Earthlinggb's Blog

The Obsolete man

Posted in Politics by earthlinggb on February 28, 2014

An excellent “Twilight Zone” episode called “The obsolete man”.

Who is the strongest? The individual or the state?

Names flashed into my mind watching this. Such as Tony Blair, Cameron, Obama, Rothschild and Rockefeller and all the rest you can imagine yourself. All the state actors and all their little minions who consider themselves “great” while they too, one day, wither and die. And you wonder, how would they deal with the tables being turned on them? They would soil themselves. They would beg for mercy. They would crawl like the little, pathetic worms they are and their weakness would manifest itself if they were removed from their protective cocoon which is the state apparatus.

They have wealth yes but not one of them – not one – has integrity, strength of conviction, morality or even a fixed ideology. They are empty vessels with no innate, individual capability. Everything they have has been provided to them by the state because they’re willing to do as the state wishes. But I’ve always said that when the state has no more use for Blair or any one of them, the state will hang them out to dry. Even if this state continues and achieves its world order, I only hope for one thing: That I live long enough to see a Blair or a Clarke, Cameron or Bush or Obama be hung out to dry by the very state they served. Now that would be worthwhile hanging around for.

An assassination of one of them would be fun too but not nearly as fun as seeing their beloved state hang them. 🙂

Advertisements

The disease within.

Posted in Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 25, 2014

From the annals (or was it anals?) of Lord Fingerboy of Fuckinghamshire……

voice_clarke

1965

My Lords, we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against homosexuality and my noble Lord Boothby is, himself a homosexual. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for homosexuality so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

LORD BOOTHBYAs I see it, the main object of this Bill is to avoid blackmail. We know that there are more cases of blackmail in connection with homosexuality than anything else in this country. I suggest to your Lordships that if this Amendment is passed, the main object of the Bill will be destroyed. We are out to avoid blackmail. I have consulted a number of eminent solicitors in the course of the last three months, some of the most eminent solicitors of all. They have said this to me and I think it is a point, “If anyone who occupies a position of public responsibility, or is in a position of public notoriety, came to us and said he was being blackmailed, rightly or wrongly, with reason or with no reason, for homosexuality, we should very much hesitate to advise him to fight the case. On balance, we should advise him to pay. But if it were Mr. John, or Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jenkins, of Wolverhampton, or Leicester, or perhaps even Edinburgh, someone who was of no importance at all, he would pay his fine of £.10, and that would be the end of the matter, and there would be no headlines in the newspapers at all”.

I sincerely believe that this is absolutely wrong. Any young man in this country is in a position to blackmail a man who is in a position of responsibility, or who is a well-known figure in this country. I have been advised—I assure the noble Earl, and I am sure he would agree with me; I cannot mention names but they are the very best solicitors—that in these cases the probability is that they would say, “Pay, and finish with it, because we can give no guarantee whatever of any safety or security”. That is what I want to avoid in this Bill above anything else.

§LORD CHORLEYIt seems to me that the two noble and learned Lords who are supporting this Amendment so strongly are so emotionally involved in this problem that they have lost the sense of proportion that lawyers ought to bring to bear on matters of this kind. The idea that something ceases to become consent because there is a gift attached to it is completely new in the whole domain of English law. It is a most astonishing proposition. They go on to say that men of over 21 years of 396age are no longer to be free agents. They are to be curbed in this sort of way by the law. When they look back on this debate in a few weeks’ time I think they will be puzzled to know how they could be led to such an emotional situation. It has never been suggested in the whole of history that men over 21 should not be free agents in respect of what they decide to do and that they should be curbed in this way. On the face of it, it is a proposition that I should have thought would not hold water for a minute.

§LORD CONESFORDI have heard more astonishing law from the last two speakers than I have heard during the rest of my legal life. It would seem that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is under the impression that bribery is no offence.

§LORD CHORLEYIs the noble Lord suggesting that this is a case of bribery? It is not within a mile of bribery.

§LORD BOOTHBYBlackmail.

§LORD CONESFORDThe noble Lord, Lord Boothby, flits from pillar to post with such rapidity, reversing what he said in his last speech with every new speech he makes, that it is difficult to keep up with him. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that an eminent solicitor, wisely nameless—

§LORD BOOTHBYMore than one.

§LORD CONESFORDMore than one solicitor advised a person who was being blackmailed to pay up. I can only say that the most eminent practitioner in the law at the time I first began to practise told me that from time to time he had been consulted by people who were being blackmailed. He had always given the same advice—pay nothing and tell them to be damned. He said, “I know that my advice was right, but it was seldom taken”.

I am in complete sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, so far as I understand him, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in loathing blackmail. What astonishes me in this whole controversy is the quite extraordinary view that, if we pass this Bill or something like it, the blackmailing of homosexuals will cease. Why on earth should it? The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, quite rightly, that to a 397public man a reputation of being homosexual could be very harmful. Therefore, the revelation that he is a homosexual—

§LORD BOOTHBYI really must protest against that. I never said that I was a homosexual—”The revelation that I was a homosexual”.

§LORD CONESFORDI said nothing of the kind. The noble Lord is not always the person concerned if he is concerned at all. I shall perhaps be saying something of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, did earlier in this debate, about which I had intended letting him off.

§LORD BOOTHBYBe careful.

§LORD CONESFORDI will be careful. If it is damaging to a public man to be known to be a homosexual, whether it is a criminal offence or not, the blackmailer can make a threat of revealing the fact, and that threat may be so severe that it may be worth buying off with money. Therefore, it is untrue to say that the mere passing of a Bill of this kind will end the risk of blackmail in connection with homosexual offences.

I share what I am sure is the hope of the Lord Chancellor, that if there is a reform of the law, blackmail will diminish; but I do not put it higher than that. Can we not get some of the advantages of a reform of the law without opening the door to something that everybody in the House, whatever his views on this problem, would think horrible—namely, a rich man using his wealth, not to buy affection, but to buy the commission of what has hitherto been a serious criminal act? That, as it seems to me, is a real risk. It is against that that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has devised this Amendment. It may he imperfect; there may be objections to it; but I am sure it deserves more respect than it has hitherto received.

Since I promised that I would deal with the noble Lord who has so consistently interrupted everybody who has been making a speech on this subject throughout this afternoon, let me come to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, on the very first Amendment to-day, the noble and learned Lord—

§LORD BOOTHBYI am not learned.

