million in 2009.

Government spending on advertising and marketing rose while commercial companies were reducing their expenditure. Companies including Marks & Spencer and Renault cut their spending by half.

Total spending by the top 100 advertisers fell by 10 per cent from 2008, the figures showed.

By contrast, COI spending rose by 13 per cent from 2008.

Some £85 million of public money was spent on television advertising. Another £52.1 million went on radio spots. Press spending was £47.4 million.

The Tories say state spending on advertising is rising as the general election approaches.

Separate figures disclosed earlier this month showed that Government advertising spending reached £30 million in January.

Francis Maude, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: "This has all the hallmarks of a banana republic, trying to buy the election by abusing public funds."

I think the Tories have a case, though to my mind the biggest abuse was the drowning dog/global warming/climate change clip which was biased, unscientific and just plain wrong as well as feeding on the fears of children. Still I think government advertising ought to be limited to just plain facts as well as the translation services slashed to just native languages (those native to the Islands, not the immigrants)
However the problem appears to go a lot deeper.

BBC.

The Office of Fair Trading should investigate the impact council-funded free newspapers are having on regional papers, a committee of MPs has said.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee said it was concerned about the growing number of council papers and the effect they were having on local democracy.
Some were "misleading in nature" and showed political bias, the report said.

Classic case of Pot, kettle, black there from the MP's considering what the government gets up too with its advertising.

Many local papers have closed in recent years with some editors blaming the effect of council-funded publications.

Research from the Newspaper Society last year found that nine in 10 councils now print their own newspaper.

Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrat MP for Sutton and Cheam, led a debate on the issue in Westminster earlier this year in which he highlighted the impact that council newspapers, funded by local taxpayers, were having on the health of the independent local press.

He highlighted one example of a London council which produced a 72-page paper which includes news, reviews, TV listings and restaurant features. Meanwhile the local paper has seen its circulation drop by 62%.

In the report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the future for local and regional media, committee chairman John Whittingdale said the industry was facing "unprecedented challenges".

So the taxpayer is picking up the bill for free newspapers for all too, all your news, tv, local gossip and political propaganda in one dose delivered to your door and coming out of your taxes whether you voted for the sods or not.

He said: "This has led to the closure of a large number of newspapers, many commercial radio stations becoming loss-making and the possible end of regional news on commercial television.
"This has serious implications for local democracy."
While it was important for local authorities to communicate with their citizens, it was "unacceptable" that councils could set up publications in direct competition to local newspapers and "act as a vehicle for political propaganda", he said.
The MPs recommended making it mandatory for publications to clearly state on their front page that they are published by a local authority.

Communicate, yes, tell us how great the ruling political group is no. And putting a local authority logo on the front doesn't address the problem either it's just more advertising, paid by us, given out free to everyone including those who don't pay for it. No wonder the local papers are struggling, the councils run short on money they just put the rates up, the local paper puts its prices up they lose customers.
This waste of public money both national and local should be one of the first things to go, it isn't necessary, nor is it a vital front line service.
There is scope for a massive range of cuts in government spending, no front line services need be affected, all they have to do is trim the fat from stuff like advertising and translation services, prune back the bureaucracy, simplify not continually quantify.
Not that I'm going to hold my breath till it happens, the Tories if they get in might be better, but I have my doubts, Cameron still seems wedded to a big spending state ideal.