Tag Archive | U.K.

It Took a Nine-year-old Muslim Boy 35 Seconds to Rumble Theresa May*

It Took a Nine-year-old Muslim Boy 35 Seconds to Rumble Theresa May*

By James Wright

 

It looks like even nine-year-olds can see through Theresa May. On ITV News, Hasnain Nawaz questioned the sitting Prime Minister’s ‘strong and stable’ sloganeering and called on her to “actually do something”:

Weak and wobbly?

Nawaz specified that he is not “following” May. In a display of raw, childhood common sense, he pointed out that May’s rhetoric does not match her actions:

“She’s not really doing anything to be honest, all she’s saying is ‘oh, this, oh, that, I’m strong,’ and all of this.

Well she’s not really doing anything by saying all of that is she?”

ITV invited Nawaz on the show after he asked Jeremy Corbyn a question about “strong and stable leadership” in Peterborough. He also explained why he felt “inspired” by Corbyn:

“He helps the homeless. Everyone talks about needing to help the homeless, well Jeremy Corbyn does it. School education… he does it all for me”

By contrast, May wants to take away free school meals for primary school pupils like Nawaz. She will replace them with breakfast, which amounts to another cut of £650m per year. Meanwhile, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) confirmed reports from teachers and parents that the Conservatives are bringing the  ‘deepest cuts’ to education for 30 years.

Joining Nawaz, a BBC Question Time audience member also hit out at the lack of substance in the Conservative campaign. The audience member said he’d bet his wife £10 that Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green would say “coalition of chaos” and “strong and stable government” during his first contribution. It might be the easiest £10 he’s ever earned.

Robot rhetoric

The Conservative campaign indicates that his wife was up against terrible odds. During an interview with Radio Derby, Theresa May epitomised this. Host Chris Doidge asked the Prime Minister if she knew what a ‘mugwump’ was. Boris Johnson had used the word to personally attack Jeremy Corbyn earlier that day. Then, like a robot, May responded:

“What I recognise is that what we need in this country is strong and stable leadership.”

The collective face-palm was tangible. Journalists from The Sun and The Guardian alike expressed utter disbelief. The mindless catchphrase only highlights the Prime Minister’s inability to defend her party’s record:

Even nine-year-olds can see through May’s electioneering. From pretending opposition parties are blocking Brexit, to scapegoating E.U. interference in the election, almost all of the Conservatives’ movements amount to naked electioneering. Brexit is happening. It’s about what type of country we want to build outside the E.U. A civil meritocracy where everyone has the opportunity to succeed through universal education, healthcare and housing. Or a rigged economy where we rent our essential services from the already rich. Nawaz hasn’t reached double figures yet, but he gets it.

Source*

Related Topics:

U.K PM to Create New Internet that would be Controlled and Regulated by Government*

U.K. PM Bows to Pressure to Spell out ‘Brexit Plan’ Details*

U.K’s New PM a Very Jewish Coup*

U.K’s New PM’s Husband is a Senior Executive to an Investment Fund that Profits from Tax Avoiding Companies*

Theresa May Alone in the Trump Debate U.K. Parliament Unites to Send its own Message*

Criminal Investigation Into U.K. Conservative Government*

Young Mothers are going Hungry so their Children can Eat in Theresa May’s Britain*

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian “Collaborator” for Questioning NATO Troop Build-Up on Border*

The U.K. Establishment Toppling the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn*

Corbyn Triumphs as Cameron Fears Failure to Achieve Mandate on Invading Syria*

Corbyn Keeps his Promises to his Constituents, even if it means keeping the Queen Waiting*

Reality of British Empire should be taught in Schools – Corbyn*

Corbyn Turns PMQs into the People’s Question Time, and Cameron Flounders*

Why Corbyn Gained the Unlikely Support of Business*

U.K. Brexit Election 08 June 2017*

 

Wikileaks and How Israel Enslaved the British*

Wikileaks and How Israel Enslaved the British*

By Ian Greenhalgh

[Editor’s note: Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive…

While few would dispute that a tangled web surrounds his public image, many fail to discern that Assange is practising deception; in fact, it is his raison d’etre, he and his Wikileaks organisation are a front for what the CIA correctly identified as a “hostile intelligence service”; VT will go further and identify them as Israel’s Mossad.

Furthermore, the unstinting support given to Assange and Wikileaks by Nigel Farage and his UKIP party is a clear indicator that they too, are serving Israeli masters and have been ever since they appeared on the British political scene in the 1990s.

Let us step back in time to the mid-90s, a time when Britain was coming to the end of a 15 year rule by the Conservative Party, most of it under Margaret Thatcher. The Labour Party was undergoing a resurgence due to the leadership of John Smith and the disarray within the Conservative Party caused by the thorny issue of the EU and the Maastricht Treaty.

Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock had failed to win the 1992 election, largely due to poor handling of the media and a failure to sell Kinnock to the British people – he was too Welsh and too ginger and Labour never managed to market him effectively, the popular support within the electorate was there but the marketing savvy was lacking.

The Conservatives under Thatcher in the 1980s had transformed British politics by hiring the prestigious Saatchi and Saatchi PR firm and making politics more about the image presented to the public than actual policies. Kinnock’s failure in 92 began a new phase in the history of the Labour Party as party insiders realised that, to beat the Conservatives they had to play the same game where PR spin was king and policies a distant second in importance.

John Smith replaced Kinnock and was hugely popular both with his own party and the British electorate, he was seen as a near certainty to win the 1997 election – sadly he died of a heart attack in 1994 and was replaced by the man who today is best remembered as the war criminal that followed George W Bush into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq like a faithful lap dog, one Tony Blair.

Tony Blair was an Israeli asset from the moment he first entered politics under the sponsorship of Zionist Jew Levy Mendelsohn, a man Blair would make Lord Levy shortly after becoming Prime Minister. In partnership with Peter Mandleson, a close friend of the Rothschilds, Blair destroyed the Labour Party, turning it into ‘New Labour’ and moving it from a left wing, socialist party to a centre-right, populist puppet that emulated the PR spin tactics of the 1980s Conservatives while slavishly following the directions of their Israeli masters.

All the other New Labour leaders were stooges too, Jack Straw, Gordon Brown, all of them, only John Prescott remained from the old, socialist Labour and he likely only got to remain because he knew where the bodies were buried, so to speak.

Under Blair and New Labour, Britain entered a new and shameful period where we functioned as the 51st state of the USA and our armed forces became an adjunct of those of the U.S., dutifully working alongside the Yanks to fight the War On Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and share in the heroin, oil and stolen resources profits.

During the Blair years, the Conservative party fell into utter disarray under a series of unpopular and ineffective leaders such as William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith (yes, no-one remembers them in Britain either), torn apart by a deep divide over the issue of Britain’s membership of the EU. Out of this divide came Nigel Farage and UKIP.

Farage, a former City banker, formed UKIP in order to attract away from the Conservative Party those who were referred to as ‘Euro Sceptics’ and wanted Britain to either leave the E.U. entirely or at least change drastically the nature of Britain’s membership of the E.U. With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that Farage and UKIP was an Israeli operation to weaken and destabilise the Conservative party, thus allowing Tony Blair and New Labour to enjoy almost 15 years in power. Thus, Britain became an Israeli puppet.

While UKIP never became a major force in British parliamentary politics, they served a vital role in the Israeli takeover.

By 2010 and the election of David Cameron, Israeli control had been completely solidified; Cameron had been an Israeli asset since at least the early 90s and he continued to follow Tel-Aviv’s orders every bit as obediently as Blair had before him.