398

§LORD CONESFORDNo; but Lord Dilhorne is. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said that in earlier proceedings Lord Boothby had misrepresented to the House the nature of this Bill and the nature of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee. This was indignantly denied by Lord Boothby.

§LORD BOOTHBYHear, hear!

§LORD CONESFORDVery well. Then I would recommend Lord Boothby to acquire a copy of the Hansard of May 12 of this year, and to turn to column 131. He will there find that he interrupted my noble friend Lord Rowallan with these words: All we are talking about is the Labouchere Amendment, and that is all that the Wolfenden Committee wants to be removed.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 73).] Lord Rowallan said: I am afraid that I cannot accept such a statement. Then Lord Jessel said this: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had been here a little earlier, he would have heard from my noble friend Lord Dundee a very full description of what happened. Then I intervened for, until this evening, the only time I have intervened on this topic, as follows: My Lords, I am not taking any side in this intervention, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is entirely wrong in saying that all we are discussing is the Labouchere Amendment, or that that was the sole subject of the Wolfenden Report.

§“LORD BOOTHBYOf course it was.

§“LORD CONESFORDOf course it was not.”

At that point the noble Earl the Leader of the House very properly intervened with the suggestion that Lord Rowallan might get on with his speech. I hope that the quotation I have made from the previous intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will show how utterly wrong he was in suggesting that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne had misrepresented him in any way in the speech that he made, and I hope that possibly what I am saying now may induce him to—

§LORD BOOTHBYKeep his trap shut.

§LORD CONESFORD—to remain in a sedentary position until he has something worth while to say.

2014

My Lords, I am now 49 years older as I stand here before you once again, but we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against paedophilia and a few of my noble Lords, Ladies and among those in the other place, we know as we did in the 1960s regarding the homos, are pedophiles.. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for paedophilia so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions once more! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

However, as was done in the sixties and seventies, we must lay the groundwork for the population to come to terms with such activity. We must use every weapon at our disposal – from media to human rights pressure groups – to impress the legality, morality and normality of such acts. We must ensure that the public recognises such as simply another sexual orientation.

2050

Holy shit! The Prime Minister has just fcuked a donkey! My Lords, I am now 110 and I sit here before you with my colostomy bag but I still believe in our greater good. We must protect the good name of this Parliament even though just an inconsequential satellite of the World Zionist government on Temple Mount. At present we have a law against bestiality and a few of my noble Lords……… actually, you know what? I’m done with you fcuking perverts!

But our good old boy, Icke, can see totalitarian tiptoe’s and connections everywhere but he can’t see it in this? I guess it doesn’t fit his agenda! 😉

“Hush it up, get rid of it, protect the Crown, the Parliament and our entire way of life from the public otherwise they may want to lynch the whole lot of us!”

You’re damned right we do!

Mirror paedo judge

God gave us the sun to harness for tax purposes!

Posted in "Climate Change" by earthlinggb on February 24, 2014

I just wanted to re-publish this blog having read the following which backs up what I was saying in the blog, written perhaps a couple of years ago.

Off grid is illegal

As I said below, they cannot allow the world, meaning people individually or in groups, to generate their own power and utilities. But you would think, on the face of it, that that is what “Green Energy” and using free sunlight and harnessing water etc was all about wouldn’t you? But no, it isn’t and never was. Please note that you are only provided with a tariff discounting structure IF you have your solar system installed by a REGULATED installer. PLUS, it must be a GRID TIED system and, generally, you are not allowed to operate a system which has a storage battery facility if you wish to participate in the tariff scheme. You see, a storage system would allow for the energy received by the panels during the day which is excess to what your daytime usage is, to be stored in batteries which would then allow your energy requirements during the evening (no sun) to be delivered via the batteries. That would mean that you would never need to rely on the grid. THEY CANNOT HAVE THAT! So then, even though solar energy from the sun is free, they ensure that most of the solar (or wind) STILL is connected into the grid and, as such, they have the excuse for taxing the sun and the wind and any and every other resource which exists in the universe.

Once this person publicized what they were doing, that’s when the system’s “jackboot” came down. The odd few people can get away with it if they’re silent and discrete but, under no circumstances, can they allow freedom to catch on.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/02/22/court-rules-off-the-grid-living-is-illegal/

Before you read the rest, please have a listen to this (just the section from 10.53 to 11.53).

And if you want more detail on what these two were discussing, it’s all here and it is truly inspiring…

Now he believes Global Warming is real. Nevertheless, real or not (and it isn’t – certainly not from an AGW perspective), he’ STILL thinking and doing the right things. He’s visionary.

So here’s the rest of the blog from a couple of years ago….

Since when did you ever hear of Solar plants being built in the North Sea and throughout the UK’s offshore interests?

You didn’t did you? What a STUPID idea Earthling!

And indeed it is! Absolutely ridiculous!

And that is why the UK is now cutting Solar incentives! You see, while the Green renewable age began with the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” (a MUST read for all you Friends of the Earth and Greenies) followed by “The first  Global Revolution” we can’t possibly have this:

“In a time of economic gloom, the solar industry has been one of the UK’s brightest success stories, enabling homes and communities across the country to free themselves from expensive fossil fuels.”

Because that isn’t what this game is about you silly “Environmentalists” who support 350.org etc (Rockefeller funded organisations). It’s not to FREE you! How extraordinarily naive of you! Why would those who dreamed up this entire scheme and who own and control the world’s energy resources, wish to then allow you to live freely of them? Are you seriously nuts?

The game is to “reinvent” energy but in a way that these people will still control it whether it is natural Free energy from wind or from sea or solar. If we all became self sufficient for goodness sakes, these people would lose $billions if not $trillions. Come on folks! Think will you? Finally?

WHO OWNS THE SEABED?

THE CROWN OWNS THE SEABED!

NOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ALL THAT INCOME FROM THE OFFSHORE WINDFARMS WHICH THE CROWN DERIVE ROYALTIES FROM IF THEY BECAME OBSOLESCENT AND EVERYONE WAS FREE OF THE NATIONAL GRID?

COME ON NOW. IT ISN’T DIFFICULT!

YOU CAN’T DO THAT TO THE CROWN! YOU CAN’T REMOVE THEIR SOURCE OF PROFITABILITY! THEY TOOK OWNERSHIP OF THE OIL AND GAS AND COAL FOR ALL THESE YEARS/DECADES AND HAD YOU PAY FOR YOUR ENERGY FROM NATURALLY OCCURRING SOURCES. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO TAKE THE SUN AND WIND FROM THEM EITHER!

