GL-W's weBlog

The views & thoughts of Greg Lance-Watkins & articles & facts I have found interesting.

>GUEST POST: Steve Morson on BBC Bias & TV Licence Tax

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 08/06/2014

>GUEST POST: Steve Morson on BBC Bias & TV Licence Tax

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

>GUEST POST:

Steve Morson writes in complaint to Sir Micheal Lyons Chairman of The BBC Trust in some detail concerning BBC Bias & TV Licence Tax

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

minded that Steve Morson was a UKip prospective parliamentary candidate for Bromsgrove

MORSON, Steve 01

where the disgraced Julie Kirkbride was MP (well one of the homes she claimed expenses for!) this complaint written to Sir Michael Lyons in his capacity as Chairman of The BBC Trust, covers many of our feelings regarding the debased, befouled and biased BBC!

I strongly advise those of you with an interest in the future well being of these United kingdoms regardless of whether or not you support UKip or not to read this to the end! It is as apposite today as it was when written in 2009 – little changes in the BBC as it seems they are far too comfortable, with a tax funded monopoly to provide an honest and honourable service – it is widely noticed that they have massively dumbed down and pander to the gutter viewers, both in terms of language, content and style.

It would seem that the BBC is willing to hugely overpay their executives and offer an ever poorer quality backed by a number of safe backsides on their executive chairs to peddle neat propaganda and foul language as they have no need to compete being tax payert funded with a compulsory and hypothocated tax income unknown in any other area!

Sir Michael Lyons
Chairman
BBC Trust
Broadcasting House
London
W1A 1AA

29th August 2009

Dear Sir Michael,

With immediate effect, I am withholding my television licence fee, and as I intend to encourage many more people to do the same, I think it is rather important that you know why.

I realise that a single licence fee of £142.50 is a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to the £3.36 billion annual income from this state-enforced licence tax, and a fraction of a percentage point of the obscene £141 million in loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB), but I feel that it will become a story in it’s own right. I have joined the Facebook group “10 Million for No TV Licence”, which at the time of writing, has 537,400 members.

I doubt that you will be surprised to learn that I am a member and prospective parliamentary candidate (PPC) of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP). I intend to campaign within my party to introduce the proposition that our party adopts the abolition of the TV licence tax as policy in its Culture, Media and Sport portfolio.

My letters of complaint through the BBC’s normal channels, plus those of my friends and colleagues, have become an object lesson in futility, which is why several of us have taken this step. In many cases, the responses of the BBC are shared amongst the wider membership – more for ridicule than illumination – and are held as examples of anfractuous reasoning and needless digressions. Please note that I do not expect a point-by-point refutation of this letter, as some or all of the points will already have been inadequately answered by your Complaints Department. The request I am making is for a fundamental shift in the practice of political broadcasting, including conformity with legislation, guidelines and commissioned reports, and the basic concept of fairness.

My grievances

In my opinion, the BBC has, throughout both election periods stipulated below:

1)

Broken its covenant to “educate, inform and entertain” its audience. Virtually all of the output of all television channels has been aptly described by Peter Hitchens as “mental slurry”, and the BBC is as guilty as anyone of producing it

2)

Failed to provide adequate coverage or at least reflect the political views of people and interested parties in anything other than the three main political parties, i.e. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat

3)

Treated the United Kingdom Independence Party as a single-issue, extremist party and never once asked them to explain or discuss their range of policies that have been in place for more than a year in the context of a serious discussion (I exclude the bromidic BBC 1 “Question Time” programme)

4)

Failed to take the concerns of many UKIP supporters over the accusations of unfair coverage in these election periods seriously

5)

Failed to follow its own “Editorial Guidelines (Politics and Public Policy) – Broadcasting during elections”, viz: “…news judgements at election time are made within a framework of democratic debate [your bold emphasis] which ensures that due weight is given to hearing the views and examining and challenging the policies of all parties. Significant minor parties should also receive some network coverage during the campaign.”

6)

By dint of points 2), 3) and 5), potentially and possibly interfered with, or at least attempted to affect, the outcome of two elections in contravention of its charter and UK laws

7)

Wilfully failed to observe Bridcut Principles 1 to 5 (listed in Appendix A), failed to provide Principle 8, and seemingly couldn’t care about 11 or 12.

8)

Underestimated the public need for radical change at the very heart of our political institutions, especially the House of Commons, by stifling all but mainstream opinion, and failed to reflect this view in a cross-party consensus

9)

Committed a breach of section 5.5. (and possibly others) of The Ofcom Broadcasting Code (Oct. 2008), viz:

“Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.”

10)

Continued it’s trashing of the image and reputation of our Royal family and its place in the affections of many British people and our state’s constitution, by persistent and unchallenged trivialisation, negative reporting and imagery, and denigration through BBC radio and TV “comedy” output. As a case in point, a ‘brand new comedy series’ on BBC Radio 4 on 21st August at 6:30 pm aimed at mocking the weeks headlines started in the first episode with a non-story from the Times turned into a ‘joke’ at the expense of Prince Edward, within two minutes of starting.

The straw that ‘broke the camels back’ for me was the by-election in Norwich North on 23rd July. I drove to Norwich to volunteer in Glenn Tingle’s campaign, and saw first hand the disgraceful media bias our candidate had to tolerate. This was only part of a profound and unsubtle anti-UKIP broadcasting policy by television and radio programming to deny a voice to a legitimate and respectable party – the fourth largest in UK politics, and second largest in European politics. The BBC actively promoted the Green Party as an alternative to the two main parties, without even mentioning UKIP on several occasions in its reportage.

4th June elections

In the approaching weeks to the June 4th County Council and European Parliament elections, I noticed the following transgressions:-

1.

Watching repeats of “Have I Got News For You” reminded me how, whenever UKIP is mentioned, it is merely for cheap ridicule and unfailingly we are represented by Robert Kilroy-Silk. The fact that he left the party in January 2005 doesn’t seem to trouble the programme makers or the BBC commissioning / editorial staff.

2.

On 8th May this year on Radio 4’s Today programme, after listening, I felt compelled to e-mail this complaint:-

This morning, Nigel Farage MEP was interviewed by James Naughtie. Throughout the interview, he constantly shuffled papers, and on my stereo, it sounded so close to the microphone that it almost drowned Mr. Farage out.

This is not the first time; far from it. He seems to make a habit of doing this when his vocal intonation betrays the fact that he feels dislike / derision for the subject of his interview.

Please ask him to desist.

The reply (typical of its kind) included this utter irrelevance:

James is an extremely experienced and well respected presenter…

A view not shared by me or the blogosphere apparently.

3.

In the 10:00 pm news on BBC 1 on or around 11th May, Nick Robinson –the BBC’s so-called Political Editor, was delivering a live piece to Huw Edwards in the studio from Westminster, about the MPs expenses scandal and its possible effects on the coming 4th June poll. He included this:-

…and when people are asked about how they might vote in the European elections, Labour is neck-and-neck at 19% with the U.K. Independence Party. A huge surge of support for them, that despite the fact that one of the MEPs they elected last time is currently in prison for being on benefit fraud [sic]. He was, I ought to say, expelled from the party.

This was clearly a reference to Ashley Mote, MEP. As many UKIP officials were tired of explaining even by then, Mote withheld vital information (a pending civil court case for housing benefit fraud) from the Party when he applied to us for candidature. This would have precluded him standing for any office in the party, much less a parliamentary seat. Ashley Mote was released from jail in November 2007 from his subsequent conviction, eighteen months before Mr. Robinson’s report. Nick Robinson was either wilfully and artfully propagandist, or woefully incompetent and outdated with his ‘facts’. In either case, is he a suitable journalist to hold the BBC’s most senior political reporting post, or was he merely ensuring that facts didn’t get in the way of a “good story”? Or obeying orders?

4.

In BBC1’s Question Time in May, a woman asked if the MP expenses scandal would give a boost to “….extremist parties like the BNP?” David Dimbleby asked her “By extremist, do you also mean UKIP?” Why? By whose criteria (apart from Dimbleby’s) is UKIP considered “extremist”?

5.

On 21st May edition of the same programme (from Salisbury), the normal complement of five ‘talking heads’ was bizarrely increased by the presence of Yasmin Alibi-Brown, the BBC’s favourite and ubiquitous rent-a-Leftie (and habitual interrupter), ensuring that Marta Andreasen’s contribution – as UKIP Treasurer – was kept to an absolute minimum.

6.

In Michael Ball’s Radio 2 programme on a Sunday morning before 4th June, Peter Riddell of The Times was the guest reviewer of the Sunday newspapers. I have admired Peter’s insights, analysis and writing for many years until, when discussing MPs expenses and the 4th June, he stated that ‘this will give a boost to “….extremist parties like the BNP and UKIP”…’

7.

On 3rd June, UKIP Leader Nigel Farage was interviewed by Emily Maitlis for BBC 2 Newsnight. It was shameful; hostile questioning is expected, but constant interruptions are not.

8.

On polling day – 4th June – there was virtually no coverage of the story behind multiple cases of an attempt at electoral fraud by councils up and down the country who issued ballot papers folded to obscure the UKIP box at the bottom of the paper. Nigel Farage threatened to demand a rerun of the European elections and demanded the resignation of Elections Minister Michael Wills because of fears that our party had lost votes as its name fell below the crease – machine formed in many cases – of the folded ballot paper. The Electoral Commission had to issue urgent advice to polling stations and returning officers to hand out unfolded ballot papers to voters. I heard nothing in the BBC news of this. The BNP claim that they picked up many votes this way that would otherwise have gone to us.

Post election

After 4th June elections, I noticed the following:

1.

In the BBC 1 Question Time programme on 11th June, UKIP was not mentioned once; not by the panel or the audience. For a programme that seeks to explore and discuss the week’s politics and current events, this is far more than extraordinary or coincidental. Presumably, this programme is recorded and then edited for broadcast, so only one of two scenarios is possible in this case; either a) no-one in that studio mentioned UKIP even once, or b) it was mentioned and then edited out. In the case of (a), this would be remarkable, as not only did UKIP poll second place in the European parliament elections, but were the only political party to increase their vote share on 2004 results. Surely someone would have raised this point? In addition, UKIP won several County Council seats, Labour no longer controlled a single county council in England and the Liberal Democrats reduced to one. Labour lost three quarters of their councillors in England and resulted with less than the Lib Dems. How could UKIP not have been mentioned?

2.