Fast forward to 2016 and the infamous referendum on membership of the E.U., now universally referred to as ‘BREXIT’. Cameron dutifully did as he was ordered and lost, Farage won, a clear case of Israeli controlling both sides and ensuring they get the result they desired – Britain out of Europe, thus destabilising both the E.U. and Britain itself.

Having served their roles and achieved their assigned tasks, Farage and Cameron both retired from politics post-BREXIT, Cameron to enjoy his vast personal wealth, Farage to float around the fringes of politics, occasionally sticking his head up to support his fellow Israeli stooges – best evidenced by his visit to the US during the last election in order to make a few speeches praising his good pal Donald Trump.

So now you have the background to where we are today in Britain, a nation where the ruling Conservative Party is every bit as much under Israeli-control as New Labour had been under Blair, meaning we have been under the Zionist thumb for the last 20 years.

A glimmer of hope does exist in the form of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, a true socialist of the old Labour party who has been attacked and slandered at almost every turn as an anti-semite and labelled as ‘unelectable’ by the British media, despite enjoying massive popular support amongst the British people. Of course, Corbyn is no anti-semite, he is simply labelled that because he is not an Israeli asset, the first leader of either the Labour or Conservative parties for over two decades who is not a puppet of Tel-Aviv.

Corbyn has attempted to purge the Labour Party of it’s Blairites, those who have taken the dirty shekel proferred by the Zionist criminals. That task remains incomplete, hence we have witnessed many attacks on Corbyn from within his own party. Sadly, if he loses the upcoming general election, Corbyn will probably not get the chance to complete the purge of the Blairites as a challenge to his leadership of the party will almost certainly arise.

In recent weeks, Tony Blair himself has mooted a potential return to politics, this is a clear indicator that the Zionists are concerned that Corbyn has had at least a measure of success in his campaign to rebuild the Labour Party into it’s original, socialist form and remove the Israeli hegemony it has been enslaved under; hence they are threatening to reintroduce their faithful servant Blair and use him to undermine Corbyn while dividing the Labour party in much the same way they used their boy Farage to deeply wound the Conservatives in the 1990s.

When Assange stepped onto the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy this week and gave his ‘can’t forgive or forget’ speech and stating that ‘the war is far from over’ he was reading directly from the agenda set for him by Tel-Aviv. The Swedish rape charges that have just been dropped were a complete fabrication, part of a psyop designed to lend credibility to Assange, to paint him as a real deal fugitive from justice who was the sworn enemy of ‘the powers that be’.

Of course, this is a total inversion of the truth, Assange and Wikileaks along with the British government, the British media and the British Establishment are all on Tel-Aviv’s payroll, all faithful servants, willing conspirators and faithful partners in crime to that evil Zionist regime. Farage too, although now relegated to the sidelines, remains ready, waiting and more than willing to continue to serve those same masters. Ian]

Daily Beast
Wikileaks: Inside the Farage-Assange-Trump Connection

When Julian Assange sought refuge in 2011 at an embassy in the heart of London, only one of Britain’s political parties was willing to offer support to the exile in their midst.

Nigel Farage’s U.K. Independence Party, which seemed a fringe movement at the time but became the driving force behind Brexit, swung into action and campaigned against the demand that Assange be returned to Sweden for a police interview on allegations of rape.

Farage and his UKIP colleagues have spoken out publicly in support of Assange numerous times since 2011, but leaked emails seen by The Daily Beast reveal the true extent to which the party apparatus tried to assist the founder of WikiLeaks, which the head of the CIA has since described as a “hostile intelligence service” that cooperated with Russian agents.

The episode raises further questions about links between Farage, Assange and the Russian government. Farage, who is also a favoured friend of U.S. President Donald Trump, was spotted emerging from a meeting with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in March.

Internal UKIP memos reveal the relationship went back much further: Assange and his lawyer were given the opportunity to contribute directly to speeches given by UKIP on the floor of the European Parliament while branches of the party in and around London were told to send activists to protest against Assange’s proposed judicial surrender to the authorities.

“We need bodies,” read an email request sent to local UKIP associations asking them to send two or three people each as an “astroturf” protest against Assange’s plight when he appeared in court in London in January 2011.

Farage and his UKIP colleagues also reportedly met privately with Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens, who was repeatedly offered the chance to help craft the party’s words on the case, according to the leaked emails.

Stephens was asked if he or Assange would like to meet a UKIP member of the European Parliament, Gerrard Batten, on January 31 that year “in order to discuss bringing out issues in the case.”

He was asked again if he wished “to include a few points to get the message across” on February 5, 2011, before Batten was due to speak in the European Parliament. Batten asked Stephens again if he had “any points that you feel I should or should not mention in the few minutes I get to speak” on February 11.

Batten addressed the European Parliament, standing at Farage’s right hand, on February 14, 2011,. where he raised the prospect that Assange was being mistreated because he was “a political dissident.” He returned to the case in June 2011, telling the parliament in Brussels that the U.S. “need him locked up somewhere” while they work out how to prosecute him.

The UKIP MEP also made a submission on behalf of Assange in his case against extradition, which went all the way to Britain’s Supreme Court in 2012. Last year, Batten wrote on his blog that Assange’s stay in the embassy of Ecuador had been tantamount to “arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.”

When news broke on Friday that Sweden would no longer pursue the allegations against Assange after a seven-year standoff while he hid in an embassy out of the reach of British law enforcement, Batten told The Daily Beast he had never taken a position on the guilt or innocence of Assange.

“I don’t really have a view about Mr. Assange. My involvement with him was regarding my opposition to the European Arrest Warrant,” he said. “At the time, eminent British lawyers who looked at it said this would never make it to an English court—these kind of accusations. It didn’t sound very sound in the first place.”

Assange hailed Sweden’s decision to stop pursuing the allegations and celebrated the release of Chelsea Manning—one of the first major WikiLeaks leakers—in a speech from the balcony of the embassy in London’s Mayfair.

“We have today won an important victory, but the road is far from over. The proper war is just commencing,” he said, promising to accelerate the distribution of material about the CIA.

The standoff will continue because there is still an outstanding warrant for Assange’s arrest over skipping bail.

Batten told The Daily Beast he had attended Assange’s lavish 40th birthday party in 2010 but had not met with him since. He said he does not recall whether Stephens or Assange took up his offer to help with his speeches. He also said he had received no donations from anyone connected to WikiLeaks or the Russian government. “If only these people would offer me money, I’d have the luxury of refusing it,” he said.

UKIP has repeatedly denied co-operating with Russia, Russian front organizations, or taking funds from the Kremlin—which would be illegal under British law—but Farage, who was one of the first foreign politicians to meet with Trump after his election, has called for improved relations between Russia, Britain, and the U.S. He also described Vladimir Putin as the foreign leader he most admires.

Last week, Farage refused once again to answer questions about his recent visit to see Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. “That has nothing to do with you,” he snapped at a Die Zeit reporter. “It was a private meeting.”

He has claimed that he met Assange as a journalist—not as a political go-between—but no interview has appeared since the March 9 meeting.

In the same interview, Farage also failed to disclose whether he received payments for his regular appearances on RT, a news channel funded by the Russian government, which paid Assange to produce his own show in 2012.

The secrecy surrounding Farage’s meeting with Assange, prompted speculation that he may have been sent as an emissary from someone in Trump’s orbit. Farage is close to Trump, he has also met the political operative Roger Stone who claimed to have a back-channel to Assange last summer.

Farage has denied that he was carrying a secret message to or from Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization has been accused of influencing the result of last year’s U.S. presidential election with the help of Russian hackers.

