Friday, 25 November 2016

The Truth About Jo Cox and Thomas Mair...

Their mistake was that Thomas Mair was more bitter and determined than they expected and the people present at the surgery - whilst massively brave - were not strong enough to subdue the shooter after the first shot.

What was the whole thing all about?

Grab that bacofoil and start folding, then start reading...

Thomas Mair was a loner and a bit unstable, he was easy prey to evil elements who may have need of a 'spectacular' at some point to give the public and politics a 'nudge' if they weren't going the right way... the 'right way' being what ever kept those evil elements supplied with wealth and power.

The UK was on track to vote to leave the EU - this was well known officially, while the usual fake poll results said otherwise, this was just to demoralise the leave camp and keep the remainers motivated.

Among Thomas Mair's personal library of Nazi related books there were some unusual items and some entirely out of place items. One such entirely out of place was a book on the assassination of JFK, of the unusual items was half a shelf of books on Nazi head wear and helmets.

Jo Cox gave every appearance of being a 'bright young thing' despite holding extremist and deeply oppressive and authoritarian political views - she was photogenic with a young family. Indeed, and ironically, the very model used in Nazi propaganda promoting their totalitarian master race.

Thomas Mair was pretty much the complete opposite, scraping through life having missed any opportunity that had come his way (assuming any had come his way). No proper job, a council house that the council wanted to move him out of, no friends and just a few relatives some of whom he was not on good terms with.

What better 'spectacular' than to have the bright young thing grievously attacked by the drop out - the dirty little Englander attacking the divine Europa. Associating Britain and the UK with failure, disappointment, poverty and violence and the EU with an angelic vision being torn down by bitterness from the past?

How might this mega-nudge (shove) help the remainers campaign to stay in the EU? It would be a landslide for them, as everyone not entirely committed to reasserting liberty in the UK would seek to distance themselves from this monster and offer their supplication to the angel - and do so by voting 'remain'.

That was the plan the evil forces hatched - they had a victim and a potential perpetrator, they simply had to persuade the perpetrator and then bring the two together.

There were two shooting incidents in the JFK assassination the shooting of JFK and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald with a single shot to the head at close range - the epitome of an assassination.

This is the vision Mair was sold as per the JFK book, that he would approach the MP fire a single shot and it would all be over, a 'clean' and decisive assassination - which he could then use to promote whatever message it was that he wanted to draw attention to, foolishly convinced that he would be helping whatever cause it was that he was promoting. Or maybe simply to go down in history, to finally make a mark in life - however dirty a mark it may be.

However, this scenario didn't entirely match the evil forces real intention. Their real plan was to make Jo Cox an angel on earth, the new Lady Di but still alive to wield her new found power indefinitely, she was not to die, she was to be grievously injured in the attack but to continue to campaign with all the new found power that the sympathy and disgust would bring to her.

So they armed Thomas Mair - with the least dangerous firearm they could devise - a tiny, .22, cut down, single shot, bolt action, 'pistol'. Difficult and slow to reload, smallest calibre, lowest power bullets available, and to top it off, cut down to such a length that the bullet would hardly have started moving by the time it left the barrel... Fully expecting any wound it created would be entirely survivable.

Their mistake was that Thomas Mair was more bitter and determined than they expected and the people present at the surgery - whilst massively brave - were not strong enough to subdue the shooter after the first shot.

When Thomas pulled the trigger he expected it to all be over - like the Dallas shooting, bang, victim down, job done, surrender and prepare for fame. But the bullet, so under-powered by the careful engineering on the gun and ammunition, bounced off her head - causing an external wound, but no penetrating damage, certainly not to the brain.

In the confusion this caused he had time to reload and shoot  twice more, to little more effect - but he also had a dagger with him and had time to use it, just about over coming his aversion to blood he made many small stabbing wounds,  rather ineffectually with no single decisive fatal wound but enough that his victim would eventually bleed to death after he had left the scene.

A disaster for all concerned it would seem - but not quite. While it is a disaster for the individuals directly involved with at least two lives thrown away, for the dark forces it was just a blip, a small set back, they still have others to call on (wittingly or otherwise), to block the referendum result and now we see them arriving - Blair, Campbell, Branson, Major and more.