However, if point 1) seems odd, what is absolutely peculiar is that Question Time was followed – as usual – by “This Week”, but we fared no better. If there was a place for discussion and deep political analysis, it was here (I was a regular viewer). The only time UKIP was mentioned was by Diane Abbott MP, but it was dismissive and in passing. That Andrew Neil did not mention UKIP is just unfathomable!

3.

In the early hours of Monday 8th June as European ballot results were declared, Mike Nattrass MEP stated in his speech that he asked the BBC for a debate on the Lisbon Treaty with the Conservatives and other party representatives. Why was this cut from the edited highlights of his speech in the news?

4.

Nikki Sinclaire, who was elected as an MEP for the West Midlands, was invited on to BBC1’s The Politics Show of 14th June for the West Midlands and an interview by Sarah Falkland. Before this, on the national segment, Ken Clarke, Conservative MP was interviewed live about public spending, debt, the NHS and Royal Mail. Ms. Sinclaire was prevented from seeing any monitors in her time in the studio, so it is perhaps just as well that she wasn’t questioned on his responses to Jon Sopel’s questions.

5.

In an appallingly biased West Midlands segment on this programme, Susana Mendonça preceded an interview with “one of our regular commentators” – Prof. Mick Temple of Stafford University – with the fact that in the West Midlands, UKIP’s increase in vote share was the highest in the country. He said:

“I think UKIP have been very [his emphasis] lucky. Their performance has not been brilliant, they are themselves plagued by expenses scandals, and yet they picked up and extra seat in the West Midlands which quite frankly I don’t think they deserved! I think those Conservative voters who voted UKIP are going to come back to the Conservatives in a general election, but this is not a clear indication that the Conservatives will win the next general election; on the votes cast in the European and local elections, they’ll be lucky to scrape a working majority. That’s not good enough a year before an election.”

It is a political tenet of our age that many habitual voters of the three main parties vote UKIP in a European election because they trust us – almost more – than anyone else. This was mentioned to me, unprompted, by Conservatives at the county and European vote counts, even by Ms. Julie Kirkbride – my MP. It seems to be a revelation to Prof. Temple, who seems to be a professor of food science judging by these sour grapes and rotten tomatoes!

‘Deserved’? Why was no-one invited to offer a response to counter this ignorant nonsense, especially as Nikki Sinclaire MEP was sitting in the studio? If Mr. Temple had been on the campaign trail with UKIP activists in the region, he would have seen first-hand the enormous amount of hard work and personal investment made by ordinary people committed to bringing decent, honest change to British and European politics. It was rewarded in the vote share.

“A working majority”? Since the end of last year, polls have put the Conservatives at a minimum of 9%, and mostly this year in the 13 – 19% range, ahead of Labour. This by any measure would ensure a very healthy majority for the governing party.

Moreover, to which “expenses scandals” was he referring? Ashley Mote, as explained, was effectively nothing to do with UKIP, and Tom Wise is awaiting trial on such charges. Unless, like everyone else at the BBC and everyone they interview, he is presciently convinced of Mr. Wise’ guilt. Perhaps I’m alone in thinking it strange that I have never once heard mention on the BBC that the Conservative’s Chief Whip in the European parliament, Den Dover, was required to pay back £445,000 in “unaccountable expenditure”.

This same segment then went on to interview Michael Cashman, now the lone Labour MEP in the West Midlands. He said:

“UKIP as I said earlier, it’s a protest vote. They stand for one thing – pulling out. They were given an easy ride….the denunciation of all of the mainstream parties lifted UKIP and sadly, in other regions, gave oxygen and breath and support to the British National Party.”

More bilge. As I have pointed out in previous correspondence with your Complaints Department and on many weblog pages, if you starve UKIP of the oxygen of publicity, you may end up with some curious and undesirable election results. We were positively asphyxiated by the BBC, and lo and behold, Nick Griffin – BNP Leader – won an MEP seat in the North West.

(Every member of UKIP I have met detests the BNP as much as I, a fact of which I am immensely proud.) If UKIP had polled 17,000 more votes in that region, we would have taken that seat. I have heard people espouse the theory that effectively, the BBC actively campaigned for this BNP victory. Whatever anyone thinks of UKIP – propagandising and prejudices aside, we are nothing like the BNP; I speak as a three-year member. I also never tire of pointing out that in the 1980’s, the voices of Sinn Fein’s political leaders were dubbed by actors to – in theory – deny the IRA the ‘oxygen of publicity’. But at least their words got out.

Just as I thought this programme had cornered the market in ill-thought out nonsense and anti-UKIP propaganda with the previous two contributions, Susana Mendonça introduces an interview with Liz Lynne, Liberal Democrat MEP with this line:

“ …the fourth placed Liberal Democrats, who keep their one MEP in the region, warn that UKIP’s success is bad news for the Midlands.”

Liz Lynne MEP said:

“If you don’t get MEPs going in there to work, then they can’t stand up for their constituents so I hope they will change their mind. I hope they will engage with the whole process to make sure we have more jobs coming into this region, more funding coming into this region. That is what the job of an MEP is.

I don’t think Mike Nattrass MEP needs to be reminded of that, as he is the only person – anywhere – to tell us that in October last year, the EU parliament approved a €97 million subsidy for bullfighting (after we banned foxhunting), and a €305 million subsidy for growing some of the most carcinogenic tobacco known to man (after we banned smoking in public places). He also tells us of lost contracts due to EU Legislation (e.g. for British trucks that went to Austria instead of LDV in his constituency – sealing their fate) and exorbitant conformity on-costs, the chicanery of the EU Budget, the obscenity of the Common Agricultural Policy, a collapsing parliament roof (Strasbourg – which could have killed 300 people if the EU parliament was sitting), and police assaults on legitimate protestors. He also warned us that the British and French were attempting to set up an EU Navy – to the alarm of British admirals. UKIP’s MEPs carry out sterling work, making sure that the unsustainable lunacy of the European Project is exposed, while MEPs of other parties slavishly toe the line and spuriously defend our membership.

How exactly was Liz Lynne describing “bad news” for ‘the Midlands’? East and West? Why does she think that they will do no work? Judging by results, Mike Nattrass works far harder at being an MEP than the others from whom I‘ve heard nothing. Whatsoever. (By the way, in a recent survey of the most effective MEPs in the European Parliament conducted by the Taxpayers Alliance, a UKIP MEP was rated 7th of 783 in a league table of effectiveness, with seven Labour MEPs – including Michael Cashman – in the bottom ten. And yet here he was berating UKIP.

Later in the national segment, Ken Clarke was again interviewed, this time on the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Again, this was unchallenged, even though Mr. Clarke is a passionate Europhile who is utterly opposed to any referendum by any government on any issue. This despite a poll on ConservativeHome weblog showing that 84% of Conservative party members want a British referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even if it is ratified by all member states.

In all, an utterly disgraceful programme.

Norwich North

In the campaign up to the Norwich North by-election of 23rd July, I noticed the following:

1)

Throughout BBC news coverage on TV and radio, several activists including myself, who had arrived from various parts of the country to help Glenn Tingle’s campaign, noticed that the only party mentioned other than the three main parties was the Green Party.

2)

On BBC 2 Newsnight on Wednesday 15th July in a segment centred in Norwich, interviews were conducted with the three main party candidates. This was followed by an interview with someone from Pitman Training in Norwich. Then, UKIP candidate Glenn Tingle was

given a few seconds, but in a resulting montage graphic of four squares, what was shown? Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat candidates… and a classroom at Pitman Training! We assumed they also had a candidate in the election!

3)

In the same programme, a BBC News East reporter went to a home for elderly people in Norwich, and interviewed four ladies. When he asked them who they would vote for, they said “Not the Conservatives or Labour!” (A moment’s silence). “The Greens?” asked the reporter! “Yes, the Greens. We think!” came the reply.

4)

Whose decision was it to exclude Glenn Tingle, UKIP candidate, from a televised hustings programme only days before the election?

5)

On the evening before my departure, I was told of the existence of a memorandum that was sent from senior BBC management in London to news chiefs at BBC East HQ in Norwich, to the effect that ‘the Green party were to be treated as the fourth party in the by-election coverage, and that UKIP was to be treated the same as the BNP’. Does (or did) such a memo exist, if so who originated this policy, who wrote it, to whom was it sent, who oversaw its compliance, and what do you intend to do about this gross breach of the BBC Charter? The bias we had seen in preceding days certainly seems to confirm its existence.

6)

In an web article entitled “Five key lessons from Norwich North” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8167588.stm), BBC Chief Political Correspondent James Landale writes:

“Third, the anti-politics, anti-politician, expenses-fuelled vote did not coalesce around any particular party or candidate. The Greens, UKIP and the former diplomat Craig Murray picked up some expenses-driven protest votes but not enough to matter.”

Really? At 4,068 votes, this was UKIP’s strongest ever showing in a parliamentary election (which barely did credit to an excellent candidate), but less than 800 votes behind the Liberal Democrats. With fair media coverage, who knows what could have been achieved? The BBC’s much-touted and fancied Green Party came fifth. James Landale appears to reflect – accurately – the BBC view of the British political spectrum.

Bias

For the purpose of brevity, I’ve avoided traversing the minefield that is BBC radio “comedy”. It is an odd experience to hear an audience laughing when nothing funny had been said, but I am getting used to Marcus Brigstocke (and the 6:30pm Radio 4 slot) by now. I doubt I’ll ever get used to Sue Perkins who recently said: “UKIP. Tossers!” bizarrely out of context in a programme as unmemorable as it was un-entertaining.

In an article written for the Daily Telegraph on 24th July entitled “Anti-UKIP and pro-Green: the BBC at its most blatantly biased”, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP wrote:

Throughout the campaign, it ran programmes with Conservative, Labour, LibDem and Green spokesmen…. But there was no basis to the claim that they were the fourth party, either nationally or locally. The last test of electoral feeling was June’s European election. The United Kingdom Independence Party won 13 seats and came second; the Greens won two seats and came fifth. In local elections on the same day, UKIP beat the Greens in most Norwich North wards.

He continued:

Newsnight, Look East and Radio 4 all chose to disregard UKIP and treat the Greens as the main story. Three days before the poll, the BBC’s Eastern region TV held a hustings meeting for four candidates: Conservative, Labour, LibDem and Green.

What was the result in the event? UKIP won 11.8 per cent of the vote ‐ comfortably ahead of the Greens and remarkably close to the LibDems (or “worryingly close” as I just heard a Radio 5 Live presenter put it).