One of the UKIP candidates contesting Britain’s election next month told The Daily Beast that there is nothing suspicious about the attitude towards Russia taken by Farage and his party. Nigel Sussman, the parliamentary candidate for Edmonton in North London, says it’s a natural meeting of minds.

“Russia is very credible and commonsensical—and UKIP is very credible and commonsensical,” he said. “There’s a synergy of views there.”

Sussman has a more intimate view of Russia than most British politicians. He traveled to Crimea last month as a guest of the Russian parliament, who paid for internal flights, accommodation and food. Sussman says he paid for his own round-trip flights to Russia.

Sussman, the chair of UKIP’s Ilford association, who was on the trip with another former UKIP candidate, met with the local pro-Russian officials and toured the streets of former eastern
Ukraine talking to local residents accompanied by cameras from Russia’s state-owned TV Channel 1. Although most of the international community regards Moscow’s covert occupation and annexation of Crimea following as stage-managed vote as illegal and illegitimate, based on his interviews, Sussman says: “Crimea had a perfectly legitimate referendum in my opinion.”

As a result, he has submitted a report to UKIP’s National Executive Committee, which calls for a policy change—demanding that sanctions should be lifted against Russia.

“As far as I can see there don’t seem to be a lot of people standing up for Russia right now,” he said. Is UKIP the most pro-Russian party? “Yes, I think it is.”

Sussman is, however, hopeful that Trump will ease relations between Moscow and the West.

 “I have high hopes for Trump because Trump is going to meet Putin. I think he has said it plain: he wants to be friends with Russia. That sounds like an eminently sensible position for God’s sake!”

The UKIP candidate insisted that there was no evidence that Putin’s regime had helped Trump into office, although the U.S. intelligence community is on the record and unanimous in its conviction that Russia tried to influence the outcome. He also explained away Moscow’s reported munificence towards Marine Le Pen. “What happened was Le Pen tried to get a loan from French banks and none of the French banks would lend her any money—and that’s outrageous… It’s a bit like UKIP, I mean God help us!”

The bottom line: Le Pen’s party received millions of dollars in loans in 2014 from a now defunct Russian bank, and, whether coincidentally or out of conviction, her minions, too, endorsed the Crimean annexation.

The two representatives from Britain on the Crimea tour this year were not joined by any members of Le Pen’s National Front, but the guests included an unlikely array of minor party politicians like Jaroslav Holik from a Czech party with links to Le Pen, or the son of Serbia’s Vojislav Seselj, who was acquitted of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a United Nations tribunal in the Hague.

“It’s a collection of odds and sods; far left or far right will do, as long as they are open to some Russian support. Some of these are full Russian puppets like the Serbian Radical Party,” said Neil Barnett, the chief executive of Istok Associates, a corporate intelligence and investigations consultancy.

There is evidence that Russia helped UKIP secure Brexit—using its army of online trolls and bots—but there is no proof of collusion or direct funding from the Kremlin, or assistance from WikiLeaks.

Arron Banks, the British businessman who was once UKIP’s biggest donor and set up the unofficial Brexit campaign group Leave.EU, says he has a good relationship with Russia—including long boozy lunches with the Russian ambassador—but says there has been no monetary donation either directly or through his array of offshore companies.

Banks, who was pictured in the entourage that met Trump with Farage in the days just after Trump won the election, gave an extraordinary interview to the Observer newspaper in London last month in which he admitted that his Russian wife had the profile of a Russian spy, then suddenly denied that Russia had bankrolled Brexit—unprompted—and repeatedly defended Putin.

“What you’re talking about is the degree to which the Russians actually—let’s say they influenced the Brexit vote. Say I’m pro-Putin. Nigel said he’s not anti-Putin, if that’s the right word. But all we’ve said is that there are elements of what Russians do that we don’t disagree with. We don’t agree with everything they’re doing, like murdering journalists in the street,” he said.

This “joke” is typical of Banks, who ensures it’s hard to know exactly how seriously his words should be taken at any given moment.

When his old pal Farage was spotted leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in March, original reports said it was unclear why he had been inside the building—not least since Farage claimed to have forgotten.

A newspaper later reported that he had indeed been holding secret talks with Assange, and Banks wrote on Twitter: “Well he didn’t go for drinks with the ambassador did he?”

Another multi-millionaire with loose-lips, like Trump, Banks seems to revel in offering glimmers of a sprawling axis that runs from Washington D.C. to Moscow via London—and a tiny sliver of Ecuadorian sovereignty.

Whether Assange makes it outside the embassy in the coming days or if he continues to hide from justice—the game of shadows will continue.

Source*

Related Topics:

Britain’s Hostile Elite: Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think*

Outrage as U.K.School Calls Police after Pupil Looks at Ukip Website in Class*

Proof That Britain’s E.U. Brexit Referendum Was Rigged*

E.U. Foreign Policy Chief Questions Relations with U.S.*

U.K. Brexit Election 08 June 2017*

U.K.’s Overhaul of Official Secrets Act Will Give Journalists 14 years in Jail for Publishing Sensitive Info.*

E.U., Israel Agree to Develop Eastern Mediterranean Gas Pipeline*

Ombudsman Opens Inquiry into E.U.’s ‘Secretive’ Decision Making*

E.U. Founders to Form Federal Union of European States*

E.U. to Take Control of British Nuclear Deterrent*

E.U. Military Union Is Budgetary Union*

E.U. Begins to Fracture post-BREXIT*

 

Britain Collapses to 156th Place for the Human Rights of Children*

Britain Collapses to 156th Place for the Human Rights of Children*

This is quite extraordinary. At first, I thought this was some sort of ‘fake news’ article. Worryingly, it isn’t. Austerity – a Conservative ideology that recklessly bailed out banks then socialised the debt has had dramatic effects upon civil society, demonstrated no better than the plummet in the overall welfare of Britain’s children in recent years. But this increase in child poverty is now of epidemic dimensions – and should be treated like one.

Nearly half of children are now living in poverty in some parts of the U.K., research by the End Child Poverty coalition has found. An unbelievable 100,000 are unfortunately added to this miserable category each year, and the government’s own statistics now show one third of all children in Britain are living in poverty.

No mention of a concerted effort by politicians to bring this scandal to an end in any manifesto; itself a damning indictment of those in power.

“Austerity measures have reduced provision of a range of services that protect and fulfil children’s rights including health and child and adolescent mental health services; education; early years; preventive and early intervention services; and youth services. “

By Kitty Jones

The Index gathers data from UNICEF and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) to identify global trends in the arena of children’s rights protection. It comprises a ranking for all U.N. member states that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a total of 165 countries.

The report says that a nation’s prosperity does not always guarantee children’s rights. Interestingly, economically better performing countries are not necessarily doing a better job when it comes to safeguarding the rights of children.

This year’s overall worst performing countries are the United Kingdom, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Vanuatu, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Central African Republic.

Very serious concerns have been raised about structural discrimination in the UK. Muslim children are facing increased discrimination following recent anti-terrorism measures, and a rise in discrimination against gypsy and refugee children in recent years.

The KidsRights Index is comprised of 5 domains: 

  1. Right to Life
  2. Right to Health
    3. Right to Education
    4. Right to Protection
    5. Enabling Environment for Child Rights

Marc Dullaert, founder and chairman of the KidsRights Foundation, has urged the U.K. government to treat non-discrimination as a policy priority, and to speed up the process of aligning its child protection laws with the Convention on the Rights of the Child at both the national and devolved levels, as well as in all crown dependencies.

He said: “Discrimination against vulnerable groups of children and youths is severely hampering opportunities for future generations to reach their full potential.” 