WHILE, IN THE UK, WHERE DO THEY WANT THE INVESTMENT GOING?

WINDPOWER!

WHY?

BECAUSE THEY ARE FOCUSING ON OFFSHORE – THE SEABED – ROYALTIES!

Have a read:  the-crown-is-profiting-from-your-misery-fuel-bills-anyone

WHEN DID YOU EVER SEE A SOLAR PANEL FARM ON THE SEA?

OFF GRID: DANGEROUS! NO EDF, NO SCOTTISH POWER, NO ROYALTIES!

ON GRID: PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE! EDF, SCOTTISH POWER, YOU NAME IT!

And here was you thinking Monopolies were illegal! It’s not only the monopoly of currency issuance by the Bank of England but also the total monopoly of the National Grid. Are you beginning to see why?

Engagements

HC Deb 14 February 1995 vol 254 cc792-6 …

Mr. Blair   Following the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?

§The Prime Minister   I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.

Now one must remember, reading the above, that your Energy “supplier” does not supply at all. THAT is a “legal fiction” and they don’t like you to appreciate that! If you “change suppliers” do you think for one moment you are getting a completely different supply of gas and electricity through your system? 🙂 It ALL comes from the same source and that source is the National Grid. It is the National Grid which is your SUPPLIER. So your “supplier” (and for that matter, the government) are letting you, in your ignorance, believe little fables. The Energy “suppliers” are basically a consortium of Customer service and maintenance people who provide you with “competition” on tariffs from exactly the same source!

There’s a lot more about that little angle but perhaps for another blog sometime!

High Court application against UK solar incentive cuts

12 December 2011

The UK High Court has agreed to hear applications by Friends of the Earth and solar companies Solarcentury and HomeSun for permission to challenge Government plans to slash financial incentives for solar electricity on Thursday 15 December 2011.

By Kari Williamson

Confirmation of the hearing follows an earlier High Court ruling rejecting permission for a legal challenge. The organisations are now asking the High Court to reverse the decision and allow a hearing into the legal challenges regarding solar incentive cuts as soon as possible.

Friends of the Earth is also asking the High Court to cap its potential legal costs for the case. International rules specify that costs should be limited in public interest cases on the environment.

The legal challenges centre around the plans by the UK Government to slash feed-in tariff subsidies for solar photovoltaic (PV) installations completed after 12 December this year.

The Government is currently running a consultation into feed-in tariffs – but the 12 December cut-off point comes two weeks before the consultation ends.

Friends of the Earth’s Executive Director Andy Atkins, says: “We strongly believe Government plans to abruptly slash solar subsidies are illegal, we hope the High Court agrees to allow our case to be heard as soon as possible.

“We’ve also asked the High Court to cap our potential costs. International rules say this should be allowed in public interest cases on the environment – we can’t afford to bring a challenge if we face unlimited liability for the other side’s legal fees.

“In a time of economic gloom, the solar industry has been one of the UK’s brightest success stories, enabling homes and communities across the country to free themselves from expensive fossil fuels.

“It’s short sighted for Ministers to move the goalposts and prematurely pull the subsidy – this will cost tens of thousands of jobs, bankrupt businesses and reduce Treasury income by up to £230m a year.”

GOOD LUCK FRIENDS OF THE EARTH!

Meanwhile, you may want to give this a little ponder because, once this infrastructure is in, there is no need to pay tariffs to Energy companies. It is truly self sustaining with just the need for maintenance. And very little of it.

Once the investment is sunk, why is there need for ongoing bills?

The answer: There isn’t!

Robert Green: What is he up against?

Posted in Media, Paedophilia, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on February 22, 2014

I can’t say I KNOW this man inside out, therefore I could not honestly say whether this man would have an agenda or a “dark” background with skeletons in his closet. But then not one of us can say that we fully know each other EVEN IF we are “close friends”. Let’s be frank, there are always things about oneself that one keeps to oneself, whatever they may be or however petty they may be. People just naturally, wish that part of them remain private and that’s how it should be.  So, when it comes to assessing another individual, we – if we are fair minded – tend to accept that individual, not on the basis of 3rd party rumour, but on how WE find them. How WE, as individuals relate to them and, when we know little about them except what we may read or hear, we SHOULD consider that we have no direct experience of them with which to judge them, so we should take them on face value.

robert-green_0

You and I can look around us any day of the week and judge people for how they dress, look, speak, act etc and I’ll freely admit, I see a lot of people who I’d never wish to have any association with whatsoever – there are masses of such people I hate to admit (and I hate to admit it because I also know they are the way they are due to the environment they live in caused by a system and government which I despise. I know that under a new system and government, such people would be significantly nicer people to know because they would not have the world bearing down on them and, because I believe that people, generally, deep inside are good people). However, I would take my chances on Robert Green before I would trust a single politician, judge or Policeman in this country of any colour.

Ok, what’s the point here? Well it’s this, of all those people who would repel me and I’d feel they have no morality, no respect for themselves or anyone else and I would neither trust or expect them to act on good intentions, Robert Green would not be one of those people. I met Robert once, fleetingly, in Scotland while also meeting Hollie Greig and her mother, Anne. It was at a time I was absolutely shocked to the core about all I was learning about a whole range of issues and, when Hollie’s story came to my attention, I felt compelled to do something…anything (though you feel helpless in reality). I met with my MP, I sent letters to the Scottish government. I called the scottish government and I also called the newspapers. I saw Robert Green – a mild mannered, conscientious, upstanding, well dressed gentleman – doing what he could to expose what he genuinely felt was the most heinous of crimes. I read the background info re the Hollie case and, while there were issues I later saw in some of it which I felt were questionable regarding the veracity of it all (I said “questionable” NOT incorrect or lies) but I then also witnessed what I could only describe as a venomous campaign on Facebook and elsewhere by “Hollie supporters” that ended up like some sort of circus and the whole thing I just decided to shelve. The whole picture, for me, became so murky. Was that due to infiltrators trying to make it so? I don’t know – I gave up on it all. However, it is a fact that Hollie was abused – we know that – and it is a fact that she has named names – we know that. It is also a fact that she was stated as a credible witness – we know that too. I also know that the very MP (MSP in fact) that I went to to discuss the matter with and presented him with a report on it from my perspective, did nothing with it. I followed up with him for responses and got nowhere while he had promised I would receive one from the Scottish government.