One of the responses to Mr. Hannan’s blog (by ‘Patrick’) was this: On the Saturday before the Euro elections, Today ran a five minute attack on UKIP written by Mark Mardell, the BBC Europe editor. It was a total hatchet job with Mardell first telling us what the other parties in Brussels thought of UKIP (they did not like it) and then giving us his own opinion ‐ that UKIP were profoundly unserious golf club militants who had not been made prefects when they were at school.

I am not really a UKIP supporter, since I am rather to their left (although I did vote for them in protest after hearing that), but I made a formal complaint which was just brushed off.

The BBC’s Europe Editor should not tell us his negative opinions of any party in the days before an election ‐ so I am very pleased that Daniel Hannan as a conservative is making this post. A complaint from him to the BBC Trust, about the treatment of a party which he opposes, would carry a lot of weight. The BBC can just ignore the ordinary licence payer.

Like many people in UKIP, I constantly wonder if the soft loans from the EIB have had an effect on output. Although the BBC refuted the suggestion that there would be any effect on the editorial process at the time, one of the conditions of EIB loans is that the aims of the E.U. are promoted and furthered. I, for one, am bewildered as to why an organisation such as the BBC that raises £3.36 billion annually, with almost guaranteed supra-inflationary increases by state-mandated taxation, needs to borrow £141 million from such a source that places its editorial integrity under question. Looking at the quality of BBC output, I am mystified as to where it is spent.

Or is the BBC simply taking orders from 10, Downing Street? To expose the European Union for the fraudulent, inept, overweening, corrupt and devious mess that we think it is might set the British people to question why we are a member of such an organisation, its second largest funder, and cause people to actually question what has been done in their name and with their money but without their electoral mandate.

Conclusion

I turn to the Bridcut Report, “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel”. It contains Twelve Guiding Principles to ensure impartiality, which I have reproduced in Appendix A. The BBC Trust webpage states the following:

The report is the result of a project first commissioned by the BBC Board of Governors in conjunction with BBC management in November 2005 to identify the challenges and risks to impartiality. The report has been fully endorsed by the BBC Trust, the BBC Executive Board and the BBC Journalism Board.

Endorsed it may have been, although this carries little significant meaning. It is a great shame that it was not ‘embraced’, or even adopted.

As much to blame for this situation are spineless and devious politicians. BBC funding appears to be a ‘third rail’ in British politics – ‘touch it and you die’, but this should not prevent the issue from being addressed. An iniquitous system such as the licence tax cannot be maintained, and this has been stated by commissioned reports, astute and intelligent individuals, and even James Murdoch at the recent McTaggart Lecture in the Edinburgh Television Festival.

Now that I have fully realised that I cannot trust BBC output on news and political coverage, I am reduced to watching one hour of television per week. It is a BBC programme – Dragon’s Den – a fascinating programme which is available on BBC iPlayer, obviating the need for a television. My views, in common with millions of people in this country, are not represented, so why should I pay the BBC licence tax? A programme that I always thought I would like to see made would be a ‘PPC’s only’ version of BBC1’s Question Time for the four main parties, with each party HQ providing a parliamentary candidate of their choice, just before the general election. Given the way the BBC currently reports politics, with its policy of deliberate exclusion of UKIP I do not see this happening.

I intend to use every technological means to achieve the objective I have stated. I will change my mind and resume payment when I detect a sea-change in attitudes towards political coverage on the BBC and it becomes fair and balanced in proportion to a range of electoral results and more representative of reasoned public opinion. In the meantime, I believe a full, independent public enquiry should be launched into the BBC coverage on TV and radio of both election periods, to investigate my charge in point 5) in Grievance above; hence the distribution list below.

I personally believe that British politics is changing profoundly. The effects of the internet, blogging, scandals, and a detachment of the political and media classes from the mood and opinions of the public are coming to a head. Between the general elections of 2001 and 2005, the Labour Party lost 64% of its membership. The number of new members joining UKIP increased our total membership by13% ….between April and July this year.

Yours sincerely,

Steven W. Morson

Prospective parliamentary candidate

UKIP – Bromsgrove.

Appendix A

The Twelve Guiding Principles of the Bridcut report.

1. Impartiality is and should remain the hallmark of the BBC as the leading provider of information and entertainment in the United Kingdom, and as a pre-eminent broadcaster internationally. It is a legal requirement, but it should also be a source of pride.

2. Impartiality is an essential part of the BBC’s contract with its audience, which owns and funds the BBC. Because of that, the audience itself will often be a factor in determining impartiality.

3. Impartiality must continue to be applied to matters of party political or industrial controversy. But in today’s more diverse political, social and cultural landscape, it requires a wider and deeper application.

4. Impartiality involves breadth of view, and can be breached by omission. It is not necessarily to be found on the centre ground.

5. Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programming. It allows room for fair-minded, evidence-based judgments by senior journalists and documentary makers, and for controversial, passionate and polemical arguments by contributors and writers.

6. Impartiality applies across all BBC platforms and all types of programme. No genre is exempt. But the way it is applied and assessed will vary in different genres.

7. Impartiality is most obviously at risk in areas of sharp public controversy. But there is a less visible risk, demanding particular vigilance, when programmes purport to reflect a consensus for “the common good”, or become involved with campaigns.

8. Impartiality is often not easy. There is no template of wisdom which will eliminate fierce internal debate over difficult dilemmas. But the BBC’s journalistic expertise is an invaluable resource for all departments to draw on.

9. Impartiality can often be affected by the stance and experience of programme makers, who need constantly to examine and challenge their own assumptions.

10. Impartiality requires the BBC to examine its own institutional values, and to assess the effect they have on its audiences.

11. Impartiality is a process, about which the BBC should be honest and transparent with its audience: this should permit greater boldness in its programming decisions. But impartiality can never be fully achieved to everyone’s satisfaction: the BBC should not be defensive about this but ready to acknowledge and correct significant breaches as and when they occur.

12. Impartiality is required of everyone involved in output. It applies as much to the most junior researcher as it does to the director general. But editors and executive producers must give a strong lead to their teams. They must ensure that the impartiality process begins at the conception of a programme and lasts throughout production: if left until the approval stage, it is usually too late.

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

I first published Steve Morson’s letter at:

CLICK HERE

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 -
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in UKIP, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

>GUEST POST: The Evils of Catholicism & Bronze Age Superstitions

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 07/06/2014

>GUEST POST: The Evils of Catholicism & Bronze Age Superstitions

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

willpwilson 908
Catholic mass grave sites of 350,800 missing children found
Sat Jun 7, 2014 03:57
65.73.182.69

 

Posted on June 7, 2014

Message News Board: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/149495.html

Catholic mass grave sites of 350,800 missing children found in:

Ireland,

Spain,

Canada

- http://childabuserecovery.com/ -
http://childabuserecovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Childrens-dining-room-Sean-Ross-Abbey.jpg - The atrocity of close to 800 emaciated childrens’ bodies buried in a Irish Nuns’ septic tank represented the 34th child mass grave site linked this week to the Catholic Church. Pope Francis was being prosecuted by the International Common Law Court of Justice (ICLCJ) in Brussels for allegedly trafficking 300,000 children of political prisoners through Vatican Catholic Charities during Argentine’s Dirty War. According to witness testimony last week some of those orphans ended up in a child mass grave site in Spain. Last year’s ICLCJ prosecution concerned 50,000 missing native Canadian children. There have been 32 child mass grave sites uncovered so far in Canada, most of them on Catholic-run native residential school grounds.

Unfortunately the over 350,800 children suspected to be in Catholic child mass graves sites in three countries paled in number to Catholic Priest sex abuse victims across the globe. As of November 2013 over ten million Catholic Priest child sex abuse cases have been documented as shown here. These 10,077,574 cases represented a mere fraction of total crimes committed. Only an estimated 10% of sex abuse victims were thought to speak out about their sex abuse and just 10% of those cases saw the inside of a court room.

Amnesty has been offered to citizens or employees of the Crown of England and Vatican willing to give sworn testimony or evidence that leads to the prosecution of top Vatican and government officials who may have committed crimes. For providing evidence rewards up to 10,000 euros or around 13,660 dollars was available through the ICLCJ court.

The Irish child mass grave site containing bodies of children from age two days to nine years, was located at a now-defunct Catholic home for unwed mothers. According to death records, the little ones were fragile, pot-bellied, emaciated and died as late as 1961 from malnutrition and infectious diseases such as measles and TB.

Children of the Canadian Catholic native residential schools were determined to have been murdered or died of malnutrition, human experimentation, torture, Small Pox infection or as Eyewitness Irene Favel testified in this video, were thrown into a furnace. Favel claimed that in 1944 she witnessed a newborn infant incinerated by a priest at Muscowegan Catholic Indian School, Saskatchewan Canada. The child torture was documented for court in Kevin Annett’s “Hidden No Longer” available for free here.

The Bon Secours Sisters ran the Irish mass grave site and “mother and baby home” called St Mary’s in Tuam north of Galway city. The Catholic “home” had a reputation for children dying at a rate four times higher than the rest of Ireland. Unwed mothers were punished as “atonement for their sins” by being forced to give up their children and working for two or three years without wages.

The 2013 award-winning drama film “Philomena” depicted the plight of 2,200 infants who survived Ireland’s Catholic homes. The children were forcibly adopted or placed into child labor situations, mainly in the US. Catholic officials have consistently denied they received payments for these so-called “adoptions” and insisted verifying documents were lost in a fire.

The Vatican, British Crown and Canadian government have refused excavation of the 32 Canadian mass grave sites believed filled with native children. Before licensed archeologists were turned away, human remains of children were uncovered at the larger sites in Brantford Ontario and Port Alberni British Columbia Canada.

Critics contended the Catholic Church had an ongoing reluctance to hand over internal records of Vatican Catholic Charities out of fear further horrors could come to light. Such was in the case of the Irish Magdalene Laundries where unwed mothers performed forced labor without compensation to four Catholic orders. After years of successful litigation on the case victims still remain uncompensated.

A present day victim of the Catholic Church was Jamaican and British Soldier Vivian Cunningham. He remained drugged in the St. George’s Hospital in Stafford England (ph: 44 01785 257888) for asking questions about Queen Elizabeth’s arrest warrant. The 2013 ICLCJ court found Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip guilty of kidnapping on Oct. 10 1964, ten native children from the Catholic-owned Kamloops residential school in British Columbia Canada. British citizen David Compan and his wife were accosted, drugged, arrested and incarcerated without charges in the London Park Royal Mental Health Center. Compan’s sin? He posted Queen Elizabeth’s arrest warrant on a Catholic Church in London. Compan’s arrest was captured in this video.