And should the referendum result not be honored? They will still be there - Soros, Gates and others known and unknown to us... their power isn't disappearing anytime soon, not unless we seize the opportunity and take it all back...

**corrections**

This isn't a serious academic work - if you need to be told this, then get off the internet now!!
But, I don't want to mislead people - so...

1) Ruby did not kill Oswald with a single shot to the head, it was a point blank shot to the body with a .38

Saturday, 19 November 2016

No, parliament do not need to vote on #brexit #article50 - here's why.

When I first heard the result of the court case over invoking article 50, the courts position seemed pretty reasonable.

I set out my position in another post.

However, more information has come up and I am persuaded differently...

The basic case was that that only parliament can take away rights that parliament created. And that invoking 50 would lead a loss of rights, so parliament must be consulted.

However, the key here is that those rights were not created in our parliament! The law allowing the EU to create rights was passed on our parliament, but not the laws creating those rights.

If the EU changes its law to create or destroy rights out parliament would not get a vote on it because they are 'treaty rights' not 'statutory rights' and as such are under the control of crown prerogative (government) not parliament.

The governments legal team had a draft of this arguement, but never used it in court. It not clear why.

So I beleive the court was wrong, but the government let them get it wrong...


Wednesday, 16 November 2016

State of play #Brexit - what the judge lady let slip.

If this judges view is correct, then brexit may be delayed indefinitely unless we replace our MP's and government with one that is committed to brexit. Simply replacing MP's in not enough - this Conservative government under David Cameron and Theresa May are as much barriers to Brexit as the Liberal Democrats are - just more sneaky and underhand about it.

I get so fed up with the drip, drip from the media - giving half a story to support their headline but making no attempt to genuinely inform.

Anyway that is why I launched RadioFreeUK (RadioFreeUK.org) - to provide an alternative media channel for UK libertarians... or at least UK bods who aren't raving progressive (read: regressive) Social Justice Warriors. But enough of that on with the show (or blog...).

Under Theresa May Brexit has stalled because the EU Referendum Bill was very badly written for those who support brexit. As far as I can see this was a deliberate act of sabotage by David Cameron and his Conservatives to act as a safety back stop in case they lost the referendum - which they did. It is unfortunate that those we would expect to cover this didn't pick up on it... But now we are where we are.

The Government have been challenged in court over whether they can invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and so give notice that the UK is leaving the EU.

In the first court three judged unanimously ruled that the Government cannot invoke Article 50, and that it must be explicitly agreed by the whole of Parliament (all our MP's), despite us having already directly said that we want it done.

An appeal is going directly to the Supreme Court (skipping the court of appeal as it is such an important case, it is going directly to the organ grinders) where the case will be heard by a dozen judges.

Despite earlier claims of 'confidence' in its own case, the government now appears to be less confident and if flapping around looking for other ways of appearing to support the invoking of Article 50.

As it happens I wrote to my MP (a front bench government bod) calling for a one line bill saying 'this house supports the government implementing the will of the people and invoking Article 50 at the earliest convenient opportunity' or similar, it would be a brave MP who voted this down... My MP suggested such a bill was unnecessary, we shall see...

The headline that prompted this blog post was regarding one of the dozen judges that will hear the appeal in the Supreme Court making comments on the case in a speech to students abroad.

Her comments are being drip fed to us by the media.Initially it looked like she only mentioned it in passing, but later drips show she went into some detail (I want a full transcript!).

The big issue she raised was that as only parliament can make and repeal UK domestic law. And while treaties don't usually impact domestic law, so can be entered into and broken by the government using royal prerogative, the 1972 EU Legal supremacy act apparently means EU treaties do impact domestic law so need parliaments assent.

She suggested the implication of this may be that the 1972 act may have to be repealed before Article 50 is invoked. Repealing the 1972 act itself is quite simple, but the consequences of doing so are potentially extensive. Theresa May's original plan was to move all EU law into UK law to mitigate these consequences (200,000 pages and growing of new law). However the Judge has suggested that each individual law may need to be itemised for debate by parliament before being accepted/amended/rejected - a process that could take many years, and as the EU creates new law endlessly (a reason for leaving), it may be a never ending process - and it may all need to be done before Article 50 can be invoked.

I suspect this was the plan all along - and the pro-EU establishment knew this when the 72 act was created and have lied to us all along about it being a simple vote to repeal it 'if we wanted to'.

If this judges view is correct, then brexit may be delayed indefinitely unless we replace our MP's and government with one that is committed to brexit. Simply replacing MP's in not enough - this Conservative government under David Cameron and Theresa May are as much barriers to Brexit as the Liberal Democrats are - just more sneaky and underhand about it.

Sign up here to get inspiration to write to your MP! And/or Sign up to get info on Brexit events! I run a load of lists - do sign up to at least one - having made contact, it would be a waste not to keep it!!
Join a list - keep in touch at RadioFreeUK.org



Tuesday, 8 November 2016

Letter to my MP (conservative, junior governent post) - re #Brexit debacle.

I have started a club to help encourage and inspire others to write to their MP's - hints/tips/ideas - why not join the mailing list? www.radiofreeuk.org/flyers/brexiteers-letter-writers-club/


Tuesday 8 November 2016

Dear,

I am very disappointed with the turn of events around brexit.

I wrote to you before the referendum decrying the fact David Cameron and his Conservative government had apparently been making no plans for the eventuality of the vote going for leave.

Now after much (avoidable) delay while such plans are created, the unthinkable has become thinkable. The small hardcore pro EU, anti democratic element of society have started openly talking about ignoring the result of the referendum.

The appeal has been based on the fact that further legislation appears to be needed before article 50 is invoked - a fact that was (apparently) well known to parliament and MP's all along (being explicitly referenced in the explanatory notes relating to the bill), a fact that Mr Cameron and his government would have been well aware of. From what I have seen and read myself this seems (to such a layman) an entirely reasonable interpretation of the situation (although it may well be subject to other law I am not aware of).

Mr Cameron was prime minister when the AV referendum bill was created and the issue of further legislation was clearly an important point and must have been much discussed. And he must have been aware of this fact when the EU referendum bill was drawn up and later when he falsely stated that 'the government will implement your decision' - as this was a promise he knew he could not make, and a false promise that no MP highlighted or brought to the publics attention to at the time.

It can only be believed that Mr Cameron and his Government deliberately included this flaw in the EU referendum bill as a 'backstop' in the even of leave winning against his own wishes. And the whole of parliament failed the British people in not removing this flaw before the bill was passed.

For the government and parliament to put this right at quickly as possible and avoid public unrest an immediate motion should be passed stating that 'this house unreservedly support the public's decision to leave the EU, and for the government to invoke article 50 at the earliest opportunity and no later than ....'.

I know such a vote was proposed in the recent debate on brexit, and dismissed out of hand, however while the government may be content to sit on their hands for now, the public may be less so.

Such a division would mean the public can be fully aware of where their MP's stand on this issue, and brexit can continue with no further diversionary fuss, and end this additional and extended 'uncertainty' which everyone agrees is a bad thing. Should the division fail the whole situation is no worse that it is now.

For your reference, I have written a short blog referring to the relevant documents and statements. http://www.radiofreeuk.org/blogs/paul/2016/11/07/eu-referendum-what-a-mess-a-dogs-brexitfast/

Yours sincerely,

Monday, 31 October 2016

Just a couple of facebook posts I made on Raheem Kassams 'Make UKIP Great Again' page... before he quit :(


The Brexit winning UKIP has done its job - 'steady as she goes', 'safe pair of hands' will just mean it drifts off into twilight years of gradual (or very, very rapid!) decline. Right now there is a huge backlash against the social justice warrior/politically correct malaise that has been sitting over us for years. Students starting at university are seeing where the previous generation of lefty minded debt laden students have ended up - and they don't want to go there... And they have seen Mizzou in the USA on social media and don't want to end up there (if you don't know it, google 'mizzou closing' or 'mizzou enrollment' - google hides it if you just google 'mizzou'... ). Now is the time to bridge the pre-PC generation with the post-PC generation - and create a movement for now, and the future. New blood is a risk - but its a risk you have to take to have a future. If UKIP is to be that bridge and create that generation spanning movement back to 'normality' and a bright new brexit future - I believe it has to have fresh new blood at the top. If Raheem wins, I may even rejoin UKIP - but don't let that put you off!



Raheem will do will with the online crowd - but off-line I am not sure anyone has heard of him! If people really want him elected, they need to evangelise to their branches - get those MUGA crib sheets and hymn sheets out there!

Theresa May? Socialist. She won't get a good #Brexit.

(I found this item on my computer, and couldn't see that I'd published it anywhere... so here it is!)

Theresa May's conference speech made pretty clear that she is a socialist - to the left of Tony Blair, somewhere in Gordon Brown teritory.

She called for government intervention in many areas - perhaps forgetting that government only has the resources and means to intervene if it has first taken those resources from us, the people who she now thinks needs state aid.

As Milton Freeman was keen to point out - pretty much every avoidable problem is cause by state intervention - if not by virtue of the state having taken our money so rendering us in need of its return!

So the centre and centre right cannot trust her in politics generally, and on Brexit having delayed the invoking of article 50 for as long as she could, she has now said that at the end of the two year Article 52 notice period, the 1972 EU Law Supremacy act will be repealed and all EU law in force at the time will be transferred en-mass into UK law.

She confirmed on the Marr show that this would include the law on bananas, sausages and all the other nonsense that is not only nonsense in its own right, but has no place in the law of land. Excepting the most fundamental of safety standards, there is no case for a national law on the shape of a banana or the recipe for a sausage. Keeping EU law would also keep the UK in the common fisheries policy a policy that has already destroyed many British coastal jobs and massacred our fish stocks. If we do not leave the policy on brexit, it is implausible to think the tortuous exercise of extricating ourselves piece by piece will ever happen - and our fishing industry will entirely disappear, as will all of our fish.

We have two years now to identify what specific legal changes we need post Brexit, if it cannot be done in these two years then it is foolish to imagine that it will ever be done - and the 200,000+ pages of EU law will sit in our law books for ever. You surely know of the Barnett Formula - it is the formula used to redistribute wealth between the nations of the UK - it was created as a bodge, a stop gap, pragmatically accepted as everyone knew it was a one off and would be reviewed before the next years budget was calculated... now about 50 years on it has not been reviewed despite everyone agreeing it is flawed. EU law will be the same - the government will never do anything unless it sees profit or benefit for itself in doing so -- it will have no incentive to review EU law unless there is pressing urgent business and even then it will have to happen alongside 'business as usual' and whatever madcap scheme it promised in its manifesto and is desperate to roll out.

This EU Red Tape is exactly what holds the EU back now, and so will hold us back in future if we keep it. The EU Single Market is actually a protection mechanism - it allows the EU to have its red-tape without being destroyed economically by leaner more agile economies. For the UK to venture outside the EU while keeping this Red-Tape, these EU laws it will be economic suicide. Like making a parachute landing behind enemy lines, then refusing to relase the harness and insisting on having the canopy dragging behind you as you look for safety.

It should also be remembered that the UK parliament has in fact had sovereignty all along... it simply chose not to use it -- the '72 act was entirely voluntary and could have been repealed at any time. But our MP's refused to so and blamed the EU for all our woes - but further refused to have a referendum on membership deliberately to frustrate the will of the people. It is our MP's that are called to heel by the EU referendum result. And having called them to heel we cannot let they run away again - we cannot leave any responsibility for action in their hands as we know from bitter experience they will neglect it.

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

Shrugging off state law/justice - the sovereignty of a jury of your peers to nullify any/all law.

Jury activism must put an end to judicial activism and an end to stupid politically correct, victim-less crime.

We all like to pretend to believe that out parliament is sovereign (maybe some do genuinely believe this to be true!), however as long as we have trial by jury this is not actually true.

As long as we have jury trials, no law can be enforced other than by the consent of the jury - they have absolute authority to decide whether an accused man deserves to be punished or walk free. It is long established in English law that the jury is entirely unaccountable to the judicial system for their decisions. However courts, judges, the legal system and politicians are very keen to end this, an Englishman's ultimate appeal to natural justice as seen by a jury of his peers. It is vital that no free man lets this liberty go - only a jury can ultimately decide if you have done wrong - anyone else is simply guessing what a jury may say and is simply crystal ball gazing.

No juries decision is ever perverse - it is always correct (based on the information presented) if it appears flawed, then the flaw is in the person observing it!

Jury activism must put an end to judicial activism and an end to stupid politically correct, victim-less crime.