“Following the general election, the new government should demonstrate to the world that it will not allow the retreat from the E.U. to adversely affect the rights and opportunities of its children.” 

In light of the findings, Lord Philip Hunt, shadow deputy leader of the House of Lords and shadow health spokesperson, accused the Government of “inactivity” and “inadequate service provision”, urging it to do more to protect the rights of the child.

He said: “This report exposes the inactivity of the current U.K. government and inadequate service provision in this most important area of policy making; rights of the child.” 

“The U.K. is the sixth largest economy globally and therefore has the resources at its disposal to ensure that our children are adequately protected and cared for across multiple disciplines. Our children are our future and the barometer of our approach to social justice and the state of our society.”

Although many states have adopted new children’s rights policies in recent years, the Index reveals that implementation is often not evident, and many new policies fail to fully comply with the principles and provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Index rates and ranks the extent to which a country has implemented the general principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child while taking into account the basic infrastructure for making and implementing children’s rights policies. Portugal is this year’s global top ranking nation, with France, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain also ranking in the top ten.

The Index methodology means that extremely poor performances in one domain cannot be compensated by higher scores in other domains, as all of areas children’s rights are deemed to be equally important.

The report concluded that many industrialised nations, and especially the U.K., are falling far short of allocating sufficient budgets towards creating a stable environment for children’s rights, by neglecting their leadership responsibilities and failing to invest in the rights of children to the best of their abilities.

Human rights and the impact of childhood poverty

Earlier this month, another damning report published by the Royal College of Paediatrics, Child Health (RCPCH) and Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) revealed that more than two-thirds of paediatricians believe poverty and low income contribute “very much” to the ill health of children that they work with.

The report – Poverty and child health: views from the frontline – is based on a survey of more than 250 paediatricians across the country, whose comments provide an insight into the grave reality of life for the millions of UK children living in poverty.

Latest figures show that more than one in four (nearly 4 million) children in the U.K. live in poverty – with projections suggesting this could rise to 5 million by the end of the decade.

The report explores number of areas including food insecurity, poor housing and worry, stress and stigma – and the effect of these issues on the health of children.

The report reveals that:

  • more than two-thirds of paediatricians surveyed said poverty and low income contribute ‘very much’ to the ill health of children they work with
  • housing problems or homelessness were a concern for two-thirds of respondents.
  • more than 60% said food insecurity contributed to the ill health amongst children they treat 3
  • 40% had difficulty discharging a child in the last 6 months because of concerns about housing or food insecurity
  • more than 50% of respondents said that financial stress and worry contribute ‘very much’ to the ill health of children they work with

Alison Garnham, Chief Executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said:

“Day in, day out doctors see the damage rising poverty does to children’s health. Their disquiet comes through in the survey findings and should sound alarms for the next government. Low family incomes, inadequate housing and cuts to support services are jeopardising the health of our most vulnerable children.

“We can and must do better to protect the well-being of future generations. reinstating the U.K.’s poverty-reduction targets would be an obvious place to start.” 

Professor Russell Viner, Officer for Health Promotion at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said:

“Poverty has a devastating effect on child health and this report makes disturbing reading. The health impact on children living in poverty is significant – whether that’s increased likelihood of respiratory problems, mental ill-health or obesity – than children living in more affluent areas.

“Worryingly, almost half of those surveyed feel the problem is getting worse, with the combination of increasing poverty, housing problems and cuts to services meaning more families are struggling.”  

The RCPCH and CPAG are calling on whoever forms the next Government to tackle poverty urgently through:

  • the restoration of binding national targets to reduce child poverty, backed by a national child poverty strategy
  • the adoption of a ‘child health in all policies’ approach to decision making and policy development, with Her Majesty’s Treasury disclosing information about the impact of the Chancellor’s annual budget statement on child poverty and inequality
  • the reversal of public health cuts to ensure universal early years services, including health visiting and school nursing, are prioritised and supported financially, with additional targeted help for children and families experiencing poverty
  • the reversal of cuts to universal credit which will leave the majority of families claiming this benefit worse off.

As one survey respondent said: “We cannot expect to have a healthy future for the U.K. if we leave children behind. Poverty makes children sick.”

There were 3.9 million children living in “relative poverty” in 2014-15, up from 3.7 million a year earlier, according to figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

The report follows the release of  figures from the DWP which revealed one in four (nearly four million) children in the U.K. live in poverty – with projections suggesting this could rise to five million by the end of the decade.

It’s not as if the government have been unaware of the consequences of their policies and the implications of a consistent failure to uphold the UK’s human rights obligations towards children. In 2014, the Children’s Commissioner warned that the increasing inequality resulting from the austerity cuts, and in particular, the welfare reforms, means that Britain is now in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is supposed to protect children from the adverse effects of government economic measures.

In 2015, the Children’s Commissioner criticised the Conservative’s tax credit cuts and called for measures to reduce the impact that the changes will have on the poorest children. Anne Longfield, who took up her role on 1 March 2015, called on the government to exempt 800,000 children under five from tax credit cuts and to offer additional support to families with a child under five-years-old.

The role of Children’s Commissioner was established under Labour’s Children Act in 2004 to be the independent voice of children and young people and to champion their interests and bring their concerns and views to the national arena. The Commissioner’s work must take regard of children’s rights (the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) and seek to improve the wellbeing of children and young people.

However, the government rejected the findings of what they deemed the “partial, selective and misleading” Children’s Commissioner report. The Commissioner wrote to the Chancellor to call for children in the poorest families aged under five to be protected from the cuts.

However, George Osborne shamefully remained brazenly unrepentant.

A damning joint report written by the four United Kingdom Children’s Commissioners for the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child’s examination of the U.K.’s Fifth Periodic Report under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), dated 14 August 2015, says, in its overall assessment of the U.K.’s record:

“The Children’s Commissioners are concerned that the U.K. State Party’s response to the global economic downturn, including the imposition of austerity measures and changes to the welfare system, has resulted in a failure to protect the most disadvantaged children and those in especially vulnerable groups from child poverty, preventing the realisation of their rights under Articles 26 and 27 UNCRC. 

The best interests of children were not central to the development of these policies and children’s views were not sought. 

Reductions to household income for poorer children as a result of tax, transfer and social security benefit changes have led to food and fuel poverty, and the sharply increased use of crisis food bank provision by families. In some parts of the U.K. there is insufficient affordable decent housing which has led to poorer children living in inadequate housing and in temporary accommodation.

Austerity measures have reduced provision of a range of services that protect and fulfil children’s rights including health and child and adolescent mental health services; education; early years; preventive and early intervention services; and youth services. 

The Commissioners are also seriously concerned at the impact of systematic reductions to legal advice, assistance and representation for children and their parents/carers in important areas such as prison law; immigration; private family law; and education. This means that children are denied access to remedies where their rights have been breached.

The Commissioners are also concerned at the future of the human rights settlement in the United Kingdom due to the U.K. Government’s intention to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law; replace it with a British Bill of Rights (the contents of which are yet to be announced), and ‘break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights’.

The HRA has been vital in promoting and protecting the rights of children in the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights has had an important role in developing the protection offered to children by the ECHR.The Commissioners are concerned that any amendment or replacement of the HRA is likely to be regressive.”

In another regressive and punitive policy move by the government, from April 6 2017, child tax credits and universal credit across the U.K. will be restricted to the first two children in a family. This measure will affect all households with two or more children that have an additional child after this date.

Analysis by consultancy Policy in Practice revealed a low-income family whose third or additional child is born before midnight on the day before the policy came into force would qualify for up to £50,000 in tax credit support over 18 years whereas a similar family whose third child is born on April 6 will miss out.