The Roman Catholic Church has “systematically” protected predator priests, allowing “tens of thousands” of children to be abused, a United Nations committee reported directly after Pope Francis became pontiff. In May the United Nations Committee Against Torture gave the Vatican one year to demonstrate their commitment to recommendations made in their latest UN report on Crimes Against Children by the Catholic Church.

The ICLCJ court case in Brussels charging Pope Francis and other global elites for Crimes Against Humanity was expected to extend for over a year. Last year’s ICLCJ court found 40 global elites guilty and ended with the unprecedented resignation of former Pope Ratzinger.

The ICLCJ has over 450 Common Law Peace Officers in 13 countries, with 51 local chartered groups operating. Local organizing funds were available through the ITCCS for common law groups that applied. To contact officers of the court or Kevin Annett email or call: itccscentral@gmail.com, info@iclcj.com, admin@iclcj.com, hiddenfromhistory1@gmail.com, 250-591-4573 (Canada), 386-323-5774 (USA)

 

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 -
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Catholic, Catholic Child Abuse, Mass Graves, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IN MEMORIAM of ‘D’ Day

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 06/06/2014

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

IN MEMORIAM of ‘D’ Day

.

5th. June – 70 Years Ago

Hi,

late in the afternoon 70 years ago my Mother got permision to slip away early from her secret radio ops. base near London – on condition she remained in Uniform – she had no idea why she had to wear uniform but what the hell it got her off ops. early!

She was WRAF and now firmly grounded as her newly married husband said that 2 in the air was too many!

Father had arranged to fly into Biggin Hill for a brief overnight stay and they were meeting for an early supper with some friends in a hotel near Croydon airport.

They had dinner and everyone drifted away early. Later that night my Father slid quietly from their bedroom setting an alarm for my Mother – She was on orders and Father had just broken orders!!

Mother heard the alarm and rapidly got up – not quite sure why she had to – dressed, rather blearily in the dark and was on the front steps of the hotel just as dawn was breaking. Those were her instructions!!

Just as dawn broke she heard the familiar roar of Merlin Engines as a wing of Spitfires flew at roof top over the hotel waggling their wings – she spent the next 10 minutes helping a cleaning lady clear up the mess she made falling over a bucket of soapy water as she dived for cover!

Then the sprint back to her station where at every opportunity for the rest of the day she tuned in to listen to my Father’s squadron as it provided the air cover on the beaches of the Normandy Landings.

1,000s died to give you and I our liberty!

The Normandy Beaches
6th. June 1944
Where They Gave Their Lives For You

Only to be betrayed by political filth just a few decades later.

Few things in my life have revolted me more than the glib willingness of the scum of the earth to squabble and back stab to get their snouts in the troughs on The EU Gravy Train.

Even less edifying have been the filth that has crawled out of the gutters to lie and cheat, plot and scheme against decent honest people, who have no interest in personal reward, yet seek to liberate these United Kingdoms from under the heel of those to whom our politicians have betrayed us.

Richard North made a very simple but very understanding comment on his Blog:

In a demonstration of raw courage, ingenuity, determination and sheer power, on 6 June 1944 the combined Allied Armies launched the greatest invasion fleet in the history of man onto the shores of Normandy – a feat never since equalled and never likely to be repeated.

Many arrived – many fewer left. We owe them a great deal.

But Richard has a better understanding of the betrayal of Britain by Politicians and a clear understanding of young men in battle, let down by the politicians who betrayed them and the senior officers jockeying for position, do read his New book – Details CLICK HERE

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821),

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 -
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in D-Day, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

>GUEST POST Another View of The Bilderbergers

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 13/05/2014

>GUEST POST Another View of The Bilderbergers

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

Amazing diagram shows who really runs the World
Posted on 05/07/2012 by Stewart Cowan
bilderberg_diagram

BILDERBERG_DIAGRAM 01
CLICK ON THE PICTURE FOR MUCH LARGER IMAGE

Who really runs the World? Well, it’s not you or I, obviously. It isn’t even the politicians. This amazing diagram gives a much better idea. The Bilderberg Group is becoming increasingly well known due to members of the public and various groups exposing them. Just a few years ago, its existence was just a “conspiracy theory”, but when these billionaires, corporate CEOs, global policymakers and other bigwigs head off to a luxury hotel around the same time each year, then it is hard to deny, especially now that the mainstream media have been sending photographers to witness the limos depositing their expensive cargoes at the door. It probably isn’t worth them sending reporters as well, because what is discussed is not released. But if it was Brad Pitt and Madonna arriving, rather than Henry Kissinger and Kenneth Clarke, most people would have been excitedly talking about it for years, but it’s only politics, so who cares? It’s not important!

Clearly, very few people understand, and some choose to ignore, the real political power structures, labelling them “conspiracy theories” and preferring instead to be entertained and sometimes enraged by the left-right mud fight we are presented with by the mainstream media as “reality”, while the elites do exactly the same thing behind the scenes regardless of which of their puppet leaders has won the election.

It’s like if you were kicked and robbed by a puppeteer and you catch up with him and start getting angry and upset with his Punch and Judy dolls, while he laughs his head off at your unbelievable stupidity.

You can especially imagine the global cabal laughing at the US Presidential race. Such an extravaganza and it means next to nothing, because whoever gets in will further the elite agenda. If this means more war, more political correctness, more attacks on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, more rights for illegal immigrants for social engineering purposes, then this is exactly what the American people will be subjected to, regardless of who “wins” the election. Anyone who genuinely tries to change the system in a major way, like JFK, gets eliminated. It is not surprising that these shadow rulers will take such desperate measures when you look at the trouble they have gone to with setting up thousands of foundations and other groups to change the world we live in.

As if all of this wasn’t bad enough, a recent report said that 27,000 “charitable” groups rely on the taxpayer for more than 75 per cent of their income.

Many of the charities lobby for the pet causes of politicians, according to the Institute of Economic Affairs. The environment, public health, foreign aid, inequality and women’s rights are areas that have been ‘particularly blessed’.

Or, in other words, promoting green issues and political correctness! These two things are absolutely vital to the success of the plan for global governance and the emerging new world religion based on Gaia worship. As I understand, it was decided in the 1970s to use variations in the earth’s climate as a weapon for social change, only in those days, the boffins thought we were heading towards a new ice age.

It is quite simple to see how the system works; how the elitists have devised a structure whereby they get their instructions down through the ranks, so that even the lowliest of local council employees will toe the line.

As we see more and more, there are measures being put into place to root out dissenters: those who will not go along with the new social order. Christians have a history of causing trouble for corrupt regimes around the World, so giving them a hard time at work over the simplest of things, like jewellery or offering to pray for someone, will reduce the problem for our masters.

This is how you rule the World! You don’t have to be a James Bond villain and do it the old-fashioned way; you need to be clever and organised. You no longer need to bump off your enemies with a laser weapon fired from a speeding car or by covertly sidling up to them in the street and stabbing them in the leg with the tip of an umbrella which has been dipped in a rare South American venom with no known antidote. Total elimination still goes on of course, but most people can just be deactivated in the sense that they can no longer influence their society. In the Soviet Union, dissenters were often accused of having a mental illness and locked up in gulags for years. This will happen here too, as more calls go out from the social engineers to make things like climate change “denial” a crime.

This vast number of “astroturfing” so-called charities exists to create the illusion of widespread grassroots movements for the sole intention of allowing the government to fool the people into thinking it has the right, even the duty, to change society (in the way that they planned to do all along – or rather, have been told to do by instructions dripping down through the elite machinery). But the people who run these organisations play on our trust, generosity and good nature, when they use their “charities” not to feed the hungry, house the homeless or provide urgent medical treatment, but to lobby politicians and buy advertising space to promote their ideas.

No wonder we lose such a huge proportion of our earnings in tax. Can you imagine how large a comprehensive diagram would be when you include tens of thousands of “charities” (that’s in the UK alone) and all the other groups, institutes and panels telling us what’s “best” for us and our society?

Hey, they’ve done a great job so far, haven’t they?

So, what is it all about? Why such an immense effort by a tiny cabal of individuals to change the world?

Because there are too many people in the World for their liking and some of us need to die and the rest of us need to be slaves to serve them.

This requires the world’s population to be very tightly controlled and so we have this intricate network of councils and institutes and steering committees to see that this happens. In the UK we now live in a very socialist society. Private ownership is still allowed, but under threat from a poor economy and legislation. The socialised healthcare and education systems and state pensions and the state broadcaster (BBC) might look good and there are some benefits, of course, but it will bring us all the more readily into a global socialist system of governance under the auspices of the people and organisations on that diagram. This is why they fund the political correctness agenda too, to destroy national cultures and of course, the family. Lenin said, “Destroy the family you destroy the country”.

Lenin also said that, “The goal of socialism is communism”.

It’s a fallen world, so there will be no political Utopia, and we should at least stop playing this ridiculous left vs right political game and start realising that we don’t have any influence in dictating policy when the MPs we elect are subject to puppet leaders. Just look at the number of policy-creating bodies on the Bilderberg diagram! They really couldn’t care less what we say. It doesn’t matter if your view is the same as the vast majority in the country, your opinion will not be suffered if it is contrary to the agenda.

Something else I found interesting from the Bilderberg diagram was that there are only a few women on the “team”. They have spread their politically correct poison over the Earth and expect everyone else to abide by quotas, but clearly exempt themselves.

They will understand the importance of a patriarchal society. There is a number of fraternal, men only, societies on the diagram too. But the globalists are undermining the man’s role in order to destroy the family to destroy the society to control it themselves. But they have made it all about “equality” which makes it difficult to argue against with some people.

And I know some people who are clued up about the Bilderbergers and other elitist groups, yet they still go along with political correctness because they think it doesn’t affect them. They might say to me something like, “If you don’t like gay ‘marriage’ don’t marry a man.” This may sound like faultless logic, but it isn’t. Social engineering changes the whole society and affects everyone in it. It is part of a much larger and very wicked agenda and promoted via an immense web of institutions. Our leading politicians further this agenda against the wishes of the majority because they have sold us out.

I just want to mention another piece of the global jigsaw here: the attacks on the Islamic world. These countries are/were largely outside of the control of the globalists and when you think you own the world, that is an awfully large part to be excluded from, so they get “democracy” bombed into them. Not because Western leaders are caring and kind, but because Western elites are greedy and murderous and tragically, but unsurprisingly, they have found many willing cohorts in politics to carry out the massacres on their behalf. Tony Blair and George W. Bush spring most rapidly to mind.