Who was that MSP? This man:

MALCOLM CHISHOLM MSP

MALCOLM CHISHOLM MSP

Now, there’s nothing unusual about MPs doing FUCK ALL when you contact them with grave issues and demand they consider your facts and act upon them – or even enter a communication regarding them – BUT WHEN THE FOLLOWING HAPPENS, YOU WONDER IF THE LACK OF RESPONSE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT:

A PAEDOPHILE IN THE FAMILY!

COLIN CHISHOLM - NEPHEW OF MALCOLM CHISHOLM.

COLIN CHISHOLM – NEPHEW OF MALCOLM CHISHOLM.

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/chisholm-any-relation-just-asking/

I wrote the above blog shortly after the news about Colin Chisholm being charged with paedophilia (and let off by the way even though he admitted he was so inclined). I asked in the blog whether there was a connection. I knew the answer. So you tell me? Could I genuinely have expected Malcolm Chisholm to lift a finger to support an investigation into the Hollie Greig case?

It’s worth mentioning that my entire audio recording with Chisholm was lost when the Scottish Police (prompted by the Metropolitan Police) paid me a visit and stole my laptop, MP3 4 track portastudio, microphone plus a few other pieces have never returned them and yet, never charged me with a damned thing. They had a warrant for search and seizure given by the Procurator Fiscal (so they told me) to conduct an investigation surrounding an online argument I had with an online “jew” who they said made a complaint. Seemingly he felt “racially harassed” because he entered a discussion online long after I had started posting valid commentary and links to sites which exposed jewish/zionist filth of one form or another which he deemed “anti semitic”. You see, similarly to Robert Green’s issue right now, if you talk facts and evidences which expose issues or groups of people, you are targeted for “Hate Crime” of one form or another and “libel” etc. The EXPOSURE of real crimes and real issues is more of a crime than the crimes you are exposing. You could state the same is the case for Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.

THE “LAW” IS UPSIDE DOWN AND THEY MEAN IT TO BE!

Now, for years/decades, these corrupt bastards in government have gotten away with their “political correctness” agenda and they still are! They have suppressed freedom of speech and freedom of thought by criminalising it. What they have done is brilliant. They have slowly, but surely, entered it into people’s minds that “you can’t say that” and “IF you say this, you are going to jail” (how many germans are in jail today simply for asking questions or stating they don’t believe something? And you KNOW what that “something” is!). And this is where the “sheep mentality” comes in. We, as people, are condoning the use of political correctness (and the power know this) because we are so divided with all our own little beliefs and perceptions (and prejudices), that each group wants to get one up on the other. The powers then make “laws” in such a fashion – connected to the IDEA of “human rights” – that they protect and support one faction against another. It can even be something as simple as this:

If a homosexual proudly states that the idea of pussy makes him want to vomit (and says it in his little effeminate way), it’s considered “funny and cute” and “his prerogative”.

If a heterosexual (particularly male one) states the idea of a dick up his arse makes HIM want to vomit, then he’s labeled and demonised a “homophobe” and “hater”.

Yet, all of this is so bloody obvious it makes my blood boil when people wilfully decide to ignore it.

ALL of these issues are connected to Robert Green’s present predicament.

But let’s look more widely at this problem:

Here’s Miley Cyrus –

Miley Cyrus

What age group is her audience? What are parents saying or doing about it? What is the industry she works for doing about it? What are the authorities doing about it?

NOTHING!

What message is that sending to kids? “You’re a sexual being now go out and enjoy it. You’re cool as fcuk if you are fcuking at 11 years old you know! And it’s fun!”

Then you have the “Darlings of International human rights” at the moment, supported by slags like Madonna and other male pop stars like Sting and Peter Gabriel who are, obviously, as thick as fuck or, perhaps, they like little boys and girls? Who knows! Perhaps Sting likes a little tantric with a 10 year old? Who knows?

Pussy Riot:

You see, all of this “Human Rights” shit is being used to totally destroy any sense of morality in the world. Ok, I’ve spoken about men fcuking donkeys right? But what you will see in that video is a PUSSY RIOT (of all the names they could use eh?) bitch having what amounts to sex with a DEAD CHICKEN and Madonna supports them because Madonna stands there and states (as if she has any moral authority) that she supports freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Madonna won’t even blink at another woman sticking a dead chicken in her pussy. She’ll just say “Ahh the girl looks like she’s having a riot!”

Anyone attacking such activity for its moral depravity will be labeled a hater and prude as well as having some form of political agenda. The political agenda, meanwhile, actually belongs to Pussy Riot and their funders.

You see, in “law” (created by the very people who wish to steer society the way they so choose) “Freedom of Expression” and “freedom of speech” are entirely supported as long as it is within the parameters they wish to set AND, also, depending upon which class you belong to – Upper, middle, lower or RULING. Further, if you’re seen as being of use to the agenda, then you will be given every latitude (until such time that they no longer have a need for you or if you have just gone too far that the people demand they deal with you). But generally, you see, the people tend to demand bugger all because they’re taught the “live and let live” and “do what thou wilt” ideology and they PERCEIVE “FREEDOM” within it. Stupid bastards aren’t they?

And then you have Savile, of course. Protected for decades – but then so were the Kray twins – by the police.

And then you have this guy, Ian Watkins:

Ian Watkins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Told to stop complaining because it would ruin his career! His career is far more important than the lives of numerous little children. A fucking POP singer! So you can imagine just how important it would be to protect Savile, Elton John, Cliff Richard etc etc. THEN think how important it would be to protect Kenneth Clarke and every other MP in Parliament and their extended families. THEN think how important it must be to protect the Queen and her extended family!

So Robert, in trying to expose Scottish establishment freemasonry and every connection to it, THAT is what you’re up against. An establishment which will go to any length to shut you up (and I mean any length) PLUS a population that just doesn’t care and like their “freedom of expression” and will consider you just a zany, sad old man with a screw loose if not a “nasty person” because you’re naming names that their beloved old mainstream media haven’t yet and may never will. At least, until they’re dead and there’s no further much reason to protect them.

Remember, Savile would have been a “Saint” to many, even today, and even though so many knew what he was, if their beloved mainstream media hadn’t run the story.