The government says it wants to save money and make the tax credit system “fairer”. It intends the two-child restriction to “influence the behaviour” of less well-off families by making them “think twice” about having a third child. But it also accepts there is no evidence to suggest this will happen.

This is an extremely regressive eugenic policy, with its emphasis being on social class. Eugenics was discredited following its terrible escalation and consequences in Nazi Germany.

The two children only policy also a reflects a politically motivated form of crude behaviourism –  behaviour modification through the use of financial punishments. It’s probably true that all authoritarians and tyrants are behaviourists of sorts.

Critics say that at current birth rates, 100,000 third or subsequent children will not qualify for tax credit support over the next 12 months, inflating child poverty figures by at least 10% by 2020.

Social Darwinism is linked closely with eugenic ideas – a view that society and economics will naturally “check” the problem of dysgenics if no welfare policies are in place.

The Conservative government has steadily dismantled the welfare state over the past seven years, so that now, there is no longer adequate support provision for people both in work and out of work, to meet their basic living needs.

The current retrogressive, draconian approach to poverty needs to radically change if we are to be a nation that respects and upholds the human rights of all its citizens.

Source*

Related Topics:

Quest to Kill Human Rights Act in U.K.*

U.K. is at Bottom Of O.E.C.D. In Healthcare – But Leaders Still Deny Austerity Is to Blame*

If the Noose is Still Tightening and, you Still Think It’s Austerity, the Former Governor of the Bank of England Will Tell You*

Engineered National Health Service Meltdown in the U.K.*

Bank Bail-outs Behind Behind U.K.’s Collapsing Public Services*

Police Chief Confirms Fmr U.K. Prime Minister Raped Dozens of Children and Govt ‘Covered it Up’*

Thousands of U.K. Parents to take Children out of School in Protest*

U.K. Secretively Scraps Free Meal Grants for Poorest Primary School Children*

U.K. to Put Fluoride in Milk for School Children*

U.K. Police Target Schoolchildren as Young as 4 with Tax Payer Funded, Transgender Propaganda*

Sexual Assaults on Children Rise to 85 a Day in the U.K.*

U.K. Setting Children up for Failure*

Being Driven Insane, Mentally Ill Children Kept in U.K. Prisons*

Young Mothers are going Hungry so their Children can Eat in Theresa May’s Britain*

Britain’s Hunger Crisis Sparks First Student-Led Food Bank*

Starving British children are looking for food in rubbish bins

The British Gov’t Election Funding and Dirty HSBC*

The British Gov’t Election Funding and Dirty HSBC*

Move Your Money and Debt Resistance UK have just reported fresh evidence raising questions over the Conservatives 2010 and 2015 election funding, exposing millions of pounds of dirty money flowing into the Conservative Party via IPGL Ltd and HSBC.

Their headline is: Cash for Conservatives Exposes the HSBC Dirty Money running the Tory Party

 

  • HSBC awarded a £214m loan  to a highly indebted company, IPGL Ltd, chaired by Tory Party Treasurer & Chief Fundraiser, Michael Spencer.

 

  • IPGL and its struggling subsidiaries donated at least £5.3m to the Conservative Party – large, ongoing donations enabled by HSBC.

 

  • HSBC has won significant concessions from successive Conservative governments on tax, the bank levy, Mexican money laundering & terrorist financing investigations, as well as over the Swiss Leaks & Panama Papers.

 

  • HSBC left a trail of cash, gifts, loans, and donations, which bought the bank unrivalled open door political access, yet deny claims of undue influence over the Conservatives.

Robert Peston, political editor of ITV News has just tweeted this:

This is a copy of Member of Parliament Roger Mullin’s letter to the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission. The salient line accuses the Tories “of taking £5million of loans laundered directly to Conservative Party headquarters.”

CommonSpace have just headlined with

Campaigners rail against Tories in ‘cash for conservatives’ scandal

CAMPAIGN GROUPS AND OPPOSITION MPs have expressed outrage at the alleged connections between money raised by the HSBC banking corporation and the Conservative party’s spending in the General Elections of 2010 and 2015.

Vox Political reports:

What’s this? HSBC Bank covertly funding the Conservative Party? Can anyone smell a scandal?

However, the mainstream establishment press are not reporting this scandal as they should.

The Telegraph’s only report connecting HSBC and the Conservatives of recent days was April 30th where HSBC have yet again threatened to leave the U.K. as they are being forced to pay taxes.

HSBC chairman warns Britain’s biggest bank could leave for Asia as taxes bite

The Daily Mail reports the same with its April 25th report “HSBC moots relocating HQ outside UK”.

The Electoral Commission fined the Conservative Party £70,000 over campaign spending in the 2015 election and three by-elections for seriously dodgy accounting just six weeks ago. The police are now involved in another case reported to them about Conservative party election shenanigans.

None of the other mainstream players are reporting this huge scandal that really should be hitting every headline across the land. After all, we are talking of money laundering, illegal donations and fraud – all of which are considered nothing less than law-breaking.

But let’s not forget that the Conservative Party has been linked to corruption with Britain’s biggest bank before. The Independent reported in February 2015:

David Cameron will be challenged over the long-standing links between scandal-hit HSBC and the Conservative Party, after Electoral Commission records showed three senior bank figures have donated £875,000 to the party in recent years. As Downing Street came under more pressure over this week’s revelations that the bank allegedly helped wealthy individuals evade tax through Swiss accounts, it was revealed that HSBC’s deputy chairman, Sir Simon Robertson, has made 24 separate donations totalling £717,500 in the last nine years.”

Not that the Conservative party have ever shown much favour to HSBC of course. Well, that is if you discount former HSBC chairman Stephen Green who sits in the House of Lords as a Tory Peer after denying allegations of any knowledge of the world’s biggest money laundering operation involving Mexican drug cartels and thousands of dead people.

And of course there was no influence by the Tory party in the appointment of an HSBC director being given the plumb £10,000 a day role as BBC chair. The Guardian reported in March 2015:

Rona Fairhead has been urged to resign from her role as chair of the BBC Trust by the chair of the influential public accounts committee, in the aftermath of the tax avoidance scandal at HSBC, where she has been a long-serving non-executive director.

These scandals keep moving on without much ado. They did then, it will now. This is the way of the modern world today. We seem to accept that our own lawmakers are lawbreakers.

All this just when this happens: “A ‘vulnerable’ woman was jailed for six months because she begged for 50p – and didn’t have access to a defence lawyer in court.” She didn’t have legal defence because of austerity cuts imposed by the Conservatives on the legal aid system that was designed specifically to assist people such as this.

Sentencing her at the hearing in February, Judge Mackenzie said:

‘I am particularly concerned about that because on any view, Ms Baker is a fragile individual; has difficulty reading and writing; difficulty in understanding.”

MacKenzie went on to say that appearing in court without a lawyer “came close to breaching her human rights.”

We now have anarchy by the rich and powerful in Britain today. We are ruled by the wolves of neoliberal capitalism and the Conservative party connection with scandal ridden HSBC is nothing less than a brazen admission of that fact and it will go unpunished – as usual.

 Source*

Related Topics:

U.K PM to Create New Internet that would be Controlled and Regulated by Government*

Criminal Investigation Into U.K. Conservative Government*

U.K. Brexit Election 08 June 2017*

The U.K. Establishment Toppling the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn*

U.K. just Passed the Most Invasive Surveillance Law in the Democratic World*

Britain’s Hostile Elite: Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think*

HSBC: Dirty Business of Banksters*

HSBC Accused of Tax Evasion*

U.K PM to Create New Internet that would be Controlled and Regulated by Government*

U.K PM to Create New Internet that would be Controlled and Regulated by Government*

The proposals come soon after the government won the right to collect everyone’s browsing history

By Andrew Griffin

Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.

Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works.

“Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet,” it states. “We disagree.”

Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

The plans will allow Britain to become “the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet“, the manifesto claims.

It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers’ browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.

The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no “safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online”. That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists’ messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else’s messages, technology companies have warned.

The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn’t published, the manifesto suggests.

The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.

The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites.

“We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm,” the Conservatives write.

The laws would also force technology companies to delete anything that a person posted when they were under 18.

But perhaps most unusually they would be forced to help controversial government schemes like its Prevent strategy, by promoting counter-extremist narratives.

“In harnessing the digital revolution, we must take steps to protect the vulnerable and give people confidence to use the internet without fear of abuse, criminality or exposure to horrific content”, the manifesto claims in a section called ‘the safest place to be online’.

The plans are in keeping with the Tories’ commitment that the online world must be regulated as strongly as the offline one, and that the same rules should apply in both.

“Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline,” the Conservatives’ manifesto says, explaining this justification for a new level of regulation.

“It should be as unacceptable to bully online as it is in the playground, as difficult to groom a young child on the internet as it is in a community, as hard for children to access violent and degrading pornography online as it is in the high street, and as difficult to commit a crime digitally as it is physically.”

The manifesto also proposes that internet companies will have to pay a levy, like the one currently paid by gambling firms. Just like with gambling, that money will be used to pay for advertising schemes to tell people about the dangers of the internet, in particular being used to “support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms”, according to the manifesto.

The Conservatives will also seek to regulate the kind of news that is posted online and how companies are paid for it. If elected, Theresa May will “take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy” – and crack down on Facebook and Google to ensure that news companies get enough advertising money.

If internet companies refuse to comply with the rulings – a suggestion that some have already made about the powers in the Investigatory Powers Act – then there will be a strict and strong set of ways to punish them.

“We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law,” the manifesto reads.

In laying out its plan for increased regulation, the Tories anticipate and reject potential criticism that such rules could put people at risk.

“While we cannot create this framework alone, it is for government, not private companies, to protect the security of people and ensure the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses abide,” the document reads. “Nor do we agree that the risks of such an approach outweigh the potential benefits.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Hackers Trace 3 ISIS Twitter Accounts ‘back to U.K. Govt Computers,’*

The Telegraph Pays Compensation after Lying about a Woman’s Terrorism Links*

U.K. Paedophile Epidemic So Big Police Ask Vigilante Group to Takeover*

U.K’s New PM a Very Jewish Coup*

U.K. Police Begin 24-Hour Drone Surveillance of Population*

Petition to Repeal U.K.’s Mass Surveillance Bill Hits 100,000+ Signatures*

U.K. Bill Hands vast Surveillance Powers to Police and Intelligence Agencies*

Genetic Testing or U.K. Population Surveillance*

U.K. Cops Can Now Remotely Disable Phones Even If No Crime Has Been Committed*

U.K. Police Given the Go-ahead to Fire at Will*

U.K.’s Overhaul of Official Secrets Act Will Give Journalists 14 years in Jail for Publishing Sensitive Info.*

Mobile Phone and Computer Searches by Police Becoming Normal in U.K.*

U.K. Special Forces Fighting alongside Terrorists on Jordanian Border*

France, U.K., and Germany produce the most ISIS Terrorists from Europe*

“E.U. has been supporting the terrorists in Syria from the very beginning”*

U.K. Spying Report Warned of Intelligence Failure*

On Western Terrorism*

 

Britain’s Hostile Elite: Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think*

Britain’s Hostile Elite: Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think*

By Tobias Langdon

Here’s a quiz about Israeli politics. Are there any strongly identified Muslim or Christian Arabs high in Israel’s ruling conservative party?

Do those Arabs write for Arab newspapers setting out the central principle of their lives: “Arabs must come first”?

Finally, do those Arabs lavish praise on an opposition leader who opened Israel’s borders to the Third World and duped Israel into a hugely expensive and disastrous foreign war?

You have no guesses. You won’t need any. The answer to every question is the same. No, there are no Arabs like that in Israel. Not one. Furthermore, Israel has never opened its borders to the Third World or poured trillions of shekels into a disastrous foreign war. Israel is a Jewish nation where Jews are firmly in control and intend to remain so. That’s why they don’t allow Arabs to have genuine power or influence in politics, culture and academia. Arabs would have their own agenda and would not make Jewish interests their only concern, even if they weren’t hostile to Jews or determined to undermine Jewish power.

Tremendous respect for Tony Blair

In short, Israel is a sane country that keeps its large Arab minority where it belongs: out of power. Now compare the United Kingdom, a White and historically Christian nation. By comparison with Israel, the U.K. is insane, because it allows outsiders to exercise enormous power and influence. Worse still, those outsiders are both hostile to the White majority and determined to undermine it by promoting mass immigration and minority worship. Here is an article written for the Jewish Chronicle by Daniel Finkelstein, a strongly identified Jew high in the ruling Conservative party:

Corbyn must lose — for our sake  [i.e., for the readers of the Jewish Chronicle]

Tony Blair — a man for whom I have tremendous respect — has been arguing that, as Theresa May is going to win, what we really need is a strong opposition. … I have a lot of friends who vote Labour and I understand their dilemma. They have supported Labour all their lives and they don’t want to abandon their party to Jeremy Corbyn. Unfortunately, not abandoning the party to Mr. Corbyn means supporting the party while he leads it. Despite the acuteness of the dilemma, this is unconscionable.

I realise that I am a Conservative peer and this point concerns party politics. But, still. Forgive me for this is a point I feel I must make as a Jew. If Jeremy Corbyn and his followers do not suffer a gigantic defeat in this election, it will be an utter, complete, ghastly disaster for Jews. It will mean that despite all that has happened in the past two years, all his supporters have said about Jews, people — even Jews, for goodness sake — can still support him. … Jeremy Corbyn mustn’t just lose. He must be crushed electorally. It must be impossible for his supporters to say that it wasn’t too bad and they should have another go. …

So it needs bravery now to secure the long term future of Jews on the centre left. Maybe I’m not the right person to give this advice. I can see that. But forget it’s me, I am right[,] aren’t I? (Corbyn must lose — for our sake, The Jewish Chronicle, 4th May 2017 / 10th Iyar 5777)

Daniel Finkelstein.

 

Beside being a Tory peer, Finkelstein is also an “associate editor” at the influential Times of London. He’s not a good writer, but he sets out his views and psychology with perfect clarity in that article. The British Labour party was founded to defend the interests of the White working-class. It abandoned that group decades ago and, at the behest of strongly identified Jews like Lord Levy, worked to harm their interests instead. Finkelstein doesn’t care. His only concern is that perennial question: “What’s best for Jews?”

Repent or be destroyed

If any political party in Britain doesn’t put Jewish interests first, Jews like Finkelstein see only two options. The first is that the party must be kept out of power until it repents and returns to the path of righteousness. That’s what Finkelstein wants for Labour. Alternatively, the party must be destroyed. That’s what Finkelstein and the rest of the Jewish elite wanted — and got — for the British National Party, which won millions of votes only a few years ago but has now collapsed, losing its two Members of the European Parliament and all but one of its local councillors.

You can see the same unblushing ethnocentrism and selfishness in “How the SDP failed the Jews,” another article in the Jewish Chronicle that puts Jewish interests first and Gentile interests nowhere. The SDP, or Social Democratic Party, was formed by rebels from the Labour party who thought their old party had become too left-wing to win elections. And look who was among those rebels:

Another youthful recruit [to the SDP], Danny Finkelstein — now a Conservative peer and JC columnist — joined Labour as a schoolboy. Delivering literature for the party during a local election campaign, he found some SDP leaflets stuck in a letter box. He fished them out, intending to throw them away but, having read them instead, promptly joined the new party. Two years after the SDP’s launch, Finkelstein became chair of the Young Social Democrats. He went on to become a political adviser to [David] Owen, a member of the party’s National Committee, and fought Ken Livingstone in Brent East in 1987. Indeed, fighting that year’s general election in alliance with the Liberal party, the SDP fielded more Jewish candidates than Labour. (How the SDP failed the Jews, The Jewish Chronicle, 13th March 2017 / 15th Adar 5777)

However, the SDP proved insufficiently pro-Israel, which is why the article concludes that it failed the crucial test for any British political party: are Jewish interests its first priority? The revelation about Daniel Finkelstein’s early political history is no surprise. Is it any wonder that he praises Tony Blair and is a good friend of the Jewish Labour supporter Jonathan Freedland? Finkelstein is a Conservative peer who isn’t actually a conservative — but of course, that’s true for a great many Tories.

That’s why the BBC are happy to allow him on the radio panel-show The News Quiz, where he sits happily with far-left folk like Jeremy Hardy and the Trotskyist Mark Steel (a Sephardic Jew). His appearances there prove that bad writing isn’t his only non-talent. He’s also bad at comedy.

Father and Son

Hugo Rifkind is another true Jew and fake conservative who airs his lack of comedic talent on the News Quiz. He’s the son of the former cabinet minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who, like Dianne Feinstein in the United States, has had a vital role overseeing the intelligence services. He became Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2010. Are you reassured to hear that Sir Malcolm thinks the surveillance state is doing an excellent job and keeping strictly within the law? You shouldn’t be:

On Tempora, it has been well known that the fibre optic cables that carry a significant proportion of the world’s communications pass close to the British coastline and could provide intelligence opportunities. The reality is that the British public are well aware that its intelligence agencies have neither the time nor the remotest interest in the emails or telephone conversations of well over 99% of the population who are neither potential terrorists nor serious criminals. Modern computer technologies do permit the separation of those that are of interest from the vast majority that are not. (What rubbish, Sir Simon! Our intelligence agencies are not outside the law, The Guardian, 20th September, 2013)

Deep-state defender Malcolm Rifkind

 

Malcolm Rifkind is yet another strongly identified Jew who has enormous power and influence in the White and historically Christian nation of Britain. The contrast with Israel is even starker when you consider that Jews, at about 1%, are a far smaller minority here than Arabs, at just over 20%, are in Israel. Britain is not a White democracy: it is much more accurately labelled a Jewish oligarchy. When the so-called Labour party was in power, it was firmly under Jewish control. Now the so-called Conservative party is in power and firmly under Jewish control.

Vibrancy and violence

That explains why mass immigration continues as freely under the Tories as it did under Labour. It also explains why the Tories introduced “gay marriage” and, with the fake conservative Theresa May as Home Secretary, told the police to stop persecuting down-trodden Black youths in London and other ethnically enriched cities. The result can be seen in vibrant news at Breitbart: “Knife Crime Soars to Five-Year High After Kerb on ‘Racist’ Police Stop and Search.”

Does this have any connection with vibrant news in the Guardian: “Reported rapes in England and Wales double in four years”? Yes, of course it does. Mass immigration from violent and corrupt Third-World nations inevitably increases crime in Western nations. Israel doesn’t suffer from this crime because it doesn’t allow mass immigration from the Third World.

“It is tough working for the Jews…”

Daniel Finkelstein, the Rifkinds and other members of the Jewish elite don’t care about the harmful effects of mass immigration. They think it’s “Good for Jews,” because it atomizes British society and provides ample excuse for authoritarian laws and mass surveillance. Most of them are wealthy enough to insulate themselves from non-White violence — not that this stops Jews demanding subsidies from the government for security against threats that they themselves created.

And although Jews claim to be deeply concerned about the welfare of minorities in Britain, the minorities in question often have different stories. Here are two extracts from a book called This Is London: Life and Death in the Big City (2016) by the Jewish author Ben Judah:

The Jews, they are a strange people. They like to talk to the Filipinas [who work for them as domestic servants]. “We are an immigrant family like you,” they say. And when the Filipina goes, “Oh, when did you move to Britain?”, the Jews say, “1880.” And the Filipina is stunned and confused. The Jews, they only ever talk about Israel — Israel, Israel, Israel, all day Israel — and it is as if they are living here in St John’s Wood [a wealthy suburb of London] but they are really there, in precious Israel. …

And it is tough working for the Jews. They make many Filipinas cry. They are more likely than anyone else to bring the Filipinas inside the family — but this is mostly a charade. They never, ever want to pay — as little as possible, as late as possible. And there are many, many Filipinas who burst into tears when they realize after seven years that the Jews have been cheating them on national insurance, their weekly salaries, or even more. (Op. cit., “Knightsbridge,” pp. 229 and 231)

If Ben Judah weren’t himself Jewish, he might have risked prosecution for spreading hate-stereotypes about Jewish venality, deceit and ethnocentrism. His book describes an atomized city full of crime, alienation and competing tribes. Twenty-first-century London is a Jewish creation, formed by policies dear to Jews and their liberal allies, but never supported by the White majority. In a supposed democracy, Jews have got their disastrous way on mass immigration.

No to Nassim

If you want to understand how a minority can control the majority like that, an excellent place to start is Nassim Taleb’s essay “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority.” Taleb is an Arab Christian from Lebanon, a highly intelligent and insightful economist and statistician who predicted — and warned against — the financial crisis. Surely Taleb would make an excellent director at the Bank of Israel or a senior adviser in the Israeli government?

Nassim Taleb: no good for Israel

 

No, not at all. Taleb is precisely the kind of person Israel wants to exclude from power, not invite into it. He’s an Arab and a Christian. He wouldn’t make “What’s best for Jews?” the central principle of his life. In Jewish eyes, his intelligence and insight make him less suitable for high office in Israel, not more. And he’s even dared to suggest that the great Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag was obnoxious and uncouth.

Lascivious Priest

Politics in Britain inverts the Israeli rule: it doesn’t discriminate in favour of the majority, but against it. Any hint that a party seeks what’s best for the White majority will elicit loud accusations of racism, xenophobia and fascism. That’s what happened to UKIP and that’s why UKIP were delighted that their candidate in the mayoral election in Manchester was an Orthodox Jew called Shneur Odze. Alas, Mr Odze has let the party down. The Jewish Chronicle, which doesn’t like UKIP or Orthodox Judaism, was happy to report the following:

A strictly Orthodox man standing as UKIP’s candidate in the Manchester mayoral election has been accused of conducting an affair with a woman he met on a bondage sex website. Shneur Odze, who had declined to shake hands with a female political opponent on “religious grounds” earlier in the election campaign, allegedly posed as a Catholic priest on the site, which is described as a social network for the “fetish and kinky community”.

According to the Mail on Sunday, Mr Odze described himself on his profile as having been into bondage and sadomasochism “for a number of years” during which he said he had “tried a great deal and enjoyed even more”. The Mail reported that Mr Odze had met the woman for sex. She discovered his real identity when she put his mobile number into Google and found his UKIP Facebook page.

Mr Odze is married with four children. He has not responded to requests for comment. His local UKIP branch chairman resigned after the allegations were made, saying he could not support Mr. Odze’s actions. A UKIP spokesman said: “This is a personal matter for Mr Odze. He has broken no law.” (Sex claims against UKIP candidate, The Jewish Chronicle, 5th May 2017 / 9th Iyar 5777)

Shneur Odze, fake Catholic

 

I was struck by the allegation that Shneur Odze “posed as a Catholic priest.” If true, it’s both funny and revealing. Odze was posing as a Catholic rather in the way that Daniel Finkelstein is posing as a conservative. He was both having his own cake and poisoning someone else’s — that is, helping to bring the Catholic Church into disrepute. A devout Catholic exposed for posing as a rabbi on an S&M website would surely be denounced for anti-Semitism. Has the devout Jew Odze, posing as a Catholic priest, been denounced for Christophobia or goyophobia? No, not at all. Those concepts don’t exist in the mainstream, even though the phenomena are widespread among British Jews:

Jewish hostility to Christians: the prejudice no one ever writes about

The case of the Oxford lecturer in Jewish studies who says she was sacked after she converted to Christianity has thrown a spotlight on to an acutely sensitive subject. I have no idea whether Dr. Tali Argov was treated unfairly — that’s for the employment tribunal to decide — but let’s not pretend that Jews who become Christians don’t face intense disapproval from their own community.

Christian anti-Semitism, Muslim anti-Semitism, Christian Islamophobia, Muslim persecution of Christians [note lack of a term for this] — all of these are acceptable topics of debate. But not Jewish hostility to Christianity [ditto].

You can understand why Jews might dislike the Christian religion: not only does it deify a man, the ultimate blasphemy for pious Jews just as it is for pious Muslims, but it’s also implicated in centuries of anti-Semitism. (I think its role in inspiring the Holocaust has been exaggerated, but that’s an argument for another day.)

Sometimes Jewish antipathy to Christianity spills over into hostility towards Christians. There was a piece in the Independent the other day by Christina Patterson that went way over the top in describing the rudeness of Stamford Hill’s ultra-Orthodox Jews towards non-Jews:

When I moved to Stamford Hill [in London], 12 years ago, I didn’t realise that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Ku Klux Klan convention. I didn’t realise that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn’t been chosen by God. And while none of this is a source of anything much more than irritation, when I see an eight-year-old boy recoiling from a normal-looking woman (because, presumably, he has been taught that she is dirty or dangerous, or, heaven forbid, dripping with menstrual blood) it makes me sad.

Stephen Pollard, the brilliant editor of the Jewish Chronicle, described this as “pure, unrelenting unadulterated anti-Jewish bigotry,” on the part of Ms Patterson and indeed some of its undertones are disturbing. But monosyllabic terseness towards goyim? I’ve experienced it, and it’s maddening. Let me recommend a gripping book called Postville by the secular Jewish journalist Stephen Bloom, who records the extreme bad manners of Lubavitch Jews who moved en masse to a town in rural Iowa to run a huge kosher butchery. In the end, angry Christian townspeople, who had initially been welcoming, voted to annexe the land on which the factory was built, so they could tax and regulate it. Bloom, who felt the Lubavitchers had displayed “despicable” attitudes verging on racism, supported the move.

Jewish hostility towards Christians isn’t confined to the ultra-Orthodox. A woman friend of mine tutored the daughter of a Jewish couple in north London. When she said she wanted to take a break for Christmas, the wife went bananas. “We do not allow that word to be spoken in this house,” she said. An unrepresentative incident, no doubt; but my friend’s attitude towards Judaism changed after it took place. And I could tell other stories, of unbelievable haughtiness by the leaders of Anglo-Jewry, which would have led to diplomatic incidents if the Christians involved weren’t afraid of being accused of anti-Semitism.

[U]ntil now I’ve never written a word about Jewish prejudice against Christians, even though I’ve seen it at close hand, at a series of Jewish-run conferences I attended in America in the 1990s at which evangelical Christian believers were stereotyped as fanatics who needed only the right demagogue to turn them into murderous anti-Semites. If the conferences were being held now, I suspect most of the flak would be taken by Catholics.

It would be interesting read a book on anti-Christian sentiment among modern Jews, including Jewish historians who invest heavily in the notion of Christian or gentile collective guilt for crimes committed by others. But such a book would have to come from the perspective of someone without an axe to grind (i.e, not one of the anti-Semitic nutcases who are such a depressing presence in the blogosphere). And something tells me it will never be written. (Jewish hostility to Christians: the prejudice no one ever writes about, The Daily Telegraph, 29th July 2010)

Christianity has been central to Western life and culture for many centuries. Is it wise to allow Jews, who are so hostile to Christianity, so much power and influence in the West? Anti-Semitic nutcases don’t think it is. They want Western nations to act like Israel and defend their majority race and historic religion rather than working to destroy them

Source*

Related Topics:

Outrage as U.K.School Calls Police after Pupil Looks at Ukip Website in Class*

Christian Nurse Fired for Offering to Pray with Patients, Now Fighting for her Livelihood*

U.K. Judge ‘being driven from the public service’ for Backing Natural Marriage*

Christians Decry Israeli Restrictions on Holy Sites*

Some Christians are Waking up to the Fact that they’ve been Had by Zionism*

Israel Lobby Fails to Expel U.K.’s Veteran Politician Ken Livingstone*

Israel Infiltrates U.K. Student Movement*

Cultural Decline Follows (((Communist))) Blueprint*

First “boycott ban” Case Defeated in U.K. High Court*

How the Israel Lobby Manufactured U.K. Labour Party’s Anti-Semitism Crisis*

War Criminal Blair to Eradicate European Culture to Create a United States of Europe*

Plugging into U.K. Jewish Networks as the Key to Success for the Ambitious *

A Self-Described Passionate Zionist in Charge of U.K. Government Cybersecurity*

Disaster Capitalism, Immigration, and the Outsourcing of Violence in the U.K.*

New Licenses Awarded to Muslim Radio Stations*

New Licenses Awarded to Muslim Radio Stations*

Broadcast regulator Ofcom has awarded community licenses to two Muslim radio stations in London.

Radio Minhaj, which will be run by the Minhaj-ul-Quran International organisation, will provide a community radio service for black, Asian and other ethnic minorities in Newham.

And Nomad Radio will provide a community radio service for the Somali community in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Community radio offers thousands of volunteers the chance to get involved in broadcasting across the UK. The last decade has seen the number of community radio stations increase from just a handful to more than 250 stations, each reflecting the local needs and interests of its audience.

Ismail Sethi, of Radio Minhaj, told 5Pillars that the new radio station has been given two years of planning and a five year license to operate from the time it launches.

He added: “It’s early days at the moment and we are in the planning stage but we obviously plan to launch before that two year deadline. And we may not even operate under the Radio Minhaj name. In terms of content we will aim to provide mostly Islamic entertainment and knowledge as well as build bridges with others for the sake of community cohesion and demolishing barriers.”

Mr Sethi said the people behind the new station would broadcast in Ramadan as Ramadhan FM 2017.

Source*

Related Topics:

How Social and Popular Media is Desensitising our Youth*

Media Blackout as Millions of Muslims March against ISIS in Iraq for Arbaeen*

Founder of George Soros backed Media Matters Caught Conspiring with Facebook and Google to Shut-down Independent Media*

The West’s Engineered Buddhist-Muslim Conflict in Thailand*

Over One Third of Nice Attack Victims Were Muslim*

A Muslim Chaplain Explains What It’s Like to Be American Today*