A year before the 9/11 attacks, at least two of the people on the diagram, Neocons Paul Wolfowitz at two o’clock and Bill Kristol at five, contributed to the PNAC document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century” in which they stated that change would take a long time without a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Link to pdf]

Millions of people agree that planning for this event was already in the pipeline and not from a cave in Afghanistan. This really was a catalyzing event. We hear talk of all sorts of things being justified “post 9/11″. It has made a lot of things change in a very short time.

Life is cheap to these people. Very, very cheap. It is hardly surprising that these are the people pushing abortion and have persuaded half the world through their systems of control that it is a “woman’s right”. And these are the people who are making the new ‘norms’ for society and I get persuaded by normally well-meaning people to go along with it?

I will never go along with it.

——-

The diagram is from CLICK HERE

To view the original article CLICK HERE

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 -
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Bilderberg Group, BILDERBERG;, Common Purpose, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 27/04/2014

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

Hi,

with the upcoming EU elections on 22-May-2014 I felt it was apposite to revisit the question on the minds of the majority of Brits which tends to stretch from the simple and in my opinion sensible Leave-The-EU option which in the long term would I believe serve our peoples, our Country and our planet best and the unworkable and dishonest idiocy of re-negotiated terms with the EU as put forward by Tories who quite clearly are either hideously ill informed as to how the EU functions or just obscenely dishonest in pretending they can change the EU and get unanimous support amongst the other vassal states – the precondition for any major change!

Revisiting an article of Christopher Bookers from last summer little or nothing has changed – UKIP still haven’t a clue and have absolutely no exit and survival strategy just a clique squabbling like ferrets in a sack to stay on the gravy train, with the aim to get more MEPs elected but with zero vision and less hope of changing ANYTHING having abjectly failed to do so to date, hence their continued failure in domestic politics!

The Torieas were shocked into a debate in The House of Commons by the Independent MEP Nikki Sinclaire who gathered well over 200,000 signatures and forced the debate to occur, a debate in which David Cameron’s Government was confronted with his largest ever rebellion and was thus forced to make an undertaking to hold a referendum, allbeit he hedged his bets as ever.

 

To carry on the fight for a referendum Nikki Sinclaire formed the ‘We demand A Referendum Now Party’ and is standing for the cause in The West Midlands as an MEP – we can but hope this hard working and refreshingly honest and open MEP is re-elected to continue her patriotic defence of Britain and her constituents.

 

Sadly UKIP having done absolutely zero to support the cause now see this as an apposite band wagon to jump on to get more income by getting more MEPs! However let us not forget thaty UKIP has no ethical leadership, lacks transparency and has such a poor selection rigging process that already candidates are falling by the wayside, exposed as racists, anti homosexual, Islamaphobic and corrupt.

 

Let us not forget that of the 19 MEPs UKIP has had elected their titular leader has subsumed almost all power to himself, controls incomes and appoints his wife and mistresses to the staff! Little wonder that of the 19 elected he has fallen out with at least half and the balance are as much use as a soup sandwich having achieved absolutely nothing of note in their period on the gracy train!

Even Ukip has no idea how to get us out of the EU trap

Our politicians are stumbling around in the dark when it comes to EU rules. There is only one way we can renegotiate our position with Europe to our advantage

Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating 'consensus’ position with Europe

Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating ‘consensus’ position with Europe Photo: Alamy
 

There is virtually no political issue that generates more ill-informed nonsense than whether or not Britain should stay in the EU. We have those 304 MPs voting for David Cameron’s wish to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and put the results to a referendum no later than 2017. We have Theresa May announcing that she is going to demand a British opt-out from 133 EU regulations on law and order, but then apply to opt in again on 35 of them. We have John Cridland, head of the CBI, repeating yet again the old canard that it would be disastrous for us to think of emulating Norway and Switzerland, the two richest countries in Europe, because although they trade freely with the EU’s single market, they have no say in shaping its rules. On and on goes such grandstanding, not touching reality at any point.

The essence of the problem is that, while the British like some aspects of the EU, other aspects make them deeply resentful, without them ever really understanding the rules or how it works. Thus, for many years, as the EU surges towards “ever closer union”, Britain has, in the words of the late Roy Jenkins, become an ever more “foot-dragging and complaining member”. On one hand, the pollsters report that up to half or more of British voters want us to leave. On the other, we have an establishment “consensus” between most of our politicians, media and big business, claiming that, although the EU in its present form is unsatisfactory and needs drastic “reform”, we must stay in for all the benefits we gain from trading with it, and because it gives us “influence”.

It is this “consensus” position that is so riddled with contradictions that it amounts to no more than multiple wishful thinking. There is no way Mr Cameron could obtain the kind of “à la carte” relationship he hints at, let alone that he could do so if re-elected, in time for a referendum in 2017. First, the rules would necessitate a new treaty, requiring procedures so lengthy that it could not possibly be completed by 2017. Second, the return of powers he claims to want would breach that most sacred principle of EU law, that national powers once surrendered can never be given back.

So, legally and practically, it is impossible that Mr Cameron could get anything of what all those MPs voted for the other day. The only semblance of a realistic understanding of all the issues involved comes from a research paper recently published by the House of Commons Library on what would be involved in a British withdrawal from the EU. This explains, with an authority no MP could muster, that the only way Britain could continue to trade freely within the single market without having to accept so much of the rest of the EU’s political baggage, would be to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

But this, of course, can only be done by a country giving notice that it wishes to leave the EU. This alone can compel its fellow-members to negotiate with it the kind of new relationship Mr Cameron says he wants. And this he could not rule out more emphatically, as again in a recent interview with El Pais, where he said there was no way he could support a vote for Britain to leave.

Regardless of Mr Cameron’s views, however, the Commons researchers then go on to explain how Britain could continue to enjoy full access to the single market by joining Norway and Switzerland as members of the European Free Trade Area (Efta), or, like Norway, as also a member of the European Economic Area. This is precisely the option Europhiles such as Mr Cridland are so desperate to misrepresent, by falsely claiming that Norway has no influence over the single market’s trading rules. Anyone who argues this has no grasp of how the system works. Not only are Efta members fully consulted in the shaping of single market legislation, but much of it now derives from global organisations above the EU, in which Norway has a voice in its own right, exercising more influence than Britain, which too often has to allow the EU to speak for it.

But it is this argument – playing on the fear that unless we remain in the EU we will be without influence and even excluded from trading with it – that would be made the centrepiece of the campaign in any referendum on Britain’s continued membership. So relentlessly would it be put over by supporters of the “consensus”, given full voice by the BBC, Open Europe and others, that it is almost a foregone conclusion that the stay-in vote would win the day.

What has so far been almost wholly lacking from the debate on all this is any properly worked-out alternative vision of what Britain’s future in the world could be if we were to regain our independence by leaving. Equally lacking, although it is again explored in the Commons research paper, is any recognition of just how incredibly complicated a British withdrawal from the EU would be, because we are enmeshed with it by such a mountain of laws and other legal obligations. To disentangle all this would present a challenge so immense that it could only be brought off by a government fully committed to the task and fired up by a vision of how well Britain could thrive outside the EU. This would require a degree of political will which so far simply doesn’t exist.

One of the odd features of this debate is that the only party committed to a British exit from the EU, Ukip, appears to have little understanding of how this could, in practice, be achieved – let alone a positive vision of how well Britain could fare outside it, to counterbalance the relentless defeatism and negativity with which the “consensus” establishment would seek to terrify us into staying in. Too many Ukip supporters take equal refuge from reality by pretending that we could simply wave a magic wand by repealing the European Communities Act. With one mighty bound we would be free. Sorted. These are children.

I confess that when I read that Commons research paper, although it did not say anything new, I did end up depressed. Its calm, common-sense reviewing of the real issues once again brings home just how inane most of the public debate over Britain’s membership of the EU has become. Without the vision and the will to work for a positive alternative, it seems we are doomed just to limp helplessly on as a “foot-dragging and complaining member” of the “European project”, as it itself staggers helplessly on into a drably visionless and ever more uncertain future. So saying, I am off for a few days to Italy to look at 15th-century paintings, from the time when Europe was still in that frenzy of creativity and intellectual engagement that was to make its civilisation the glory of the world.

To view the original CLICK HERE

One thing that has changed since Christopher wrote this article is that a wave of optimism did sweep through the informed as the IEA announced the BrExit prize offering £100K to the winner who came up with the very best and most workable exit strategy to follow the day Britain was announced it would Leave-The-EU.

For a little more detail CLICK HERE
Sadly it transpired that it would seem to have been rigged to suit, it would seem, just one judge who presented a paper immediately before the closing date and would seem to have had a hand in ensuring the apparently pre advised competitors who upheld his unworkable and ill informed paper passed to the final round.
The eventual winner chosen, it would seem by preselection, put forward a particularly ill informed paper which offerd a clearly unworkable solution which was backed by very little refertencing and researching apparent.
To be fair to the IEA they were clearly embarrassed by the exposure of Roger Bootle’s apparent dishonesty and corruption of the process that they withdrew his voting rights as a judge, however the lacked the ethics to denounce him and ensure those who seem to have, either unwittingly or deliberately, cheated were debarred.
I would hazard a guess that there was a pre scan of the 17 finalists and it was suggested that the judges should only bother reading the efforts of the predetermined submissions.
Perhaps I am being a little too harsh, but I did read every submission published and they were weak and unworkable and ill informed thus astonishingly lightweight for  matter of such gravitas.
You may by all means track down the chosen ones via The IEA’s web site and judge for yourself but when compared with the submission I believe to have been the best I would contend there was no competition and even Roger Bootle’s effort was lame in the extreme.
Judge for yourself CLICK HERE
Dr. Richard North’s submission CLICK HERE
It would seem the prize itself has sunk without trace as when you make a Google Search of the issue the media have largely ignored it, no doubt having reached the same conclusion I have here proffered. Further The IEA themselves seem embarrassed by their own apparent dishonesty and have seemingly, having been caught out, dropped the matter like a hot potato in the hope their apparent corruption is overlooked and will not damage their income stream from gullible donors!
IF my conclusion is in some way flawed then perhaps The IEA would care to explain why they, having squandered £100K of donor’s money on their lightweight and unworkable winner have failed to take the matter forward!