If you go to jail Robert, the population will read: “Man jailed in Scotland for harassment of elderly people and upstanding scions of our society calling them pedophiles. Man has been given a psychiatric evaluation and is considered a fantasist who believes 9/11 was an inside job. Man libelled and slandered these poor innocent people and you just can’t go around saying things like that. After all, there has been nothing in the papers about these people being pedophiles has there? Society needs to deal with these conspiracy people. The government is considering bringing in a new law which will make it illegal to speak of anything which is not already published in the ZOG media.”

“What the blazes is a natural person?”

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on February 19, 2014
HC Deb 19 January 1993 vol 217 cc271-351

Sir Teddy TaylorDoes my hon. Friend accept that article 57 does not offer opportunities for everyone? The second sentence of paragraph 2 of article 57 refers to training and conditions of access for natural persons. My hon. Friend seems to have studied this matter carefully. As we know from last night, however, the Minister does not answer questions but simply reads prepared speeches. That is unfortunate, but perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. Bearing in mind the reference to “natural persons”, can he tell me what unnatural persons are? Or perhaps some Opposition Member can enlighten us.

This is a very serious point. The Bill with which we are dealing is to become the law of the land. Training and access are to be provided for natural persons but not, apparently, for unnatural persons. What on earth is a natural person? May we have an assurance—

§The ChairmanThe hon. Gentleman must not keep asking the same question. He has asked what a natural person is. Perhaps he will allow his hon. Friend to respond.

9.15 pm

§Sir Richard BodyMy hon. Friend is, of course, right. This just goes to show how difficult it is to translate these documents into some kind of English. At one time I did a little lecturing in company law. We used to talk about “persons”. A person can be a corporate entity. For example, I believe that, in law, ICI is a person.

§Sir Teddy TaylorBut a natural person?

§Sir Richard BodyMy hon. Friend and I are natural persons. I shall not point to anyone who might be described as anything other than a natural person; indeed, all of us here are natural persons. In law, ICI, Unilever, Shell and all other such organisations are persons, but not natural persons.

§Sir Teddy TaylorI have great respect for my hon. Friend, who is one of the wisest people in the House, but I have to point out that he is stating what he thinks the position to be. Is there a definition anywhere? Constituents of mine will probably have to obey these laws. When it comes to training and access, I shall have to ask, “Are you a natural person?” My hon. Friend says that he thinks that he and I are natural persons. Where is the definition? This is not fun; it is a serious matter. All those who say that this Bill should be rushed through should realise that what it contains would become the law of the land. I demand that before we leave this matter we be told, by my hon. Friend or by somebody else, what the blazes a natural person is.

§Sir Richard BodyMy hon. Friend should not be quite so naive as to believe that the people who drafted this treaty, as well as those who will put it into effect, have very much interest in the people of Southend. The treaty 342contains many examples of the way in which it will be very difficult for ordinary people, particularly those who are self-employed, to understand the laws that govern their lives, disobedience of which may result in punishment.

§Mr. CashPerhaps tucked away in this convoluted treaty is a reference to a Euro-person. In the light of previous debates, I believe that we are moving rapidly to the notion of a European culture in which a person will be seen as natural in the European context. This is very disturbing. Does my hon. Friend know of a recent conference in Madrid that was partially funded by the European Commission? We are told that at that conference a certain Dr. Lenarduzzi of the Commission said that the Commission had been seeking to influence education—

They don’t half get themselves in a pickle with this “person” stuff though eh? 😉

 

 

HL Deb 10 December 1981 vol 425 cc1436-73

Lord Ross of MarnockIt could happen; it depends on how the council or the new authority conduct their business. I have another amendment later which might be helpful to the applicant—and it is the applicant I am considering as well as the council: we should give them some information as to when things are going to be considered. I appreciate the difficulty of time, and instead of “five weeks” we could have said “two weeks” or “three weeks” What I want is to get licences considered by the authority more expeditiously. We want to be as helpful as possible, certainly in respect of the form, so that people know exactly what is required of them. But I am not fussed about this one and so I am prepared to withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 10: Page 82, line 16, leave out (“a”) and insert (“an individual”).

1458

§The noble Lord said: This amendment is put down because my curiosity is aroused. I am sure that your Lordships will be equally concerned, having read that the line I propose to change is: where the applicant is not a natural person”. The mind boggles! I suppose that it has some meaning in Scottish law, and I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will rise to the defence of the draftsman. But I warn him that there is a trap here, because we have the phrase elsewhere in this Bill and it is not a question of not being a natural person. What I want to put in is for the purpose of keeping it clear throughout. If you are going to use the correct phrase once, then let us use it right through.

§If my amendment, to include before the word “natural” the word “individual”, is not accepted, then I shall need to move another amendment later to leave out the word “individual”, because the phrase “an individual natural person” is used elsewhere. In my simplicity, I thought that one of them must be right and one of them must be wrong, and that is the reason why I have put down this amendment. So I beg to move to leave out the word “a” and insert “an individual”, so that the line will read: where the applicant is not an individual natural person”.

§The Earl of MansfieldThis is a titillating phrase, and I want to emphasise that I am speaking in legal or drafting terms. By definition, a natural person is an individual human being. There are no other kinds of natural persons. All other persons are of a non-natural kind; for example, companies, local authorities and, to some extent, partnerships. Since there are no kinds of natural persons apart from individual human beings, it is unnecessary to specify that a natural person is also an individual. To do so, indeed, might suggest that there are kinds of natural persons other than individuals. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 speaks of “an individual natural person”, but although the licensing system in this Bill is based on the scheme of the 1976 Act, it does not follow it slavishly and the draftsman departed from the 1976 Act style where he saw fit, which was in this paragraph. So I hope that the noble Lord will accept that explanation on behalf of the draftsman.

§Lord Ross of MarnockI am delighted. Of course, the draftsmen have changed their minds since last year, because the phrase “an individual natural person” was in the draft Bill. I should not be at all surprised, as we go through this Bill, if we find that it is also here. It depends on the draftsman’s mood as to whether it is “a natural person” or “an individual natural person”. I am not going to quarrel, but have I a promise from the Minister of State that if I find the phrase “an individual natural person” later on, he will then remove the word “individual”?

§The Earl of MansfieldI am not normally a betting man but, if the noble Lord turns to Clause 51 (4), I am not sure that he will not hit the jackpot. But be that as it may, the purpose of this is, of course, to distinguish between individuals and corporations. That is the serious part of this. That is why the draftsman has adopted the style that he has.

1459

§Lord Ross of MarnockYes, but the noble Earl has not answered my question.

§The Earl of MansfieldI think the question was—

§Lord Ross of MarnockI know it is there. I have got it marked in Clause 51 (4). The noble Earl surely does not think that something so obvious as this would escape a teacher’s eye. I noticed that the draftsmen used the phrase “a natural person” first, and then, later on, “an individual natural person”. We have had the Minister getting up and explaining why they dropped the word “individual”. I would rather he did it now. When we come to Clause 51, he will need to explain why they replaced the word “individual”. Or has he already promised? Maybe I am a little bit dense on a Thursday afternoon. But later on, when we discuss amendments to Clause 51, are we going to take out the word “individual”?

§The Earl of MansfieldI must not keep the noble Lord in suspense. It is my intention to amend that subsection when we come to it.

Looks like there’s a few of them that just don’t get it – and never will. Democracies are perfect for totalitarianism when the majority just don’t get it and when that majority exists in Parliament itself, then it’s even easier isn’t it?

 

 

HL Deb 02 April 1990 vol 517 cc1104-24

Baroness PhillipsBefore the noble and learned Lord replies, I wish to make a small point. Perhaps it is peculiar to Scottish law but I have never before seen a reference to a “natural person”. One is surely not dealing with unnatural persons. I noted that the word “persons” is also used. Is there any reason why the words “natural persons” are used in relation to Scottish law?

The Earl of BalfourMy noble and learned friend will see that subsections (6) and (7) of the new clause refer only to “the Director”. After reading the old Clause 21 I know that that relates to the Director General of Fair Trading, which was there written out in full. However, the new clause does not indicate who the director is and that must be considered at a later stage.

§Lord Fraser of CarmyllieI shall look at the point raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour. As regards the “natural person”, it is envisaged that a professional body will be making applications on behalf of its members who are natural persons and individuals. They will not be other associations or companies but one professional body making applications for its individual members—

§Baroness PhillipsAs a teacher of English, which I assume is spoken over the Border, I believe that reference should be made to “the person”. “Natural person” is an unnecessary and confusing description.

CID officer doesn’t know what a legal fiction is! My ass!

Posted in Law, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on February 17, 2014

The epitome of what I despise: A well trained (monkey), softly spoken, wilfully ignorant excuse for a human being who knows precisely what the legal fiction is (for if she does not, then she should be sacked considering her level within that protection racket she calls the CID) but makes the condescending remark of “I don’t know what books you’re reading”. Listen to me honey, you need to READ more books! But then you don’t “practice” law do you so you would argue you don’t need to understand it, you just enforce it. While you wish him to let you finish talking (because you do have that arrogance to believe that whatever is spat out of your mouth is of the utmost importance) but you do not extend the same grace toward allowing him to finish. In fact you don’t even listen because the one thing you cannot afford to do is have a debate on the subject of the person and common law because then you would never get your prosecution. And that’s the rub with you sweetheart: You’re not trying to protect anyone (there is no victim) and neither are you, as you suggest, trying to “get things right” for him. You don’t even wish to understand him but you demand he understands you. All you want is your conviction and, for some reason – probably for the camera and to give the public the impression that you are measured, in control and ever so fair – you keep that voice of yours “sweet” and quietly calm. But listen honey, some of us can see right through that shit. You’re a piece of work and, in my view, you’re a liar if you are suggesting that you do not have a clue what a legal fiction is. As the public become more and more aware of exactly what the legal person/legal fiction is, they will recognise you for what you (and your colleagues) are.

Unfortunately, we have a society which simply sees “drugs” and assumes a criminal. Perhaps they also have their prejudices against certain accents and/or class and you will use that to your every advantage plus the fact that the vast majority of people are as ignorant of the legal fiction as you pretend to be otherwise, in a jury of his peers – under common law – they would find there is no actual law against what he has done and find him not guilty. Personally, I don’t take drugs and I would rather not plus I’d never consider growing the stuff but that is my personal choice and preference. He, therefore, does not cause me a harm or a loss – no tort whatsoever. therefore, you are not protecting me and I don’t need your protection. You will say, on the other hand, “ah but there are people who do need our protection” (whether they wish it or not) yet all you are doing is removing freewill and choice. Anyone who bought his product would be doing it of their own freewill. Again, therefore, no victim. It’s called responsibility for one’s own actions and one’s own life. But I’ll bet you this sweetheart, if YOU don’t smoke the odd joint, your colleagues do! You bunch of corrupt, hypocritical little shits!

I wonder how this video has been released to the public however and for what reason? Interesting eh?

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 16, 2014

Yes you read that right. From ZETA – a group of what I guess we have to call humans who like to fuck animals.

So, by the same token, the mere concept of morality regarding sexually abusing a child or even murder have no business being law. If this is the way you want your world to go and this is the world you want your children and grandchildren to live in, then just keep liberally accepting the “progressive” laissez faire and “live and let live” and “Do what thou wilt” culture of depravity that just keep creeping along while our governments don’t listen to the moral concerns of most people but give way to the well funded minority groups who lobby. When did you ever hear of a group of lobbyists for “normality”? Never.

First homosexuality

then bisexuality

then omnisexuality (anything goes)

paedophilia

One thing though: When did you ever hear of a donkey speaking a language and, therefore, giving consent? Or do the zoophiliacs suggest that “Eee haw” is chinese for “Yes please”? ‘Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,’ said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok. Just state it is a “lifestyle choice” and demand your “human rights” to make such a choice and hey presto! You get a licence to shag a sheep! But people like Dharmabro (an ex commenter on here) can’t really say anything against it (thereby supporting it) because, as he says “homosexuality is natural and exists in the natural world”. Yes Dharmabro it does. Just as cross species sexual activity does, therefore, that MUST be ok too. You can’t argue with that otherwise your entire reasoning for homosexuality being “natural” is damned – which, by the way, it is. So what we have here is the homosexual community, simply by their own reasoning, support bestiality. It might not be their preference BUT, if they speak out against it, they are hypocrites and, not only that, they are zoo-o-phobes! Now you don’t want to be labeled a “‘phobe” of any type now do you homos? So what’s your way out? I can’t HEAR you! Bestiality http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html What I find strange with this comment re “his once friendly flock of sheep were beginning to shy away from human contact” is that do the new batch of sheep never see the older batch being taken away by humans and slaughtered? Doesn’t it even occur to them? Stupid sheep! But then who are we humans to talk? We ignore the shearing of ourselves by the governmental and banking shepherds. BAAAHH!

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

And there lies the entire problem because, in fact, as has been stated by the lawmakers themselves on many occasions, morality does not enter into it. In fact, lawyers I have personally been up against stated such in their reply saying they believed my argument to be a moral rather than legal one. It was both but, nevertheless, they had the audacity to state it.

Coronation Street paedophilia: “Wild Bill” CockRoache!

Posted in Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 6, 2014

Subtle programming and subliminal advertising from our loveys at the “Street” once again…..

But I still know of a few people who will either just ignore it or make an excuse. Dear friends, brands and products pay big money to have their product advertised subtly in TV shows and movies. This DVD is NOT there by accident. It has been placed there very purposefully.

I wonder if Ken bought a copy?

1544480_669921853068737_1588803564_n

Now let’s consider the number of alleged pedophiles we have had from Coronation street so far. And is it just the tip of the iceberg? Well, we know Jimmy Savile was just a tip, we know there are quite a few in government circles (QUITE a few) and we have 4 known alleged paedos from Corrie:

Corrie paedos

Now who, precisely is “Kinsey”? Well Alfred Kinsey just so happens to have been a sexuality behavioural scientist – pretty much a pervert then to all intents and purposes. However, it went further than that while the Kinsey Institute are never going to admit it are they?

His projects gained funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Research Council in 1942 so established the Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction at Indiana. He conducted interviews from 5,300 males and 5,940 females on which he based his groundbreaking works.

The research work of Alfred Kinsey almost ended after the release of “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female”. He had allegedly offended thousands of Americans and the U.S. congress exerted pressure on Dean Rusk, the incharge of the Rockefeller Foundation, to unilaterally terminate the financial support of the institute.

After failing to raise funding from other means, Kinsey unfortunately gave up his extraordinary efforts that revolutionized sexuality research. The institute, however, survived and is still functioning as an independent organization under Indiana University.

Alfred Kinsey died on August 25, 1956 of a heart ailment and pneumonia. He was 62 years old.

Now, let’s look at the paedophilia:

A Yorkshire Television Production for Channel 4.

So what’s the Kinsey Institute’s mission today?

Kinsey Institute

The Kinsey Institute today is soft soaping (sorry couldn’t resist the “soap” terminology there) the entire issue on their website and it is highly likely that many of those interested in the Institute today will never have even heard about the Yorkshire TV production. I question whether they’d even want to know or care?

From the Kinsey Institute website regarding the “allegations”:

Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children’s sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Judith Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud). When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman’s lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman’s case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).

Below is a reiteration of these accusations, recently reported, and the Institute’s response.

The act of encouraging pedophiles to rape innocent babies and toddlers in the names of “science” offends. The act of protecting them from prosecution offends. The act of falsifying research findings which, in turn, open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children, offends. (from Dr. Laura’s (Schlesinger) website)

This would be a cause of great concern if it were true. Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and there is absolutely no evidence that his research “opened flood gates for the sexual abuse of children.” Kinsey did talk to thousands of people about their sex lives, and some of the behaviors that they disclosed, including abuse of children, were illegal. In fact, many sexual behaviors, even those between married adults, were illegal in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Without confidentiality, it would have been impossible to investigate the very private lives of Americans then, and even now.

Where did Kinsey’s information about children’s sexual responses come from?

Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children’s sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book.

In a British documentary, a woman says she was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, and that her father justified it as doing research for Alfred Kinsey by filling out questionnaires. 

We have no reason to doubt that this woman was sexually abused. However, Kinsey did not ask people to fill out questionnaires. It is conceivable that this woman’s father or grandfather wrote to Kinsey, as many people have done. Following that documentary, we checked through Kinsey’s correspondence and could not find any that would match this story. We do know that there have been people who have used Kinsey’s name to justify what they do sexually, even recently.

Kinsey used a Nazi SS officer from Germany as one of his key contributors

In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey invited people to write to him about their sex lives. In 1955, a German wrote to him and told him about his sexual experiences with children. Kinsey, in his reply, was non-judgmental, as usual. He did however point out how strongly society condemned such behavior. Kinsey never made use of the information from this man. He also had no idea that this man had been a Nazi ten years earlier…. To suggest that Kinsey had something to do with Nazi torture of children is a bizarre fabrication.

Allegations and Controversy, 1995-1998

More Controversy about Childhood data
Soon after John Bancroft, M.D., assumed the directorship of The Kinsey Institute in 1995, he was called upon to respond to an allegation by the Family Research Council (FRC) about data on pre-adolescent orgasm that the late Dr. Alfred Kinsey had included 50 years ago in Chapter 5, “Early Sexual Growth and Activity,” of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (W.B. Saunders, 1948).

In the fall of 1995, Rep. Steve Stockman, Galveston, Texas, took up the FRC allegation, circulating a letter on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he asked for support for a bill he had introduced to investigate Dr. Kinsey’s research. Stockman alleged that this data was derived from federally funded sexual molestation of children (the so-called “Children of Table 34”). Although Stockman’s staff were invited to put any questions to The Kinsey Institute and Indiana University, they declined. Stockman held a press conference December 7, 1995, calling for a congressional hearing. No hearing was held and the bill died. Stockman was defeated in the 1996 election.

In 1997, Concerned Women for America referred to this allegation in a press release with a renewed call for a Congressional investigation. In January 1998, Indiana State Representative Woody Burton submitted a House Concurrent Resolution to the Indiana General Assembly regarding Kinsey. In August 1998, a British television station produced a program based heavily on these allegations.

But then why would the UK or British governments wish to consider any action? After all, we have this:

wt

screen-shot-2012-09-20-at-2-28-00-pmobama_gay_scandal

ALL of it “alleged” you understand!

But lastly, don’t you get the feeling there’s more to this Kinsey Institute than just purely wholesome sex?

Of all things, they advertise erotic art with a cover photo showing the Goat of Mendes (Satan) about to spear a woman, from behind, with his obscured, erect weapon.

Kinsey 1

Not so subtle then!

OPEN YOUR MIND – Utter tripe!

Posted in Uncategorized by earthlinggb on February 4, 2014

This is the sort of thing I’m meaning when I make comments like “people are fricking idiots” and “the alternative media circus” etc.

Adults? Are we sure we’re not talking about overgrown pre-pubescents?  This TRIPE is shoved down your throat as “truth” and they have the nerve to say this programme was about identifying disinfo agents and/or controlled opposition?

Considering it’s an irish programme, it reminded me of a bunch of people from MI5 infiltrating the IRA but, instead of blowing people’s limbs off, they’re attempting to short circuit sane, logical reasoning. Plus some of them have the audacity to refer to David Icke and TPV as “controlled opposition” (which I am in no doubt it is but have no proof of but plenty of circumstantial suggestion of – BIG e.g. acceptance by OFCOM, while I know it’s a money game for sure).

Sharon Gifford makes an appearance on this but doesn’t get a lot to say because she’s jammed in between two blokes talking about shit! Absolute utter crap! Perhaps that’s why she had nothing much to add? I’d be sitting in the background listening pissing myself too.

Jump to 40 mins in when Sharon appears (if you wish to listen to this shit at all. I did to hear what Sharon had to say but was disappointed that she could hardly get her tongue in edgeways and realised it was one of the worst 90 minutes I’ve spent in my life and will never get the time back!)

So, I thought, I may as well make use of the shit I heard.

Comments related to points these people made….

Tony you are treated brilliantly (at TPV) superficially and everyone is always very nice (on the face of it). And I was initially “impressed” by the “niceness” of the people I met just as you were. But it collapsed very quickly. Do you remember when Tony Blair got into office? In fact any politician who wants your vote? Do you remember Gordon Brown talking to the woman outside the car then when he got in it he calls her a bigot? It’s all very simple you know.

The host (Alan) is an apologist to TPV/Icke (as are the vast majority of alternative stations) because he does not wish to upset Icke. After all, getting David Icke on your show and staying “in” with him provides possibilities doesn’t it? I haven’t yet come across a major (or relatively minor) alternative media group who have picked up on the info I have launched and acknowledged the facts and absolutely logical extrapolations from them. Why? The same reason I have no doubt. Can’t criticise the Icke. You bunch of yellow bellied prats!

No, there is more to it than a lack of management skills by David Icke. Sean is the gatekeeper of the this isn’t he? Even a bad manager cannot possibly be that fricking incompetent Alan! If you think that is even slightly acceptable then my god man, you must be just as fcuking incompetent!

A commenter says Alan (host) sounds like controlled oppositen. Strangely, that is what I was thinking.

Miles Johnston – “Predators who look like us” – bullshit. Total fucking bullshit. Here we go with reptilian entities from other planets again.

Alan asks Sharon for research to prove a negative (that the predator does not exist). He does not ask Miles for proof of the positive. Total disinfo agent.

Alan: Makes a statement in response to Miles’ statement regarding something about “they” having whatever technology he was talking about at the time: “I’m sure they have” says Alan. Based on what Alan? Just a statement with no supportive facts. Just “I’m sure they have”. Just as Sharon says she doesn’t think there is such a thing as a Predator race (alien) and you ask for her proof that there isn’t, I ask you for proof of you being sure of Miles’s statement. I’m sure there are alien beings on Saturn’s moons which look like the Michelin man. Prove there isn’t Alan!

Oh jesus – Tony Z. “predator people from other star systems and the DNA is not from our planet or local to this area of space”???? What fucking bullshit whether Darwinian theory is rubbish or not.

Miles: “We’re all extraterrestrials from different planets”. Oh give me a fcuking break!

“Because white people don’t like the sun and get burned, we couldn’t have evolved on earth.” That’s one of his “proofs”. So there you go folks. Alan is convinced by these sorts of proofs.

Miles: “Independent” The People’s Voice? HOW CAN IT BE INDEPENDENT (in this case meaning free of infiltration or control) when it doesn’t do the non comply dance for OFCOM? Stop talking shit man.

Miles: “Fix this problem – adults” talking about Predators from other star systems? Grow up for christ’s sakes!

“Read biogenic fields like an IP address”. These people are all disinfo – “hacking into your energy field”. Where’s the proof Alan?

Miles: “zero point energy if available to the predator then it’s lights out for us but it’s being held back by the ET’s (whoever they are)”

So Miles and TonyZ keep talking about this zero point energy as if we have it. They keep repeating that we have it. Well where the fcuk is it guys? Oh I see? There are ETs in possession of it so we can’t get it (and they are keeping it away from the predator race too?). So then, if the ET’s have it then how can you say we have it? And we’ve always had it when you say a bunch of ET’s have it? Have they landed at various times and shown us it? But then they’ve said “Well no, we can’t give it to you because it may fall into the predator’s hands”? Sounds like the big fear of America and Britain saying they fear nukes will fall into the terrorist’s hands while we allow our corporations who develop all the technology to sell it all over the world with a few export licence problems here and there. As if Export licence’s are going to stop a fricking terrorist getting his hands on a weapon! Perhaps we should sign a trade agreement with the ET’s lads and tell them to deal with the UKTI on the Export Licence issue. Surely if we sign an export licence with them they’ll give us the technology?

I have to say I concur with their comments on TETRA (the Police and public utilities communications system) however, to just throw such allegations willy nilly without supporting them is dangerous and wrong. I wonder if either of them could have, if put on the spot, explained more about what TETRA is and the frequency at which it works and how, exactly, that may interfere with a person’s biological system? I somehow doubt it.

Again, Tony says we have free energy but as Miles says, we don’t because the ET’s are holding it back. So how do we know we have it if we’re not given it? While both men seem to agree that some extraterrestrial race has it. I mean the logic in this shit is out of the window. You’d get more sense from Mark Windows and that’s saying something.

“ALL the solutens for free energy have always been there”. Where? List these solutions and then show them working! Oh, you can’t? Why? Because the ET’s have them. I see. CUCKOO!!!!!!!!

Miles: “Politicians are bought and owned by this predator”. Jesus christ! Perhaps we should get Sly Stallone to look at the issue. He once had a problem with a Predator didn’t he? Oh! THAT’S where you got the idea from? Aha! nudge nudge wink wink. Your secret’s safe with me Miles!

Miles: “We need a working TPV in mainstream.” How do you get on mainstream Miles without complying with the state?

And the “Awake” want to change the world and beat the New World Order. But they’ve just found out a race of predator Aliens need to be stopped first before we can save earth. No-one’s ever seen one of these predator aliens but that is no excuse for saying they don’t exist! Goddamn it, PROVE they don’t exist! Prove Michelin men on Mimos don’t exist!

Sad, man. Bloody sad!

It’s a shame you think Icke is cointelpro Miles, because otherwise, he would have loved you! Perhaps he didn’t wish to talk to you because he thought “There’s one nutter in here already.. and that’s me. I don’t need another one!”