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 -
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, Christopher BOOKER;, IEA, QUOTES; Reagan; Thatcher; R.J. Wiedemann; Margaret THATCHER; COLLIER; Geoffrey COLLIER;, REFERENDUM, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr., Roger Bootle, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda – IN MEMORIAM

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 08/04/2014

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda – IN MEMORIAM

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 08/04/2013

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda – IN MEMORIAM
Born: Roberts 13-Oct-1925 – Died 08-Apr-2013 Aged 87
A Personal In Memoriam!
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

IN MEMORIAM

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda

nee: Roberts

Born:13-Oct-1925 – Died 08-Apr-2013

Aged 87

Thatcher hailed for changing political landscape of the world

World leaders remember Margaret Thatcher

as woman of indisputable resolve & patriotism

Mon, Apr 8 2013
Member of the European Parliament, Nikki Sinclair, places a floral tribute outside the home of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher after her death was announced in London April 8, 2013. REUTERS-Suzanne Plunkett
An Admirer of Maggie Thatcher
Places a floral tribute at Baroness Thatcher’sLoved or loathed in death as in life, Margaret Thatcher left no one indifferent, finding some of her most ardent admirers among her political opponents.

Very few leaders get to change not only the political landscape of their country but of the world. Margaret was such a leader,” said the odious and self serving Tony Blair, the centre-left Labour leader who brought his own party back to power not least by heeding the lessons of “Thatcherism“.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader whom she famously declared she could “do business with”, said their mutual understanding “contributed to a change in the atmosphere between our country and the West and to the end of the Cold War“.

Thatcher’s warm relations with Gorbachev’s direct adversary, U.S. president Ronald Reagan, and their shared espousal of the free market and individual liberty, along with her readiness to provide a base for U.S. nuclear missiles, gave Britain greater influence in Washington than it has normally enjoyed.

“The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend,” said U.S. President Barack Obama.

Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history – we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will.

Pope Francis recalled, with appreciation, “the Christian values which underpinned her commitment to public service and to the promotion of freedom among the family of nations“.

At home, Conservatives mourned the leader who set a free-market agenda in Britain and Europe and famously announced “there is no such thing as society” as she put individual enterprise and self-reliance before the state and the social safety net.

David Cameron, the prime minister who led the Conservatives back to power but without the absolute majority Thatcher enjoyed throughout her premiership, said: “We’ve lost a great prime minister, a great leader, a great Briton.

As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds, and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country. And I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.

THATCHER AND THE EU

Thatcher is remembered in Britain for resisting the idea that the European Union should move ever closer to political union, but, at a time when Britain is once again agonising over its role in Europe, EU leaders much keener on closer integration had warm words for her.

The unelected European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said “she would be remembered both for her contributions and her reserves to our common project“:

She signed the Single European Act and she helped bring about the single market. She was a leading player also in bringing into the European family the central and eastern European countries which were formerly behind the Iron Curtain.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a fellow conservative who grew up in communist East Germany and went on like Thatcher to become the first woman to head her country’s government, said:

The freedom of the individual was at the core of her convictions; in that sense Margaret Thatcher recognised the strength of the movements for freedom of eastern Europe early on and stood up for them.

“Margaret Thatcher was not a women’s politician – but by asserting herself as a woman in the highest democratic office at a time when this was not yet a given, she was an example to many.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thatcher was “a pragmatic, tough and consistent person” and that these qualities had enabled her to help pull Britain out of economic crisis, for which people should be grateful despite the criticism she faced.

Putin, who once called the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century“, said Russiawill always be thankful” for the contribution Thatcher made to British-Soviet and British-Russian ties.

It was left to Vaclav Klaus, former Czech prime minister and president and a self-proclaimed “Thatcherite”, to set her vision against Europe’s current crisis. He said the European Union’s ailing economic and social model was “exactly what she, as the first woman in the post of British prime minister, fought against since the end of the 1970s“.

Her voice is also missing in today’s discussion on European integration,” Klaus added. “Many of us will never forget her famous speech in Bruges, where she clearly said that the suppression of nation states and concentration of power in Brussels will destroy Europe.

LINGERING RESENTMENT

But there were plenty of voices in Britain ready to express the resentment that still lingers against a woman who broke the power and self serving scams of the trade unions, ran down or privatised many subsidised and heavily loss making state-run utilities and institutions and eroded the excesses of post-war welfare state.

Margaret thatcher halted the downward slide of Britain into a quasi Communist and anarchic control by Union blackmail & Labour’s economic illiteracy and missrule. Sadly it was largely little more than a delay as so often happens a stron leader can break a party by failure to consider the future leaving weak and incompetent leadership and structures behind them.

Betrayed by the personal ambitions of low grade rivals incompetent to take on the leadership role like Hesseltine, Major and the like we suffered the open door for 13 unlucky years of dishonest, corrupt, economic incompetent self serving New Labour ambitions and lies, war crimes and betrayal.

Margaret Thatcher, an enlarger of British freedom

By Sir Harold Evans
Sir Harold Evans

Sir Harold Evans is editor-at-large at Reuters. He was the editor of The Sunday Times for fourteen years, and is the author of two best-selling American histories, as well as two memoirs about his experience in the media business.
Original article published at CLICK HERE
April 8, 2013

My immediate and lasting  memory of Mrs. Thatcher — Maggie as we called her — is sitting next to her in the late sixties at a dinner table as she scorched a bunch of City of London financial types. I was astonished. She wasn’t yet the Iron Lady. She wasn’t  in government. Labour was in power. She was  an obscure back bench Conservative MP, elected only in 1959, noticed in those sexist days (has much changed?) as much for her hats and aggressive hair style as for  her passionate defence of grammar schools under threat of closure from Labour.

What she did with the City of London men  was later characterised as a  “hand-bagging.” A black Asprey bag she always carried was metaphorically wielded against people she saw as standing in the way of the greatness of Britain as Boudica, the leader of a British tribe, wielded a lance against the Roman occupiers. I suppose that as a new national editor (of The Sunday Times), and with normal male presumption , I had expected to lead the questioning of the ten or so big names and the table. I didn’t stand a chance. Maggie pounded and pummeled them all by herself for an hour. I can’t pretend this is verbatim but it went something like this: “All you people are interested in is moving paper around, making money not things. What are you doing for British industry? When are you going to help business stand up to  the unions?”  They murmured, they shuffled, they were outclassed. British elections — six weeks to  a vote and no paid television ads — have never been as corrupted by money as much as American, so she was not turning off a potential source of funding as an American candidate would fear to do. Still these were  men — all men of course  — who were influential and articulate and used to reverence not rebuke.

Maggie could be seductive in private conversation one on one, more so as she matured,  the strident voice of the public halls giving way to a softer, more seductive style, hand on an arm, intent eye to eye in persuasion. She was afraid of nobody, respecter of no convention she considered archaic. The British custom at dinner parties was always for the host to murmur “coffee?” which was signal for “the ladies” to leave for the powder room while the men, over cigars and port, got down to serious business. It was  a small sensation — regarded in some circles as a grave breach of etiquette — when at a dinner party I attended thrown by her egregious confidante Woodrow Wyatt, Maggie stayed in her seat unabashed, uninvited,  and unfazed by the  arguments over the cigars (in this case by a couple of captains of industry who wanted to be part of Europe and she defiantly raised the Union Jack).

The trade unions at the time were busy wreaking havoc on industry. The far left had infiltrated Labour constituencies; Labour candidates were as scared of the militants then as primary Republicans of the Tea Party candidates today.  Local union chiefs called wildcat strikes, disrupted production.  The union movement, with some Labour ministers in support, threatened a closed shop in the press which would have curtailed free speech. I’d spoken out against it as had the  then editor of The Guardian, Alastair Hetherington. At another of those endless London dinners where Maggie  was the speaker and still not in government,  she referred to me as “one of us.” I wasn’t. I was just expressing a view on an issue. We had many things in common, both from the north, both educated in state schools, both brought up in a grocer’s shop, in my case one my mother started, in hers one her father ran. I admired her.  I was one of the millions of voters in the 1979  general election  which put her into power as the first woman prime minister. The country  was in dreadful shape, fearful and anxious during a winter of discontent in which trade union militants blocked cancer patients getting treatment and garbage piled up in  the center of London.

She saved Britain from anarchy and immediately restored a sense of purpose. She could be rough. As Prime Minister,  she had a limited tolerance for dissent and an infinite regard for personal loyalty. If you were not with on her everything, she  regarded you as disloyal, as unreliable, lacking conviction.  I suppose it was the reverse mirror of her indomitable courage. How valiant she was when the IRA terrorists blew up her conference hotel; they tried to murder her and almost succeeded.  She was often vindicated. She was impatient with excuses for inertia and woolliness — vividly represented  in Meryl Streep’s representation of her cutting off a Cabinet member in mid speech.  I disappointed her by giving space in The Times  to critics, especially one of them, Edward Heath,  whom she’d ousted as Prime Minister. The imperatives of news meant we published  news stories she didn’t like: she’d  sunk in the polls and recession deepened. Relations became a little chillier. As an editor, I’d never sought to cosy up  to political leaders,  but I now understand more of what she was up against – the Tory snobs in the counties,  the plotters in the party who eventually betrayed her, the “wets” and the “wimps”  who would yield on a principle she considered vital.

When she became Prime Minister I was editor of The Times. We backed her a hundred per cent on trade union reforms, on holding the line on pay, especially in the public sector and  on advocating more competition in the banking industry, on free trade, on resisting terrorism in Northern Ireland. I told her I  thought she moved too slowly against trade union anarchy, but she bided her time and planned well.   She won a famous victory against the coal miners, badly led by a firebrand who took money from Gaddafi, and it was thanks to her stalwart support  of Rupert Murdoch, whom she admired as a free-booting entrepreneur , that he was able to win the battle of Wapping which ended the guerilla warfare of the print unions.

Margaret Thatcher, whatever the missteps, will  take her place in the pantheon of heros – sorry, heroines – who enlarged British freedom.

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Brexit & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 08/04/2014

Brexit & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

The Brexit Prize & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute as it seems to have not bothered reading entries that were not by their predetermined inside track planned winners – issuing misleading statements to ensure serious writers were put at a disadvantage to ensure their chosen candidates became the winners!

The pompous arrogance and the utter hubris of the organisation and its pre-determined winners just make a farce of the prize – whoever they had chosen to win!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

Brexit: the IEA chairman speaks

Richard North, 08/04/2014
I spent most of yesterday corresponding with Philip Booth of the IEA, trying to ascertain from him why the Brexit prize competitors were given a set of very explicit instructions, while their submissions appear to have been judged on very different and hitherto undeclared criteria.

I tested my correspondence out on a few friends, just as a check, to make sure I wans’t being too hard. Although it was evident I am angry, the tone was described as “measured”. Amongst other things, I had wanted to know why the rules had also been changed so that a new short-list of six had been created, after the submission deadline.

The particular interest for the competitors not shortlisted (and there are a number of us thus concerned), is that the IEA is making a public statement that there are at least six better submissions than ours. For me – I would not presume to speak for the others – I regard that as “professionally damaging”. And it was not something any of us signed up for.

Anyhow, as the exchanges multiplied through the day, it was evident that I was getting nowhere. Eventually, in the early evening, I brought the exchange to a halt, without having achieved anything at all, not the slightest concession, nor scintilla of understanding.

The thing about these exchanges, though, is while you are getting the polite brush-off, you rarely get an inkling of what they are really thinking. But, while Booth had asked for a private exchange, he was in fact copying in colleagues and sundry others. At his end, the exchange was anything but private – it was being broadcast throughout the IEA. They might just as well have put it on the Tannoy.

Then I received yet another e-mail, one with the same header used for the Booth correspondence, but from a different address, one [then] unknown to me. The writer, incidentally, had copied his reply to two others (text published below).

The e-mail, it turns out, was from professor emeritus David Myddelton of Cranfield University, educated at Eton and Harvard Business School. His cv (top) says he has been chairman of the IEA since 2001. Although he is a reasonably frequent speaker on the “eurosceptic” circuit, he is obviously no great fan of yours truly, although I cannot think of anything specific I’ve done to offend him.

Nevertheless, thanking Booth for sending our correspondence to him, he grandly declared that: “Richard North’s attitude is disappointing”. Then says the professor emeritus, a man who obviously must know about such things: “He has written on this and similar topics so much that I cannot believe he spent a huge amount of time on his entry”.

So, this is the first stage of the standard denigration technique: “North” can’t have spent much time on his submission so [implied] it was probably crap anyway.

Then the boot goes in. My “measured” tone reminds the revered professor “of my ten-year-old grand-daughter – who likes to boast that she did very well on an exam, before the results indicate that she scored, say, 10/40!” Does this run in the family? One can only wonder.

But, from his careful and measured study of the evidence, there comes the learned professor’s considered view of the entire issue: “It is not North’s failure to be judged to have finished in the top six entries that might hurt his ‘professional reputation’”, declares the great professor, “but his petulant and bad-tempered response to the result”. He should have bent over and taken his punishment, is the sub-text.

Then the knife goes in, making it clear they are not actually going to address any of the points “North” makes. Oh no! Says Myddelton: “I hope you and Mark [Littlewood, IEA director general], and indeed anyone else connected with the Brexit Prize, will manage to avoid a public spat with Richard North”.

“There would seem to be nothing to be gained”, Myddleton adds, “and potentially quite a bit to be lost”. We would not, after all, want to concede that he might have a point, so let’s not give him any opportunities, is the sub-text here. We couldn’t possibly have him be seen to be right.

A little time later, though, I got another e-mail, from the same professor Myddelton:
Dear Richard,

I copied you in by mistake on my recent e-mail to Philip Booth and Mark Littlewood about the Brexit Prize. Sorry about that.

I should perhaps add that my role as Chairman of the IEA Trustees is non-executive, and I’ve had no part in the organisation of the Brexit prize.

All the best,

David
Well, cheers Dave! I actually spent over 700 hours on researching and writing the submission, with personal visits to both Norway and Iceland, where I interviewed senior politicians, trade representatives and others, to give first-hand information to go into the report.

But, Dave, you are also dismissing a huge amount of time put forward by EU Referendum readers, and the huge help given by The Boiling Frog and others, who were also just as keen to have a fair competition, those whom you have now so casually insulted. But that doesn’t matter – they’re only plebs who didn’t go to Eton.

Despite that, I then wrote to him about the submission of which he had been so dismissive: “You will not have read it of course”, I ventured. These very clever people never do … they have the wonderful gift of divining the quality of such things without needing to read them. Thus, I observed: “You are undoubtedly far too clever and grand and could not be expected to soil your magnificent brain with such material”. And we couldn’t have him actually learning anything.

“However”, I added, “I must really thank you for such an illustrative example of what the other half think of us plebs. I am sure my readers are going hugely to enjoy your perceptive analysis”.

I will upload the correspondence with Booth, and post a link tomorrow, for those of you who want to read the earlier exchange. But isn’t it refreshing when the mask slips and you find out what they really think about you, and what they are really saying! For all their airs and graces and their fine words, the truth will out. But how sad, the message is always the same: “know thine place, pleb!”

Whatever did we do before the internet, and learned professors who press the wrong buttons? But whatever made me think I was ever going to get a fair deal from the IEA?

To view the original of this posting CLICK HERE
Further reading on The BREXIT Prize:
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, NORTH Dr Richard, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr. | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Martin Luther King – a cowardly killer shot him this day in 1968

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 04/04/2014

Martin Luther King – a cowardly killer shot him this day in 1968.

.

Hi,

please remember for a moment that on this day in 1968 a coward with a firearm shot the political activist Martin Luther King, who led the Civil Rights Movement in America.

Martin Luther King was born on15-Jan-1929 and was a Baptist Minister and a leader of the 1955 protest, started by Rosa Parks, against the segregation of transport on racial grounds. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in in Oct-1964 for his non violent campaigning for equality of race. He is probably one of the greatest orators in America’s history and will for ever be remembered for his Washington DC ‘Ihave A Dream‘ speech of Marc-1963.

Martin Luther King actively campaigned not only for the black peoples of America but for all ethnic groups and also on behalf of the poor.

Martin Luther King was posthumously awarded The Presidential Medal of Honour for his services to Civil Rights and his efforts to civilise America.


Martin Luther King’s murder took place by gun shot outside his room #306 at The Lorrainne Motel in Memphis Tenesee whilst under the scrutiny of The FBI & Law enforcement officers on the evening of April 4, 1968.

Martin Luther King’s civilising activities has brought great liberation to America and now some 50 years later we see a mixed race President in America and ‘claimed; equality of opportunities regardless of colour in America.

America and much of the world has much to thank Martin Luther King for in his brave campaign for the civil rights of all regardless of colour or ethnic origin.

& with a ‘hat tip’ to Kitty (See Comments) for her more extensive details:

Remember Martin Luther King

This video from the USA is called I HAVE A DREAM… MARTIN LUTHER KING – August 23 1963.

By Peter Frost in Britain:

Shadows of a hero’s death

Thursday 04 April 2013

Fifty-five years ago Martin Luther King, widely regarded as the most important leader of the US civil rights movement, was shot dead.

FBI intelligence chief and deputy director William C Sullivan – termed the only liberal ever to have risen to high rank in the FBI – led the investigation into the assassination. He believed there was a conspiracy to murder King.

In his autobiography, published after his death, Sullivan wrote: “I was convinced that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King, but I doubt if he acted alone.

“Someone, I feel sure, taught Ray how to get a false Canadian passport, how to get out of the country and how to travel to Europe, because he would never have managed it alone.”

The FBI would have been happy for the assassin to live out his time in Britain. Director J Edgar Hoover had repeatedly clashed with Sullivan over the latter’s concern for violations of civil rights laws in the segregated southern states. Hoover felt the FBI should be worrying about communists, not racists.

But to the bureau’s annoyance the Canadian Mounted Police brought James Earl Ray home to face justice.

Martin Luther King was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 15 1929. Both his father and grandfather were preachers who had been actively involved in the early civil rights movement.

King graduated in 1948 and entered the baptist ministry. At college he heard a lecture on Mahatma Gandhi and the non-violent civil disobedience campaign that he used successfully against British rule in India.

King studied the ideas of Gandhi and eventually became convinced that the same methods could be employed by blacks in the United States.

In December 1955 Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man. Parks was arrested and King and his comrades helped organise protests against bus segregation.

For 13 months 17,000 black people in Montgomery, Alabama, boycotted public buses. The boycott ended in victory in December 1956.

King told the story of the successful boycott in his book Stride Toward Freedom. The book spelt out his views on non-violence and direct action. It was to have considerable influence on the civil rights movement.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, a small group of black students inspired by King’s book decided to take action themselves.

They sat-in at the segregated restaurant of their local Woolworth’s store. In the days that followed they were joined by other black students until they occupied all the seats in the restaurant.

They were abused and physically assaulted but following King’s inspiration they did not fight back.

King’s non-violent strategy spread to black students all over the deep south. This included the activities of the Freedom Riders in their campaign against segregated transport.

Within six months these sit-ins had ended restaurant and lunch-counter segregation in more than two dozen key southern cities.

Student sit-ins were also successful busting segregation in public parks, swimming pools, theatres, churches, libraries, museums and beaches.

King travelled the country making speeches and inspiring people to become involved in the civil rights movement. As well as advocating non-violent student sit-ins, King also urged economic boycotts.

Not all actions were instantly successful. At lunch counters in Birmingham, Alabama, police turned dogs and fire hoses on the demonstrators. King and large number of his supporters, including schoolchildren, were arrested and jailed.


This music video is called Nina Simone – Mississippi Goddam. The song is about the repression against the civil rights movement.

King always stressed the importance of registering to vote. He argued that once all African Americans had the vote they would become an important political force.

In the deep south considerable pressure was put on blacks not to vote by organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan.

King’s radical ideas convinced Robert Kennedy that he was closely associated with the Communist Party USA and he asked Hoover to get the FBI to dig the dirt on King.

But King was going from strength to strength. He organised the hugely successful march on Washington for jobs and freedom. As the final speaker he made his famous “I have a dream” speech and was cheered to the heavens by a crowd of 400,000.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act made racial discrimination in public places such as theatres, restaurants and hotels illegal.

This video is called Selma – Montgomery March, 1965 – p1.

Part #2 is here.

King now concentrated on achieving a federal voting rights law. In March 1965 he organised a protest march across Alabama from Selma to Montgomery. The marchers were attacked by state troopers with truncheons and tear gas.

Although opposed by racist politicians from the deep south, the Voting Rights Act was passed by huge majority.

On April 3 1967 King made a speech where he outlined the reasons why he was opposed to the Vietnam war.


This video is called Martin Luther King, “Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam”.

Many on the left thought that King should challenge Lyndon B Johnson for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. King rejected this idea.

But Hoover sent the wiretaps of King’s private conversations about him becoming a candidate to Johnson. Johnson and Hoover decided something drastic needed to be done.

Hoover believed that “King was an instrument of the Communist Party” and posed “a serious threat to the security of the country.”

In June 1967 Hoover had a meeting to discuss concerns that King might unseat Johnson. Hoover said he thought a final solution was necessary. King must be silenced.

King was in Memphis on April 3 the next year to prepare for a non-violent march as part of an important and long-running industrial dispute. Previous marches had turned violent due to government and FBI provocation.

That night King made his “I’ve been to the mountaintop” speech.

This video is called Martin Luther King’s Last Speech: “I Have Been To The Mountaintop”.

It ended with the following prophetic words: “Well, I don’t know what will happen now – we’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop.”

After the tumultuous meeting King retired to the Lorraine Motel. He stood on the balcony of the motel and a shot rang out. Martin Luther King Jnr was dead. Hoover’s wish had been granted.

Two months later James Earl Ray was arrested in London and extradited to the United States.

He pleaded guilty to King’s murder and was sent to jail for 99 years.

People close to King were convinced that the government was behind the assassination. King’s great comrade Ralph Abernathy claimed that he had been killed “by someone trained or hired by the FBI and acting under orders from J Edgar Hoover.”

But as the famous Ballad of Joe Hill tells us it “takes more than guns to kill a man.”


This music video is called Paul Robeson, “Joe Hill”.

Despite that FBI bullet the memory of Martin Luther King Jnr lives on in the past political victories of black US citizens and his inspiration will ignite new struggles and new achievements for years to come.

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

BREXIT Last Shortlist & The Way Forward

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 27/03/2014

BREXIT Last Shortlist & The Way Forward

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

Hi,

based on having read Dr. Richard North’s BREXIT submission in full some time ago I felt it was by far the most likely paper to win the BREXIT Prize.

It was detailed, factual and remarkably well researched with literally 100s of sourced documents collated to make a very comprehensive and well informed submission.

That , as Richard announced on his blog which I have featured below, he has not been shortlisted in the final six leaves me with two different thoughts, the first of which is that I am really looking forward to reading those last six submissions and particularly the winner as their submissions must be incredibly inovative and hugely grounded in both law, politics and even the un sccience of economics to have surpased Richard’s submission.

My second reaction, which sadly I fear will prove right, is that Richard’s detailed and inovative submission has far outclassed the other submissions and has proved embarrassing to some of the judges in that it proved challenging to understand in its comprehensive handling and very detailed understanding of not just the EU but the new world of global politics and power. Further that there is a strong possibility that Richard’s submission slaughters the holy cows of misunderstanding of the facts held by some amongst the judges.

I can but hope my fears are not realised and the winner has presented an inovative, practical and informed solution to the challenges posed by the brief of the prize intentions.

I look forward with some concern to 08-Apr-2014 and the results but though my knowledge of all of the judges is limited there are some very large loopholes in the impartiality of the judges – not least that Roger Bootle has recently written and published his own solution to the problems which on just one reading seemed to miss all too many points making it largely unworkable and clearly being so absorbed by economics had little relevance to the realities of disassociation from the EU for these United Kingdoms.

The clash of the views of the judges may well have tainted the validity of their decision making process – unlike Richard I shall await the results with baited breath!

 

BREXIT: entirely unsurprising

 Wednesday 26 March 2014

000a IEA-026 Brexit.jpg

As indicated in my overnight piece, our “Brexit” submission did not make it to the final six. Instead, I got a bland, patronising note from the IEA press person (above), a classic example of rank bad manners. Given the effort all of us put into the competition, at the very least we should have been sent a personal e-mail from the chairman of the judging panel.

Although I could have used the money, not to be included is actually a relief. It frees me from the constraints of the competition and allows me to return to the debate. With that in mind, I am able to publish my submission here (.pdf 98 pages), and will work up some shorter essays for the blog, based on the content. We are also planning a dedicated website, to explore the wider issues involved.

In terms of the content, I feel my single, most important contribution is the observation that “Brexit” is not a single event, but a process. It must be a series of ongoing strategies which allow for a FLexible response and Continuous development.  Thus “Brexit” became “FLexCit”.

The IEA has now issued a press release nominating the six finalists, and the award ceremony will be held on 8 April in London.

Richard North 26/03/2014

Here are details of The IEA’s BREXIT Prize as it moves forward:

The Institute of Economic Affairs is delighted to announce the final six candidates for the IEA Brexit Prize. The Rt Hon Lord Lawson will be awarding the €100,000 prize to the winning entry outlining a blueprint for Britain after the EU on 8 April.

Cash prizes will be awarded to the first, second and third best entries, as judged by the competition’s final judging panel. First prize is €100,000, second prize is €10,000 and third prize is €5,000. There will be a special prize of €5,000 for the best entry from an individual aged 30 or under. The winning entries will be published by the IEA. Judges-decisions are final.

Final shortlist:

·       Rory Broomfield and Iain Murray

·       Prof Stephen Bush

·       Ben Clements

·       Tim Hewish

·       Iain Mansfield

·       Daniel Pycock

Commenting on the release of the final shortlist, Mark Littlewood, Director General at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:

“The Brexit prize is an essential and timely contribution as we sit at a crossroads regarding our future relationship with both the EU and the rest of the world. Rather than focusing on the pluses and minuses of membership, we urgently need to address how the UK should arrange its affairs if a referendum triggered a Brexit. These final six entries will be key in providing the much needed intellectual backdrop for this.”

Judging panel

·       Nigel Lawson (Chairman), The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer

·       David Starkey, British constitutional historian and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London

·       Prof. Philip Booth (Facilitator), Institute of Economic Affairs and Cass Business School

·       Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics, a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. (Advisor and non-voting member)

·       Tim Frost, a governor of the LSE and director of Markit and Cairn Capital

·       Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston and editor of The House Magazine

·       Prof. Martin Ricketts, Professor of Economic Organisation at the University of Buckingham

·       Dr. Stephen Davies, Institute of Economic Affairs

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 -
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, IEA, NORTH Dr Richard, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr. | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BREXIT Shows That At Least Someone Is Thinking!

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 26/03/2014

BREXIT Shows That At Least Someone Is Thinking!

BREXIT Shows That At Least Someone Is Thinking!
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean Politics up NOW make Politicians Responsible for their actions! 

.

The antics of some self serving Politicians

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.
THE AIM is to consider the difficulties of leaving The EU and seek solutions so that we may maximise THE BENEFITS of a Free, Independent, Sovereign Nation Trading with all they choose around the world at liberty with minimal Government control and intervention. IF YOU have ideas you believe worth publishing please comment and mail them in!!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
BREXIT Shows That At Least Someone Is Thinking!
.
Hi,

for almost 25 years I have been seeking out some organisation of repute that has, or is devising, an EU Exit & Survival Strategy.

For the best part of that time I had hoped that UKIP m,ight act responsibly and draw up the details of such a plan and the strategic points and tactical steps required but sadly despite some 15 years of highlighting their structural inadequacies, leadership ineptitude and profound lack of gravitas or intellectual rigour they have failed on all counts to both represent the best interests of the Leave-The-EU movement they CLAIM to represent and have been followers rather than leaderrs!

To this day UKIP has manifestly displayed a lack of strate gic planning, an absence of tactical plans and absolutely no signs or any kind of an Exit & Survival Strategy and no evidence of making any steps towards such a policy/plan – being reliant rather on opportunistic self interest abjectly failing to educate the public on the issues or for that matter themselves and their members and supporters!

At last someone is thinking:.

IEA Brexit Prize

IEA Brexit PrizeScenario
A referendum has resulted in an “Out” vote and Her Majesty’s Government has triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What measures does the UK need to take in the following two years, domestically (within the UK), vis-a-vis the remaining EU and internationally, in order to promote a free and prosperous economy?
Background
An “Out” vote in a British referendum would be a major historic geo-political and economic event, perhaps even comparable with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union and re-unification of Germany. It is time, therefore, that the UK explores the process of withdrawal and its economic and political consequences. This competition is designed to examine the process of withdrawal and, more importantly, how the UK might fit into the fresh geo-political and economic landscape that would follow.
Entry Requirements
Against this background, competitors are invited to compose a Blueprint for Britain outside the EU, covering the process of withdrawal from the EU and the post-exit repositioning of the UK in the global trading and governance systems, covering, inter alia:

  • The legal and constitutional process necessary for the UK to leave the EU and set up, if desired, alternative international relationships. This would include not just the process within the EU itself but the changes to UK law and regulation that would be desirable or necessary.
  • Negotiation of the UK’s post-EU-exit position to settle the UK’s relationships with the remaining EU and other interested parties and, crucially, with the rest of the world, in respect of trade, supranational governance, immigration, the environment, financial regulation, defence etc.

Submissions are invited from individuals, groups of individuals, academia and corporate bodies such as consultancy firms, law firms, accounting firms, think-tanks and investment banks. Initial submissions will be around 2,000 words. The competition’s initial judging panel will then invite the authors of around twenty of those entries to make full submissions of between 10,000 and 20,000 words within a further four months.
Judging Panel

  • Nigel Lawson (Chairman), The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer
  • David Starkey, British constitutional historian and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London
  • Prof. Philip Booth (Facilitator), Institute of Economic Affairs and Cass Business School
  • Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics, a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries
  • Tim Frost, a governor of the LSE and director of Markit and Cairn Capital
  • Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston and editor of The House Magazine
  • Prof. Martin Ricketts, Professor of Economic Organisation at the University of Buckingham
  • Ruth Lea, Non-Executive Director of the Arbuthnot Banking Group
  • Dr. Stephen Davies, Institute of Economic Affairs

Prizes
Cash prizes will be awarded to the first, second and third best entries, as judged by the competition’s final judging panel. First prize is €100,000, second prize is €10,000 and third prize is €5,000. There will a special prize of €5,000 for the best entry from an individual aged 30 or under. The winning entries will be published by the IEA.
Timeline
16th July 2013 – Brexit Prize announced
16th September 2013, 4pm – Deadline for initial submissions
End October 2013 – Selection of 20 best initial submissions announced
Early February 2014 – Deadline for final submissions
March 2014 – Winner announced
For media enquiries, please contact Ruth Porter: 0207 799 8920 / 07751 717 781
For general enquiries and to request an entry number please contact Amelia Abplanalp: brexit@iea.org.uk / 020 7799 8900. Please indicate if you will be in the under 31 category.
To download full information and remit, click here.
To download guidelines for entrants, click here.
To download style guide for entrants, click here.

.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  

Posted in BREXIT | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 185 other followers

%d bloggers like this: