GL-W's WEBlog

The views, reprints & thoughts of Greg Lance-Watkins

Archive for January, 2014

>GUEST POST: The Crumbling Lockerbie Case

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 26/01/2014

>GUEST POST: The Crumbling Lockerbie Case.

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

.
Hi,

I have always believed and openly and clearly stated that I believed there was absolutely zero valid evidence that Pan Am Flight #103 the transatlantic flight from Frankfurt to Detroit via London and New York City that was destroyed by a bomb on Wednesday, 21 December 1988, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew on board.[1] Large sections of the aircraft crashed into Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 11 more people on the ground was the work of terrorists, let alone Libyian and clearly neither of the scapegoats chosen to face trial.

Let us also note that the evidence against the two unfortunate victims selected to stand trial was all but identical and that one was found not guilty and the other guilty!

Having read the transcripts of the trial and the utterly scurrilous and corrupt summing up of Lord Cullen there is no doubt in my mind the outcome of the trial was prearranged and had  absolutely nothing to do with justice having been a massive cover up – seemingly for a rogue intel. department of the US, seemingly under the control of the Bush family and their associates.

Let us also not forget that Lord Cullen was seen as a safe pair of hands by deeply questionable members of the British Government and had previously orchestrated the cover-up and unlawful 100 year block on the evidence in the Dunblane Inquiry regarding the murders at Dunblane Primary School, including that of Thomas Hamilton on 31-Mar-1996!

For more facts, details and conclusions regarding the Dunblane Killings CLICK HERE

For more details regarding Lockerbie enter >Magrahi<, >Lockerbie<, >Libya< & >PanAm 103< into the search box at the head of the right side bar on this web site.

Minded that John Ashton, who worked as a defense investigator on the Pan Am 103 case, is the author of Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters. I have little doubt that you will find his recent reappraisal of interest:

The Crumbling Lockerbie Case

A quarter century ago, the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 people and later was pinned on a Libyan agent. In 2011, Lockerbie was used to justify a U.S.-backed war to oust Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, but the evidence now suggests the case was a miscarriage of justice, John Ashton writes.

By John Ashton

Dec. 21, 2013, marked the 25th anniversary of what, until 9/11, was the worst terrorist attack on U.S. civilians. A total of 270 people died when PanAm flight 103 was blown out of the sky over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie; 189 of the dead were Americans.

Officially the crime was partially solved on Jan. 31, 2001, when Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of the murders by a panel of three senior Scottish judges, sitting at a specially convened Scottish court at Kamp Zeist in The Netherlands. His co-defendant, Lamin Fhimah, was acquitted.

Ailing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in September 2011, as he was dying from prostate cancer.

Ailing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in September 2011, as he was dying from prostate cancer.

As Megrahi was allegedly a puppet of the Gaddafi regime the Scottish and U.S. prosecutors have vowed to pursue those who were pulling his strings. The ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller said on the 25th anniversary that he expected further charges to be brought. Yet, to most of those who have scrutinized the Megrahi conviction – and Consortiumnews.com is one of the few U.S. media outlets to have done so (see here, here and here) – it is, at best, odd and, at worst, a sham.

One of the UN trial observers, Professor Hans Koechler, noted: “there is not one single piece of material evidence linking the two accused to the crime. In such a context, the guilty verdict in regard to the first accused appears to be arbitrary, even irrational,” while eminent Scottish lawyer Ian Hamilton QC has said, “I don’t think there’s a lawyer in Scotland who now believes Mr Megrahi was justly convicted.”

More importantly, in 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a statutory body that reviews alleged miscarriages of justice, referred the conviction back to the appeals court on no fewer than six grounds, one of which was that the trial court’s judgment was unreasonable. Shockingly, four of the other grounds concerned the non-disclosure of important evidence by the prosecution. Sadly, Megrahi succumbed to pressure to abandon the appeal, shortly before his release from prison on compassionate grounds in August 2009.

More Promising Leads

Another reason to doubt the official line that the bombing was a solely Libyan operation is that there is ample circumstantial evidence that it was commissioned by Iran (possibly in retaliation for the U.S. military shoot-down of an Iranian airliner on July 3, 1988, killing 290 people) and carried out by a radical Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC).

Two months before the Pan Am 103 attack, on Oct. 26, 1988, the group was caught red-handed by the German federal police with a barometric bomb designed to explode at altitude. The police also uncovered a huge terrorist arsenal, which the group had amassed in an apartment in Frankfurt, the city from which PA103’s feeder flight, PA103A, would originate. Like the Lockerbie bomb, the barometric bomb had been built into a Toshiba radio cassette player. Although it was a single-speaker model – the Lockerbie device had twin speakers – by a rather sick twist, both models were from Toshiba’s BomBeat range.

The man who made the German bomb, Marwan Khreesat, turned out to be a mole for both the Jordanian and German intelligence services. He told the police that he had made five bombs, only four of which were recovered. He and another PFLP-GC member, Mobdi Goben, who led the group’s Yugoslavian cell, confirmed that the organization had other bomb makers and that the Oct. 26 raids did not snare all of its German operatives.

Significantly, both men independently named a member with the nomme de guerre Abu Elias as the operation’s linchpin. His true identity remains unknown. Declassified U.S. intelligence documents stated as fact that Iran and the PFLP-GC were behind the bombing. Another, written months after the investigation had shifted decisively to Libya, said that Iranian interior minister had paid $10 million for the hit.

The increasingly rickety “Libya-did-it” line appeared to receive a much-needed boost 2 ½ years ago with the fall of the Gaddafi regime. At the start of the revolution, in early 2011, the opposition leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who had been Gaddafi’s justice minister, told the Swedish newspaper Expressen that he had proof that his old boss was responsible for Lockerbie. Other senior government defectors implicated the old regime in the bombing.

So, when Scotland’s prosecution service, the Crown Office, announced that it would be seeking the cooperation of the new Libyan government to gather evidence against Megrahi’s alleged co-conspirators, Lockerbie watchers were braced for some rapid developments.

Getting Nowhere

Unfortunately for the Crown Office and police, in the intervening 2 ½ years, they appear to have got precisely nowhere. Last December, Libya’s new UK ambassador, Mahmud Nacua, said that his government would be happy to open all of its Lockerbie files to the police, but added that this would only happen when the government had fully established security and stability – a process he believed would take at least a year. A year on, there’s no hint that the files are about to be opened.

It was not until February 2013 that the police, prosecutors and the FBI got to visit Tripoli to speak to the new government. Embarrassingly, no sooner had they left than the new deputy justice minister, Hameda al-Magery, told the Daily Telegraph that the case was closed.

The Crown Office swiftly issued a press release, which described the discussions with the Libyans as “positive” and added “it is hoped there will be further progress as a result.” That hope seems increasingly forlorn. Only last month did the Libyan government appoint prosecutors to work on the case with Scottish and U.S. investigators.

The development was hailed as a “significant step” by Scotland’s chief prosecutor, the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland. That is one interpretation, but, when viewed as a whole, the events since Gaddafi’s fall suggest that the Libyans might be trying to put off the day when they have to admit to the Scots and FBI that the cupboard is bare: they have no evidence of the Gaddafi regime’s involvement.

Since Gaddafi’s fall, the only document about the case to surface publicly from his regime’s files is a letter from Megrahi to his relative, Gaddafi’s security chief Abdullah Sennousi, in which, according to the Wall Street Journal, he protested his innocence and blamed his plight on “the immoral British and American investigators” who “knew there was foul play and irregularities in the investigation.”

What, then, of Mustafa Abdel Jalil’s proof? When asked about it on BBC Newsnight, the best he could offer was the fact that Gaddafi’s government had paid Megrahi’s legal bills. A year later Jalil insisted in another newspaper interview that Expressen had misquoted him, adding: “All I said then is what I say right now, which is that the regime was involved in this case, evident by insisting [Megrahi] returns [to Libya] and that they spent a lot of money on him while he was in jail.”

It was preposterous to claim that the old regime’s funding of Megrahi’s legal defense, and its efforts to secure his return to Libya, was evidence of its guilt.

Exonerating Evidence

While the police investigation in Libya has stalled, the police and Crown Office are studiously ignoring new evidence that destroys the case against Megrahi and Libya. It concerns the most important physical evidence of the entire case, a tiny fragment of circuit board, known by its police reference number of PT/35b, which was allegedly part of the bomb’s timer.

According to the prosecution case, the fragment matched boards in timers designed and built for the Libyan intelligence service by a Swiss firm called Mebo. During preparations for Megrahi’s aborted second appeal, his legal team (with whom I worked as a researcher) discovered that the fragment could not have originated from one of the Libyan timers’ boards, because it bore a crucial metallurgical difference.

When combined with a wealth of existing anomalies concerning the fragment’s provenance, the discovery strongly suggested that it was a fake that was planted in order to implicate Libya. According to the published memoir of the head of the FBI’s Lockerbie investigation, Richard Marquise, his opposite number in the Swiss police also suspected the fragment was a plant.  The thought even occurred to Marquise and the Scottish police’s senior investigating officer, Stuart Henderson.

Why, then, have the Scottish police and Crown Office failed to approach the witnesses who can attest to the mismatch between the fragment and the Libyan timers – witnesses who include the man who made the boards used in the those timers, and two independent scientists? The obvious answer is that they want to avoid evidence that shows the official case to be built on sand.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

John Ashton, who worked as a defense investigator on the Pan Am 103 case, is the author of Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters.

Let us not in the ongoing series of cover-ups and corrupt trials and obfuscated investigations forget the victims who died on that fatal day in 1988 courtesy of Dailyrecord.co.uk:

Lockerbie bombing:
The 270 victims of
Pan Am Flight 103 disaster
of 21-Dec-1988

ACT of remembrance: roll call of the 270 people from 21 nations who died in the Lockerbie bombing, aged from two months to 82 years and from 21 nations.

The Lockerbie disaster claimed the lives of 270 people on the day & destroyed the lives of many more as its outcome

The Lockerbie disaster claimed the lives of 270 people.

Lockerbie residents

Kathleen Mary Flannigan (41), Thomas Brown Flannigan (44), Joanne Flannigan (10), Dora Henrietta Henry (56), Maurice Peter Henry (63), Mary Lancaster (81), Jean Aitken Murray (82), John Somerville (40), Rosaleen “Rosalind” Somerville (40), Paul Somerville (13) and Lynsey Anne Somerville (10).

Syracuse University students

Steven Russell Berrell, Kenneth John Bissett, Stephen John Boland, Nicole Elise Boulanger, Timothy Michael Cardwell, Theodora Eugenia Cohen, Eric Michael Coker, Jason Michael Coker, Gary Leonard Colasanti, Scott Marsh Cory, Gretchen Joyce Dater, Shannon Davis, Turhan Michael Ergin, John Patrick Flynn, Pamela Elaine Herbert, Karen Lee Hunt, Christopher Andrew Jones, Julianne Frances Kelly, Wendy Anne Lincoln, Alexander Lowenstein, Suzanne Marie Miazga, Richard Paul Monetti, Anne Lindsey Otenasek, Peter Raymond Peirce, Sarah Susannah Buchanan Philipps, Frederick Sandy Phillips, Louise Ann Rogers, Thomas Britton Schultz, Amy Elizabeth Shapiro, Cynthia Joan Smith, Mark Lawrence Tobin, Alexia Kathryn Tsairis, Nicholas Andreas Vrenios, Kesha Weedon and Miriam Luby Wolfe.

Other passengers

John Michael Gerard Ahern, Sarah Margaret Aicher, John David Akerstrom, Ronald Ely Alexander, Thomas Joseph Ammerman, Martin Lewis Apfelbaum, Rachel Marie Asrelsky, William Garretson Atkinson III, Judith E. Bernstein Atkinson, Clare Louise Bacciochi, Harry Michael Bainbridge, Stuart Murray Barclay, Jean Mary Bell, Julian MacBain Benello, Lawrence Ray Bennett, Philip Vernon Bergstrom, Alistair David Berkley, Michael Stuart Bernstein, Surinder Mohan Bhatia, Diane Anne Boatman-Fuller, Glen John Bouckley, Paula Marie Bouckley, Francis Boyer, Nicholas Bright, Daniel Solomon Browner (Beer), Colleen Renee Brunner, Timothy Guy Burman, Michael Warren Buser, Warren Max Buser.

Steven Lee Butler, William Martin Cadman, Fabiana Caffarone, Hernan Caffarone, Valerie Canady, Gregory Capasso, Bernt Wilmar Carlsson, Richard Anthony Cawley, Frank Ciulla, Bridget Concannon, Sean Concannon, Thomas Concannon, Tracey Jane Corner, Willis Larry Coursey, Patricia Mary Coyle, John Binning Cummock, Joseph Patrick Curry, William Allen Daniels, Gabriel Della Ripa, Joyce Christine Di Mauro, Gianfranca Di Nardo, Peter Thomas Stanley Dix, Om Dixit, Shanti Dixit, David Scott Dornstein, Michael Joseph Doyle, Edgar Howard Eggleston III, Charles Thomas Fisher IV.

Clayton Lee Flick, Arthur Fondiler, Robert Joseph Fortune, Paul Stephen Matthew Freeman, James Ralph Fuller, Ibolya Gabor, Amy Beth Gallagher, Matthew Kevin Gannon, Kenneth Raymond Garczynski, Kenneth James Gibson, William David Giebler Jr, Andrew Christopher Gillies-Wright, Olive Leonora Gordon, Linda Susan Gordon-Gorgacz, Anne Madelene Gorgacz, Loretta Anne Gorgacz.

David Jay Gould, Andre Nikolai Guevorgian, Nicola Jane Hall, Lorraine Frances Buser Halsch, Lynne Carol Hartunian, Anthony Lacey Hawkins, Rodney Peter Hilbert, Alfred Hill, Katherine Augusta Hollister, Josephine Lisa Hudson, Melina Kristina Hudson, Sophie Ailette Miriam Hudson, Roger Elwood Hurst, Elizabeth Sophie Ivell, Khalid Nazir Jaafar, Robert Van Houten Jeck, Paul Avron Jeffreys.

Rachel Mary Elisabeth Jeffreys, Kathleen Mary Jermyn, Beth Ann Johnson, Mary Alice Lincoln Johnson, Timothy Baron Johnson, Jay Joseph Kingham, Patricia Ann Klein, Gregory Kosmowski, Minas Christopher Kulukundis, Ronald Albert Lariviere, Robert Milton Leckburg Jr.

William Chase Leyrer, Lloyd David Ludlow, Maria Theresia Lurbke, William Edward Mack, Douglas Eugene Malicote, Wendy Gay Forsythe Malicote, Elizabeth Lillian Marek, Louis Anthony Marengo, Noel George Martin, Diane Marie Maslowski, William John McAllister, Daniel Emmet McCarthy, Robert Eugene McCollum, Charles Dennis McKee.

Bernard Joseph McLaughlin, Jane Susan Melber, John Merrill, Joseph Kenneth Miller, Jewel Courtney Mitchell, Jane Ann Morgan, Eva Ingeborg Morson, Helga Rachael Mosey, Ingrid Elizabeth Mulroy, John Mulroy, Sean Kevin Mulroy, Karen Elizabeth Noonan, Daniel Emmett O’Connor, Mary Denice O’Neil, Bryony Elise Owen, Gwyneth Yvonne Margaret Owen, Laura Abigail Owens, Martha Owens, Robert Plack Owens, Sarah Rebecca Owens, Robert Italo Pagnucco, Christos Michael Papadopoulos, Michael Pescatore, James Andrew Campbell Pitt.

David J. Platt, Walter Leonard Porter, Pamela Lynn Posen, William Pugh, Estrella Crisostomo Quiguvan, Rajesh Tarsis Priskel Ramses, Anmol Rattan, Garima Rattan, Suruchi Rattan, Anita Lynn Reeves, Mark Alan Rein, Diane Marie Rencevicz, Edina Roller, Janos Gabor Roller, Zsuzsana Pisa’k Roller, Hanne-Maria Maijala Root, Saul Mark Rosen, Andrea Victoria Rosenthal, Daniel Peter Rosenthal.

Arnaud David Rubin, Elyse Jeanne Saraceni, Scott Christopher Saunders, Theresa Elizabeth Jane Saunders, Johannes Otto Schauble, Robert Thomas Schlageter, Sally Elizabeth Scott, Mridula Shastri, Joan Sheanshang, Irving Stanley Sigal, Martin Bernard Christopher Simpson, Ingrid Anita Smith, James Alvin Smith, Mary Edna Smith, Geraldine Anne Stevenson, Hannah Louise Stevenson, John Charles Stevenson, Rachel Helen Stevenson, Charlotte Ann Stinnett, Michael Gary Stinnett, Stacey Leanne Stinnett, James Ralph Stow, Elia G. Stratis, Anthony Selwyn Swan, Flora MacDonald Margaret Swire.

Marc Alex Tager, Hidekazu Tanaka, Andrew Alexander Teran, Arva Anthony Thomas, Jonathan Ryan Thomas, Lawanda Thomas, David William Trimmer-Smith, Barry Joseph Valentino, Tomas Floro van Tienhoven, Asaad Eidi Vejdany, Peter Petrisor Vulcu, Janina Jozefa Waido.

Thomas Edwin Walker, Jerome Lee Weston, Jonathan White, Bonnie Leigh Rafferty Williams, Brittany Leigh Williams, Eric Jon Williams, George Waterson Williams, Stephanie Leigh Williams, Chelsea Marie Woods, Dedera Lynn Woods, Joe Nathan Woods, Joe Nathan Woods Jr, Mark James Zwynenburg.

Pan Am 103 crew

Elizabeth Clement-Avonye, Jerry Don Avritt, Noelle Lydie Campbell Berti, Siv Ulla Engstrom, Stacie Denise Franklin, Paul Isaac Garrett, Elke Etha Kuehne.

Maria Nieves de Larracoechea, Captain James Bruce MacQuarrie (pilot), Lilibeth Tobila McAlolooy, Mary Geraldine Murphy, Jocelyn Reina, Myra Josephine Royal, Irja Synnove Skabo, Milutin Velimirovich and Raymond Ronald Wagner.

.
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 Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Bill Gates’ View of The World!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 22/01/2014

Bill Gates’ View of The World!.

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

.

Download the PDF

3 MYTHS THAT BLOCK PROGRESS FOR THE POOR

By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been. People are living longer, healthier lives. Many nations that were aid recipients are now self-sufficient. You might think that such striking progress would be widely celebrated, but in fact, Melinda and I are struck by how many people think the world is getting worse. The belief that the world can’t solve extreme poverty and disease isn’t just mistaken. It is harmful. That’s why in this year’s letter we take apart some of the myths that slow down the work. The next time you hear these myths, we hope you will do the same.
– Bill Gates

Myth One

POOR COUNTRIES ARE DOOMED TO STAY POOR

by Bill Gates
I’ve heard this myth stated about lots of places, but most often about Africa. A quick Web search will turn up dozens of headlines and book titles such as ‘How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor.’

Thankfully these books are not bestsellers, because the basic premise is false. The fact is, incomes and other measures of human welfare are rising almost everywhere, including in Africa.

So why is this myth so deeply ingrained?

I’ll get to Africa in a moment, but first let’s look at the broader trend around the world, going back a half-century. Fifty years ago, the world was divided in three: the United States and our Western allies; the Soviet Union and its allies; and everyone else. I was born in 1955 and grew up learning that the so-called First World was well off or “developed.” Most everyone in the First World went to school, and we lived long lives. We weren’t sure what life was like behind the Iron Curtain, but it sounded like a scary place. Then there was the so-called Third World—basically everyone else. As far as we knew, it was filled with people who were poor, didn’t go to school much, and died young. Worse, they were trapped in poverty, with no hope of moving up.

The statistics bear out these impressions. In 1960, almost all of the global economy was in the West. Per capita income in the United States was about $15,000 a year.1 (That’s income per person, so $60,000 a year for a family of four.) Across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, incomes per person were far lower. Brazil: $1,982. China: $928. Botswana: $383. And so on.

Years later, I would see this disparity myself when I traveled. Melinda and I visited Mexico City in 1987 and were surprised by the poverty we witnessed. There was no running water in most homes, so we saw people trekking long distances by bike or on foot to fill up water jugs. It reminded us of scenes we had seen in rural Africa. The guy who ran Microsoft’s Mexico City office would send his kids back to the United States for checkups to make sure the smog wasn’t making them sick.

Today, the city is mind-blowingly different. Its air is as clean as Los Angeles’ (which isn’t great, but certainly an improvement from 1987). There are high-rise buildings, new roads, and modern bridges. There are still slums and pockets of poverty, but by and large when I visit there now I think, “Wow, most people who live here are middle-class. What a miracle.”

Look at the photo of Mexico City from 1986, and compare it to one from 2011.

©Corbis, Owen Franken
^ Mexico City 1986, 2011
©Corbis, Keith Dannemiller
You can see a similar transformation in these before-and-after photos of Nairobi and Shanghai.

©Corbis, Nigel Pavitt
©Getty Images National Geographic

 

^ Nairobi 1969, 2009  

©Corbis, John Heaton
©Corbis, Dean Conger

 

^ Shanghai 1978, 2012

These photos illustrate a powerful story: The global picture of poverty has been completely redrawn in my lifetime. Per-person incomes in Turkey and Chile are where the United States level was in 1960. Malaysia is nearly there, as is Gabon. And that no-man’s-land between rich and poor countries has been filled in by China, India, Brazil, and others. Since 1960, China’s real income per person has gone up eightfold. India’s has quadrupled, Brazil’s has almost quintupled, and the small country of Botswana, with shrewd management of its mineral resources, has seen a thirty-fold increase. There is a class of nations in the middle that barely existed 50 years ago, and it includes more than half of the world’s population.

Here’s another way to see the transition: by counting people instead of countries:

So the easiest way to respond to the myth that poor countries are doomed to stay poor is to point to one fact: They haven’t stayed poor. Many—though by no means all—of the countries we used to call poor now have thriving economies. And the percentage of very poor people has dropped by more than half since 1990.

That still leaves more than one billion people in extreme poverty, so it’s not time to celebrate. But it is fair to say that the world has changed so much that the terms “developing countries” and “developed countries” have outlived their usefulness.

Any category that lumps China and the Democratic Republic of Congo together confuses more than it clarifies. Some so-called developing countries have come so far that it’s fair to say they have developed. A handful of failed states are hardly developing at all. Most countries are somewhere in the middle. That’s why it’s more instructive to think about countries as low-, middle-, or high-income. (Some experts even divide middle-income into two sub-categories: lower-middle and upper-middle.)

With that in mind, I’ll turn back to the more specific and pernicious version of this myth: “Sure, the Asian tigers are doing fine, but life in Africa never gets better, and it never will.”

First, don’t let anyone tell you that Africa is worse off today than it was 50 years ago. Income per person has in fact risen in sub-Saharan Africa over that time, and quite a bit in a few countries. After plummeting during the debt crisis of the 1980s, it has climbed by two thirds since 1998, to nearly $2,200 from just over $1,300. Today, more and more countries are turning toward strong sustained development, and more will follow. Seven of the 10 fastest-growing economies of the past half-decade are in Africa.

Africa has also made big strides in health and education. Since 1960, the life span for women in sub-Saharan Africa has gone up from 41 to 57 years, despite the HIV epidemic. Without HIV it would be 61 years. The percentage of children in school has gone from the low 40s to over 75 percent since 1970. Fewer people are hungry, and more people have good nutrition. If getting enough to eat, going to school, and living longer are measures of a good life, then life is definitely getting better there. These improvements are not the end of the story; they’re the foundation for more progress.

A growing number of countries in Africa are building community health systems, which are extremely cost-effective (Accra, Ghana, 2013).

Of course, these regional averages obscure big differences among countries. In Ethiopia, income is only $800 a year per person. In Botswana it’s nearly $12,000. You see this huge variation within countries too: Life in a major urban area like Nairobi looks nothing like life in a rural Kenyan village. You should look skeptically at anyone who treats an entire continent as an undifferentiated mass of poverty and disease.

The bottom line: Poor countries are not doomed to stay poor. Some of the so-called developing nations have already developed. Many more are on their way. The nations that are still finding their way are not trying to do something unprecedented. They have good examples to learn from. 

I am optimistic enough about this that I am willing to make a prediction. By 2035, there will be almost no poor countries left in the world. (I mean by our current definition of poor.)2 Almost all countries will be what we now call lower-middle income or richer. Countries will learn from their most productive neighbors and benefit from innovations like new vaccines, better seeds, and the digital revolution. Their labor forces, buoyed by expanded education, will attract new investments.

A few countries will be held back by war, politics (North Korea, barring a big change there), or geography (landlocked nations in central Africa). And inequality will still be a problem: There will be poor people in every region.

But most of them will live in countries that are self-sufficient. Every nation in South America, Asia, and Central America (with the possible exception of Haiti), and most in coastal Africa, will have joined the ranks of today’s middle-income nations. More than 70 percent of countries will have a higher per-person income than China does today. Nearly 90 percent will have a higher income than India does today.

It will be a remarkable achievement. When I was born, most countries in the world were poor. In the next two decades, desperately poor countries will become the exception rather than the rule. Billions of people will have been lifted out of extreme poverty. The idea that this will happen within my lifetime is simply amazing to me.

Some people will say that helping almost every country develop to middle-income status will not solve all the world’s problems and will even exacerbate some. It is true that we’ll need to develop cheaper, cleaner sources of energy to keep all this growth from making the climate and environment worse. We will also need to solve the problems that come with affluence, like higher rates of diabetes. However, as more people are educated, they will contribute to solving these problems. Bringing the development agenda near to completion will do more to improve human lives than anything else we do.

Myth Two

FOREIGN AID IS A BIG WASTE

by Bill Gates
You may have read news articles about foreign aid that are filled with big generalizations based on small examples. They tend to cite anecdotes about waste in some program and suggest that foreign aid is a waste. If you hear enough of these stories, it’s easy to get the impression that aid just doesn’t work. It’s no wonder that one British newspaper claimed last year that more than half of voters want cuts in overseas aid.

These articles give you a distorted picture of what is happening in countries that get aid. Since Melinda and I started the foundation 14 years ago, we’ve been lucky enough to go see the impact of programs funded by the foundation and donor governments. What we see over time is people living longer, getting healthier, and escaping poverty, partly because of services that aid helped develop and deliver.

I worry about the myth that aid doesn’t work. It gives political leaders an excuse to try to cut back on it—and that would mean fewer lives are saved, and more time before countries can become self-sufficient.

So I want to take on a few of the criticisms you may have read.3 I should acknowledge up front that no program is perfect, and there are ways that aid can be made more effective. And aid is only one of the tools for fighting poverty and disease: Wealthy countries also need to make policy changes, like opening their markets and cutting agricultural subsidies, and poor countries need to spend more on health and development for their own people.

But broadly speaking, aid is a fantastic investment, and we should be doing more. It saves and improves lives very effectively, laying the groundwork for the kind of long-term economic progress I described in myth #1 (which in turn helps countries stop depending on aid). It is ironic that the foundation has a reputation for a hard-nosed focus on results, and yet many people are cynical about the government aid programs we partner with. The foundation does a lot to help these programs be more efficient and measure their progress.

Foreign aid helps refugees like Nikuze Aziza feed their families and stay healthy (Kiziba Camp, Rwanda, 2011).

The Amount of Aid

Many people think that development aid is a large part of rich countries’ budgets, which would mean a lot can be saved by cutting back. When pollsters ask Americans what share of the budget goes to aid, the average response is “25 percent.” When asked how much the government should spend, people tend to say “10 percent.” I suspect you would get similar results in the United Kingdom, Germany, and elsewhere.

Here are the actual numbers. For Norway, the most generous nation in the world, it’s less than 3 percent. For the United States, it’s less than 1 percent.

One percent of the U.S. budget is about $30 billion a year. Of that, roughly $11 billion is spent on health: vaccines, bed nets, family planning, drugs to keep people with HIV alive, and so on. (The other $19 billion goes to things like building schools, roads, and irrigation systems.)

I don’t want to imply that $11 billion a year isn’t a lot of money. But to put it in perspective, it’s about $30 for every American. Imagine that the income tax form asked, “Can we use $30 of the taxes you’re already paying to protect 120 children from measles?”4  Would you check yes or no?

It also helps to look at the overall impact this spending has. To get a rough figure, I added up all the money spent by donors on health-related aid since 1980. Then I divided by the number of children’s deaths that have been prevented in that same time. It comes to less than $5,000 per child saved (and that doesn’t include the improvements in health that go beyond saving the lives of young children).5 $5,000 may sound expensive, but keep in mind that U.S. government agencies typically value the life of an American at several million dollars.

Also remember that healthy children do more than merely survive. They go to school and eventually work, and over time they make their countries more self-sufficient. This is why I say aid is such a bargain.

This chart shows you the biggest killers of children, along with a sampling of the aid programs that are working on those problems. As you can see, most of the effort is going into stopping the biggest killers. It is no accident that these big killers are also the focus of our foundation’s global health work.

The U.S. government spends more than twice as much on farm subsidies as on health aid. It spends more than 60 times as much on the military. The next time someone tells you we can trim the budget by cutting aid, I hope you will ask whether it will come at the cost of more people dying.

Corruption

One of the most common stories about aid is that some of it gets wasted on corruption. It is true that when health aid is stolen or wasted, it costs lives. We need to root out fraud and squeeze more out of every dollar.

But we should also remember the relative size of the problem. Small-scale corruption, such as a government official who puts in for phony travel expenses, is an inefficiency that amounts to a tax on aid. While we should try to reduce it, there’s no way to eliminate it, any more than we could eliminate waste from every government program—or from every business, for that matter. Suppose small-scale corruption amounts to a 2 percent tax on the cost of saving a life. We should try to reduce that. But if we can’t, should we stop trying to save lives?

You may have heard about a scandal in Cambodia last year involving a bed net program run by The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Cambodian officials were caught taking six-figure kickbacks from contractors. Editorial writers trotted out headlines like “How to waste foreign aid money.” One article mentioned me as someone whose money was being wasted.

I appreciate the concern, and it’s a good thing when the press holds institutions accountable. But the press didn’t uncover this scheme. The Global Fund did, during an internal audit. In finding and fixing the problem, The Global Fund did exactly what it should be doing. It would be odd to demand that they root out corruption and then punish them for tracking down the small percentage that gets misused.

There is a double standard at work here. I’ve heard people calling on the government to shut down some aid program if one dollar of corruption is found. On the other hand, four of the past seven governors of Illinois have gone to prison for corruption, and to my knowledge no one has demanded that Illinois schools be shut down or its highways closed.

Melinda and I would not be supporting The Global Fund, or any other program, if the money were being misused in a large-scale way. Malaria deaths have dropped 80 percent in Cambodia since The Global Fund started working there in 2003. The horror stories you hear about—where aid just helps a dictator build a new palace—mostly come from a time when a lot of aid was designed to win allies for the Cold War rather than to improve people’s lives. Since that time, all of the actors have gotten much better at measurement. Particularly in health and agriculture, we can validate the outcomes and know the value we’re getting per dollar spent.

Since 2000, a global effort against malaria has saved 3.3 million lives (Phnom Dambang village, Cambodia, 2011).

More and more, technology will help in the fight against corruption. The Internet is making it easier for citizens to know what their government should be delivering—like how much money their health clinic should get—so they can hold officials accountable. As public knowledge goes up, corruption goes down, and more money goes where it’s supposed to.

Aid Dependence

Another argument from critics is that aid holds back normal economic development, keeping countries dependent on generosity from outsiders.

This argument makes several mistakes. First, it lumps different kinds of aid together. It doesn’t differentiate aid that is sent directly to governments from funding that is used for research into new tools like vaccines and seeds. The money America spent in the 1960s to develop more productive crops made Asian and Latin American countries less dependent on us, not more. The money we spend today on a Green Revolution for Africa is helping countries grow more food, making them less dependent as well. Aid is a crucial funding source for these “global public goods” that are key for health and economic growth. That’s why our foundation spends over a third of our grants on developing new tools.

Second, the “aid breeds dependency” argument misses all the countries that have graduated from being aid recipients, and focuses only on the most difficult remaining cases. Here is a quick list of former major recipients that have grown so much that they receive hardly any aid today: Botswana, Morocco, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Thailand, Mauritius, Singapore, and Malaysia. South Korea received enormous amounts of aid after the Korean War, and is now a net donor. China is also a net aid donor and funds a lot of science to help developing countries. India receives 0.09 percent of its GDP in aid, down from 1 percent in 1991.

Even in sub-Saharan Africa, the share of the economy that comes from aid is a third lower now than it was 20 years ago, while the total amount of aid to the region has doubled. There are a few countries like Ethiopia that depend on aid, and while we all—especially Ethiopians themselves—want to get to a point where that is no longer true, I don’t know of any compelling argument that says Ethiopia would be better off with a lot less aid today.

Critics are right to say there is no definitive proof that aid drives economic growth. But you could say the same thing about almost any other factor in the economy. It is very hard to know exactly which investments will spark economic growth, especially in the near term. However, we do know that aid drives improvements in health, agriculture, and infrastructure that correlate strongly with growth in the long run. Health aid saves lives and allows children to develop mentally and physically, which will pay off within a generation. Studies show that these children become healthier adults who work more productively. If you’re arguing against that kind of aid, you’ve got to argue that saving lives doesn’t matter to economic growth, or that saving lives simply doesn’t matter.

Explainer: How Does Foreign Aid Work?

The lifesaving power of aid is so obvious that even aid critics acknowledge it. In the middle of his book White Man’s Burden, William Easterly (one of the best-known aid critics) lists several global health successes that were funded by aid. Here are a few highlights:

  • “A vaccination campaign in southern Africa virtually eliminated measles as a killer of children.”
  • “An international effort eradicated smallpox worldwide.”
  • “A program to control tuberculosis in China cut the number of cases by 40 percent between 1990 and 2000.”
  • “A regional program to eliminate polio in Latin America after 1985 has eliminated it as a public health threat in the Americas.”

The last point is worth expanding on. Today there are only three countries left that have never been polio-free: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria. Last year the global health community adopted a comprehensive plan aimed at getting the world polio-free by 2018, and dozens of donors stepped up to fund it. Once we get rid of polio, the world will save about $2 billion a year that it now spends fighting the disease.

The bottom line: Health aid is a phenomenal investment. When I look at how many fewer children are dying than 30 years ago, and how many people are living longer and healthier lives, I get quite optimistic about the future. The foundation worked with a group of eminent economists and global health experts to look at what’s possible in the years ahead. As they wrote last month in the medical journal The Lancet, with the right investments and changes in policies, by 2035, every country will have child-mortality rates that are as low as the rate in America or the U.K. in 1980. 6

You can see here just how dramatic this convergence will be:

Let’s put this achievement in historical perspective. A baby born in 1960 had an 18 percent chance of dying before her fifth birthday. For a child born today, the odds are less than 5 percent. In 2035, they will be 1.6 percent. I can’t think of any other 75-year improvement in human welfare that would even come close.

To get there, the world will need to unite around this goal, from scientists and health workers to donors and recipient countries. If this vision is reflected in the next round of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, it will help get everyone working on this milestone.

Many low- and middle-income countries will develop enough to pay for this convergence themselves. Others will need continued generosity from donors, including investments in health-related R&D. Governments will also have to set the right policies. For example middle-income countries should look at taxing tobacco, and at cutting fossil-fuel subsidies to free up funding for health.

Above all, I hope we can stop discussing whether aid works, and spend more time talking about how it can work better. This is especially important as you move from upstream research on global public goods into the downstream effort of delivering these innovations. Are the recipient countries in charge of figuring out where health clinics should be built and training the workers? Are donors helping local teams build up the expertise they need to put the Western experts out of business? Are the best performers sharing the lessons they’ve learned so other countries can follow suit? This has been a big area of learning for the foundation.

I have believed for a long time that disparities in health are some of the worst inequities in the world—that it is unjust and unacceptable that millions of children die every year from causes that we can prevent or treat. I don’t think a child’s fate should be left to what Warren Buffett calls the “ovarian lottery.” If we hit this goal of convergence, the ovarian lottery for health outcomes will be closed for good.

Myth Three

Saving lives leads to overpopulation

by Melinda Gates
We see comments like this all the time on the Gates Foundation’s blog, Facebook page, and Twitter feed. It makes sense that people are concerned about whether the planet can continue to sustain the human race, especially in the age of climate change. But this kind of thinking has gotten the world into a lot of trouble. Anxiety about the size of the world population has a dangerous tendency to override concern for the human beings who make up that population.

Going back at least to Thomas Malthus, who published his An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, people have worried about doomsday scenarios in which food supply can’t keep up with population growth. As recently as the Cold War, American foreign policy experts theorized that famine would make poor countries susceptible to Communism. Controlling the population of the poor countries labeled the Third World became an official policy in the so-called First World. In the worst cases, this meant trying to force women not to get pregnant. Gradually, the global family planning community moved away from this single-minded focus on limiting reproduction and started thinking about how to help women seize control of their own lives. This was a welcome change. We make the future sustainable when we invest in the poor, not when we insist on their suffering.

The fact is that a laissez faire approach to development—letting children die now so they don’t starve later—doesn’t actually work, thank goodness. It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is because the women in these countries tend to have the most births, too. Scholars debate the precise reasons why, but the correlation between child death and birth rates is strong.

Take Afghanistan, where child mortality—the number of children who die before turning five years old—is very high. Afghan women have an average of 6.2 children.7 As a result, even though more than 10 percent of Afghan children don’t survive, the country’s population is projected to grow from 30 million today to 55 million by 2050. Clearly, high death rates don’t prevent population growth (not to mention the fact that Afghanistan is nobody’s idea of a model for a prosperous future).

When children survive in greater numbers, parents decide to have smaller families. Consider Thailand. Around 1960, child mortality started going down. Then, around 1970, after the government invested in a strong family planning program, birth rates started to drop. In the course of just two decades, Thai women went from having an average of six children to an average of two. Today, child mortality in Thailand is almost as low as it is in the United States, and Thai women have an average of 1.6 children.

If you look at the graph below of Brazil, you’ll see the same thing: As the child mortality rate declined, so did the birth rate. I’ve also charted the population growth rate, to show that the country’s population grew more slowly as more children survived. If you graphed most South American countries, the lines would look similar.

This pattern of falling death rates followed by falling birth rates applies for the vast majority of the world. Demographers have written a lot about this phenomenon. The French were the first to start this transition, toward the end of the 18th century. In France, average family size went down every decade for 150 years in a row. In Germany, women started having fewer children in the 1880s, and in just 50 years family size had mostly stabilized again. In Southeast Asia and Latin America, average fertility dropped from six or seven children per woman to two or three in a single generation, thanks in large measure to the modern contraceptives available by the 1960s.

Because most countries—with exceptions in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia—have now gone through this transition, the global population is growing more slowly every year. As Hans Rosling, a professor at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and one of my favorite data geeks, said, “The amount of children in the world today is probably the most there will be! We are entering into the age of the Peak Child!”

Given all the evidence, my view of a sustainable future is much more optimistic than the Malthusians’ view. The planet does not thrive when the sickest are allowed to die off, but rather when they are able to improve their lives. Human beings are not machines. We don’t reproduce mindlessly. We make decisions based on the circumstances we face.

Here’s an example: Mothers in Mozambique are 80 times more likely to lose a child than mothers in Portugal, the country that ruled Mozambique until 1975. This appalling aggregate statistic represents a grim reality that individual Mozambican women must confront; they can never be confident their children will live. I’ve spoken to mothers who gave birth to many babies and lost most of them. They tell me all their mourning was worth it, so they could end up with the number of surviving children they wanted.

When children are well-nourished, fully vaccinated, and treated for common illnesses like diarrhea, malaria, and pneumonia, the future gets a lot more predictable. Parents start making decisions based on the reasonable expectation that their children will live.

Death rates are just one of many factors that affect birth rates. For example, women’s empowerment, as measured by age of marriage and level of education, matters a great deal. Girls who marry in their mid-teens tend to start getting pregnant earlier and therefore have more children. They usually drop out of school, which limits their opportunities to learn about their bodies, sex, and reproduction—and to gain other kinds of knowledge that helps them improve their lives. And it’s typically very difficult for adolescent brides to speak up in their marriages about their desire to plan their families. I just traveled to Ethiopia, where I had a long conversation with young brides, most of whom were married at 11 years old. They all talked about wanting a different future for their children, but the information they had about contraceptives was spotty at best, and they knew that when they were forced to leave school their best pathway to opportunity was closed off.

In fact, when girls delay marriage and stay in school, everything changes. In a recent study of 30 developing countries, women with no schooling had three more children on average than women who attended high school. When women are empowered with knowledge and skills, they start to change their minds about the kind of future they want.

I recently spent an afternoon with a woman named Sadi Seyni, who scratches out a living for five children on an arid farm in a desert region of Niger. She didn’t know about contraceptives when she got married as a teenager. Now she knows, and she’s spacing her pregnancies several years apart, to protect her health and the health of her newborns. I visited the place where she learned about family planning: her village’s well, where women go to talk. And talk. And talk. While we were telling stories, a young bride came to get water. Through a translator, this girl told me that her pregnancies were “God’s will” and therefore out of her control. Sadi suggested that as long as this girl keeps coming to the well and listening, she’ll change her view over time. Even the informal education that happens when a little knowledge spreads among friends transforms the way people think about what’s possible.

Like millions of women in sub-Saharan Africa, Sadi didn’t know about contraceptives when she got married (Talle, Niger, 2012).

It is important to note that the desire to plan is only part of the equation; women need access to contraceptives to follow through on their plan. Sadi lives a stone’s throw away from a health clinic, but it doesn’t carry the contraceptive injections she prefers. She has to walk 10 miles every three months to get her shots. Sadi is incensed, as she should be, about how difficult it is for her to care for her family. Many women like Sadi have no information about planning their pregnancies in a healthy way—and no access to contraceptives. More than 200 million women say they don’t want to be pregnant but aren’t using contraceptives. These women are being robbed of opportunities to decide how to raise their families. And because they can’t determine how many children to have or when to have them, they also have a harder time feeding them, paying for medical care, or sending them to school. It’s a vicious cycle of poverty.

With access to a range of contraceptives and information about birth spacing, women like Sharmila Devi are able to raise healthier families (Dedaur village, India, 2013).

On the other hand, the virtuous cycle that starts with basic health and empowerment ends not only with a better life for women and their families, but with significant economic growth at the country level. In fact, one reason for the so-called Asian economic miracle of the 1980s was the fact that fertility across Southeast Asia declined so rapidly. Experts call this phenomenon the demographic dividend.8 As fewer children die and fewer are born, the age structure of the population gradually changes, as you can see in the graphic below. 

Eventually, there’s a bulge of people in their prime working years. This means more of the population is in the workforce and generating economic growth. At the same time, since the number of young children is relatively smaller, the government and parents are able to invest more in each child’s education and health care, which can lead to more economic growth over the long term.

These changes don’t just happen by themselves. Governments need to set policies to help countries take advantage of the opportunity created by demographic transitions. With help from donors, they need to invest in health and education, prioritize family planning, and create jobs. But if leaders set the right strategic priorities, the prospect of a virtuous cycle of development that transforms whole societies is very real.

The virtuous cycle is not just development jargon. It’s a phenomenon that millions of poor people understand very well, and it guides their decisions from day to day. I have the privilege of meeting women and men in poor countries who commit the small acts of love and optimism—like going without so they can pay their children’s school fees—that propel this cycle forward. The future they hope for and work hard for is the future I believe in.

In this version of the future, currently poor countries are healthier, richer, and more equal—and growing sustainably. The alternate vision summed up by the Malthusian myth—a world where sustainability depends on permanent misery for some—is a misreading of the evidence and a failure of imagination.

Saving lives doesn’t lead to overpopulation. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Creating societies where people enjoy basic health, relative prosperity, fundamental equality, and access to contraceptives is the only way to secure a sustainable world. We will build a better future for everyone by giving people the freedom and the power to build a better future for themselves and their families.

Children who have a healthy start in life kick off a virtuous cycle of development (Dakar, Senegal, 2013).

LOOKING AHEAD


If you read the news every day, it’s easy to get the impression that the world is getting worse. There is nothing inherently wrong with focusing on bad news, of course—as long as you get it in context. Melinda and I are disgusted by the fact that more than six million children died last year. But we are motivated by the fact that this number is the lowest ever recorded. We want to make sure it keeps going down.

We hope you will help get the word out on all these myths. Help your friends put the bad news in context. Tell political leaders that you care about saving lives and that you support foreign aid. If you’re looking to donate a few dollars, you should know that organizations working in health and development offer a phenomenal return on your money. The next time you’re in an online forum and someone claims that saving children causes overpopulation, you can explain the facts. You can help bring about a new global belief that every life has equal value.

We all have the chance to create a world where extreme poverty is the exception rather than the rule, and where all children have the same chance to thrive, no matter where they’re born. For those of us who believe in the value of every human life, there isn’t any more inspiring work under way in the world today.

Help our partners #stopthemyth

Take the survey
To view the original letter, with lots more bells and whistles some of which work! CLICK HERE (but I can’t get the link supplied by Bill Gates to work fully!)

.
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 Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Slippery Statistics of Alex Salmond Selling Scotland out!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 21/01/2014

The Slippery Statistics of Alex Salmond Selling Scotland out!
.

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

.
Hi,

As you read this consider how it is rigged to suit the propaganda.

Just think how different the result would be if the National Debt was apportioned based on area and the oil revenue based on population.

That would completely reverse the figures and leave Scotland hugely worse off!

Is Alex Salmond cooking the books with VERY selective data to dupe the gullible in Scotland?

Independent Scotland Could be
£148bn Better Off, Claims Report

By Michael Klimes | January 21, 2014 16:29 PM GMT

Alex Salmond

A think tank argues that Scotland would have £148bn by now if it had achieved independence in 1980

Scotland would be £148bn better off had it een independent since 1980, by assuming its share of national debt as well as North Sea oil revenues, according to a report by a left-leaning think tank.

“A very surprising feature of the referendum debate so far has been the way in which the question of the sharing of UK national debt has been handled,” noted the report by economists Jim and Margaret Cuthbert of the Jimmy Reid Foundation.

The reports examined the way Scotland’s economy could have developed and the surplus that the country would have accumulated “if it had taken over a population share of UK debt in 1980, and since then had experienced the same public expenditure  and tax revenues (including a geographic share of North Sea Oil revenues)”

According to calculations by the Scottish government’s Fiscal Commission and Gordon McIntyre-Kemp, an economist turned businessman and pro-independence campaigner, an independent Scotland’s surplus would be “of the order of £100bn or so”.

The report’s authors come to the astonishing £148bn (€180bn, $243.8bn) figure based on Scotland assuming its share on Britain’s national debt as a share of its population. 

From 1982 this putative surplus would have begun to accrue and could have been used to pay off interest payments on Scotland’s actual share of UK debt.

In addition, Scotland’s surplus could have been invested in a sovereign wealth fund worth over £100bn at current prices, resulting in zero public sector debt in Scotland.

Implications for Scottish Independence and Debt

The authors of the report also stated that any calculation of Scotland’s future debt should not be based on the headline UK debt figure of £1,189bn, that has been pushed upwards by quantitative easing by the Bank of England.

Instead, the BoE should use a smaller figure of £814bn that does not include the £375bn that has been added by quantitative easing.

That £375bn represents 31.5% of total public sector debt as of February 2013, according to the BoE.

The Scottish people should not be liable for any of this debt if Scotland votes for independence in the September referendum; calculating Scotland’s debt based on either a split of population or a historic share of the UK’s deficit is wrong, the report stated.

The authors of the report invoke tenets of international law to demarcate these calculations.

“Negotiations should be informed by the Vienna Convention principle that the way in which relevant assets are transferred should influence any partitioning of debt. So, in particular, it is relevant that Scotland should not be taking on debt in relation to assets like Trident,” the report said.

To view the original CLICK HERE

Just why is Alex Salmond trying to rip off the Scots and for whose benefit because it clearly isn’t in the interest of the Scots at large, nor the English, the peoples of Britain or these United Kingdoms – based on ANY reasoned logic, facts or figures.

Without huge subsidy from somebody Scotland would find it was unable to compete with Britain industrially or on an open market – just what industries would remain in Scotland as a small uneconomic region on its own.

Just what is Scotland going to use for income when you consider the huge miles of road and rail to maintain relative to the small population, just how will their Hospital and medical services function when they are no longer a part of the British NHS; with over 60% of its population living within 20 miles of the center of Glasgow or Edinburgh how will it be able to fund the rural areas and islands.

Don’t just say oil because even with 100% of that income it would be inadequate! Do not forget we have all seen the crass and incompe4tent level of Scottish banking having had to bail out the unarguably incompetent RBS – perhaps it is worth remembering just how profitable is one of its two main football teams – need one go on?.

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

Just Another Police Murder!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 16/01/2014

Just Another Police Murder!

.

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

.
Hi,

in view of the large number of police killings, none of which ever seem to lead to the killers being called to account as we see from the murderer of Charles de Menenez who was not only never put before a Court for his killing of a totally innocent man who he ececuted whilst he was held down by his co conspirators in the murder but was sent on holiday, with his family, at public expense and subsequently once again armed to risk yet another street execution!

Or perhaps consider the officer in command during the murder of Charles de Menenez was Cressida Dick, who was the officer who issued the instruction to kill him she was relatively rapidly promoted!

Considert the facts behind the execution of Mark Duggan CLICK HERE and now merely a day or two later we have the decision made that a technical charge will be made by the HSE against Manchester’s Chief Constable ducking the issue of the fact that the killer seems never to face a court for his murder!

Consider the article I wrote & distributed only yesterday with regard to the Mark Duggan execution:

Hi,

Clearly many will support a police state and poorly led and badly trained death squads as a means of control.

Morality is often a matter of the propaganda to which one is exposed, as is being displayed in Egypt today in their elections where the people have actually been duped and bullied into actually voting for an undemocratic military state.

Similarly we see that there are those who can be duped, propagandised, bribed or bullied into surrendering democracy entirely and destroying their own country’s sovereignty and decision making in favour of the evils of membership of the supranational and corrupt EU.

Similarly there are those who all too willingly surrender the basic tennets of morality and justice and are willing to surrender the ethical concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and the concept of fair trial for ‘guilty without trial’ and summary executions in the streets by government enforcers – no doubt the same people who willingly surrender the decency and fundamental right of Euthenasia for enforced suffering and prolonged and unwanted misery before death.

Or the denial of the rights of women with regard to their own bodies and denial of abortion.

All tending to be based upon bronze age superstitions but with the added barbarism of street execution of alleged and unproven crimes by salaried executioners.

What next? Witch trials to go with witch hunts =- though come to think of it theuy are enshrined in law as displayed by Lord Levison’s inquiry and, random stop and search and the rousting of groups based on colour or basic superstitions.

I contend Mark Duggan was murdered without any moral or legal justification of merit or gravitas.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

Consider the press report related to the killing of Anthony Grainger:

Anthony Grainger shooting: Greater Manchester Police chief constable Sir Peter Fahy to be charged

16 Jan 2014 11:14

The 36-year-old was shot and killed by a GMP officer on March 3 2012 during a planned operation to arrest a group of men on suspicion of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

Anthony Grainger
Anthony Grainger

Greater Manchester Police’s chief constable Sir Peter Fahy will be charged over the death of Salford father Anthony Grainger.

The 36-year-old was shot and killed by a GMP officer on March 3 2012 during a planned operation to arrest a group of men on suspicion of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

The Crown Prosecution Service said Mr Fahy is accused of failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act as he is “corporation sole” for the force, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

This is a legal status and means that he does not share criminal liability or will personally have to appear in court.

Cousin of Anthony Grainger ‘disgusted’ at decision not to charge firearms officer 

Mr Grainger was shot dead by officers from Greater Manchester Police after his car was stopped as part of a planned operation in Culcheth, Cheshire, in March 2012.

It later emerged that the unarmed father of two had earlier been wrongly suspected of stealing a memory stick containing the names of police informants.

In July this year the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) confirmed that it had finished an investigation of the incident and passed a file to prosecutors.

The CPS today issued a statement that said “after careful consideration of all the evidence in this case, that there is sufficient evidence to prove that Greater Manchester Police breached the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act by failing to ensure that unnecessary risk to the suspects was avoided. It is alleged that an unnecessary exposure to risk was caused by serious deficiencies in the preparation for the police operation.”

The first hearing will take place on February 10 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

The firearms officer who pulled the trigger will not face any charges, the CPS confirmed.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: “We have completed our review of the evidence provided by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in relation to the death of Anthony Grainger. After careful consideration we have decided that the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Peter Fahy, should be prosecuted as a corporation sole for failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

“In addition to every employer’s responsibility towards their employees, the law also imposes a duty to ensure that work is carried out in a way that ensures, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons outside of their employment are not exposed to risk. The chief officers of police forces are treated as employers for this purpose. It is alleged that there were serious deficiencies in the preparation for this operation that unnecessarily exposed individuals to risk.

“Criminal proceedings are active and the defendant has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

If the conviction is successful, the force would face an unlimited fine.

Prosecutors decided the marksman who killed Mr Grainger should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept that he believed his actions were necessary.

The CPS said: “In the circumstances of this case, our assessment of the evidence is that a jury would accept that the officer did believe his actions were necessary and that the level of force used in response to the threat as he perceived it to be was proportionate.

“The basis for the officer’s belief in the necessity of his actions is relevant to the criminal proceedings under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act and it would be inappropriate to publish any further detail at this time.

“There is also insufficient evidence to prosecute the officer for gross negligence manslaughter or misconduct in public office. It would be inappropriate to explain these decisions in detail at this time for the same reason.”

GMP could not face a charge of corporate manslaughter because the force had no relevant duty of care towards Mr Grainger.

Deputy Chief Constable Ian Hopkins said: “Greater Manchester Police notes the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to take no further action against any officer following the death of Anthony Grainger in March 2012.

“The Force also notes the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute Greater Manchester Police for a breach of section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

“Since Mr Grainger’s death 22 months ago, Greater Manchester Police has co-operated fully with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Crown Prosecution Service and HM Coroner. Our sympathies remain with Mr Grainger’s family and we deeply regret the loss that they have suffered.

“Mr Grainger’s family, and the officers involved, have had to wait a long time for this decision to be reached and we share the frustrations over those delays. However, we understand that it was vitally important that the investigation was carried out thoroughly to establish all the facts.

“Now that a charging decision has been made regarding the Force itself, it is equally important that these legal processes are allowed to take their course unimpeded in order to seek a resolution for both the family of Mr Grainger and the Force.

“The Independent Police Complaints Commission investigated this matter independently and we await the official publication of their report. This matter also remains the subject of a Coronial Inquest, so Greater Manchester Police is unable to make further comment at this time.”

To view the original of this 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
  
 

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

Inquest of the Police Murder of Mark Duggan

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 08/01/2014

Inquest of the Police Murder of Mark Duggan .

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

.
Hi,

if you wish to be better informed on the murder of Mark Duggan on the 04-Aug-2011 at 18:41hrs. in Ferry Road, London.

Read the inquest report: http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf
and you will probably, like me, be utterly dissatisfied at what seems to be a pack of lies when you consider the fact that the police originally claimed there was a ‘shoot out’ and they have totally failed to prove that was not a blatant & gratuitous lie and have in fact failed to prove he was armed, let alone armed when murdered.

In Britain the law states that there should be no death penalty yet here again the police have seemingly murdered a man in cold blood, without evidence and have failed to prove they had ANY evidence he was armed and clearly7 at no time was anyone’s life at risk except that of Mark Duggan.

DUGGAN Mark 01

Reviewing some 30 police murders, not only has not a single solitary police killer been tried for murder I have been unable to find a single instance where the level of brutality of the police has ever saved a single life of a single individual.

I find the section on ‘lawfull killing’ particularly obscene and note even the jury decided that Mark Duggan was unarmed.

There would seem to be absolutely zero justification for the arming of police as they have murdered far more people than they have ever saved.

Consider the simple fact that no police officer was ever charged or tried for the murder of Charles de Menenez and in fact the killer is still a member of the police execution team and the commanding officer who was responsible for the murder Cressida Dick was never censured and was promoted.

In the light of the manners and style of the police of today their position is implausible and untenable consider the total lack of DNA on either the fire arm subsequently ‘found’ and the sock in which it was wrapped!

That the police are willing to protect those who murder in their name is irrefutable as with the police killer of Ian Tomlinson and others.

Read the lack of evidence or proof presented by the police in the Mark Duggan murder yet the killer claims he saw Duggan holding a firearm wrapped in a sock yet there was no such weapon in his vicinity yet later on just such a weapon was found at some distance!

On the evidence presented, and based upon personal experience of police, I do NOT have faith in the police or their claims.
.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL:

Hi,

having posted my article here I received, from a friend who had not read it the following eMail:

Sent: 11 January 2014 09:36
Subject: MARK DUGGAN

Well here we go again! A drug-dealing scumbag running around the streets of London brandishing a firearm (which he no doubt considered an indispensable tool of his trade cum fashion accessory) finally gets on the wrong side of the law, the courts find in favour of the police – and there’s hell on!

The prospect that now faces the British taxpayer is years of forking out for enquiries, enquiries, and yet more enquiries in search of what Duggan’s family and so-called friends refer to as ‘the truth’. As far as I’m concerned the truth is as described, and they are just a bunch of low lives with compensation on their minds. (If they had truly thought anything of him they’d have sought to dissuade him from his chosen lifestyle in my view.)

I know what the Saudis would do in such circumstances, and quite frankly I’m comfortable with it.

REDACTED

& I responded to his lengthy mailing list and others:

 

Hi,

REDACTED you may well find acceptable the barbarism of legal enforcement in the Middle East acceptable with the public slaughter of adulterers, the execution in shows of spectacular cruelty of homosexuals, amputation of limbs including bilateral amputation for relatively minor offences, public flogging of women for driving cars, tacit approval of despotic families enriched by control of all assets and the state, stoning to death as a public participation sport of some miscreants and even the creation of apartheid style ghettos and sentences to years of solitary confinement also, which are prevalent in Palestine, imposed by the vile Zionist occupiers of the land.

I take another view and believe in an unarmed police force – no police force on earth has the training or paygrade to act as public executioners and no man deserves the punishment meted out by police armed death squads, particularly in Countries irresponsible enough to do away wityh the death penalty subsequent to a clear and fair trial!

Perhaps you might care to reconsider your position when you realise that in Britain the police get the issue of firearms wrong on a regular basis using firearms on average 34 times a day in Britain yet infrequently finding the armed response is apposite and quite clearly killing more innocent people than were ever killed per annum by wrongfull imposition of a death penalty after the deliberations of Courts in Britain, in modern times.

I believe that Mark Duggan was most probably an ongoing criminal yet there was absolutely zero credible evidence that he was armed when murdered by a polic officer who lays claim to X-Ray vision having stated he saw Mark Duggan aim a firearm wrapped in a sock at him – a statement not born out by the undeniable fact that no one else saw it and nor was there such a weapon to hand when he was summarily executed on the streets of London.

Indeed Mark Duggan may well have been a criminal but even in consideration of the time when British Justice existed and a death penalty was carried out for the protection of the innocent, protecting them from the actions of potential recidivist killers – Mark Duggan had NEVER committed a capital offence, general bloody nuisance that he may have been.

We have Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and his cabinet who were all too happy to lie and cheat to expand their ambitions and commit and collude in crimes against humanity, war crimes and massacres of civilians in Iraq and without moral or legitimate right to invade and make a crass mess of Afghanistan both of which utterly self serving and irresponsible actions have led to 1,000s of deaths and in both cases have led to the abject failure of British troops when thus used and abused as mercenaries of the ambitions of those I believe to be criminals who have not even been arrested let alone tried for their crimes. Is it perhaps the intention that a British police death squad will execute these criminals on the streets of London when it suits them – to ensure a fair balance of treatment of criminals who have avoided the Courts?

Perhaps you might care to read on and seek to justify your values in the light of my blog posting:

Inquest of the Police Murder of Mark Duggan .

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

.
Hi,

if you wish to be better informed on the murder of Mark Duggan on the 04-Aug-2011 at 18:41hrs. in Ferry Road, London.

Read the inquest report: http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf
and you will probably, like me, be utterly dissatisfied at what seems to be a pack of lies when you consider the fact that the police originally claimed there was a ‘shoot out’ and they have totally failed to prove that was not a blatant & gratuitous lie and have in fact failed to prove he was armed, let alone armed when murdered.

In Britain the law states that there should be no death penalty yet here again the police have seemingly murdered a man in cold blood, without evidence and have failed to prove they had ANY evidence he was armed and clearly7 at no time was anyone’s life at risk except that of Mark Duggan.

DUGGAN Mark 01

Reviewing some 30 police murders, not only has not a single solitary police killer been tried for murder I have been unable to find a single instance where the level of brutality of the police has ever saved a single life of a single individual.

I find the section on ‘lawful killing’ particularly obscene and note even the jury decided that Mark Duggan was unarmed.

There would seem to be absolutely zero justification for the arming of police as they have murdered far more people than they have ever saved.

Consider the simple fact that no police officer was ever charged or tried for the murder of Charles de Menenez and in fact the killer is still a member of the police execution team and the commanding officer who was responsible for the murder Cressida Dick was never censured and was promoted.

In the light of the manners and style of the police of today their position is implausible and untenable consider the total lack of DNA on either the fire arm subsequently ‘found’ and the sock in which it was wrapped!

That the police are willing to protect those who murder in their name is irrefutable as with the police killer of Ian Tomlinson and others.

Read the lack of evidence or proof presented by the police in the Mark Duggan murder yet the killer claims he saw Duggan holding a firearm wrapped in a sock yet there was no such weapon in his vicinity yet later on just such a weapon was found at some distance!

On the evidence presented, and based upon personal experience of police, I do NOT have faith in the police or their claims.
.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
Which can be seen at:

https://gl-w.com/2014/01/08/inquest-of-the-police-murder-of-mark-duggan/

 

Perhaps you might care to give some thought to the cowardly killing of Sheik Saddam Hussein of Iraq or that of Murmar Gaddaffi ruler of Libya who had ruled his peoples for longer than any other incumbent in Africa and had raised both the standards of literacy and wealth, living and health to being if not the highest one of the highest in all of Africa – the reasoning behind the irresponsible invasion of Libya and the West’s involvement is also dealt with on my blog at:

#G0607* – LIBYA – Few Things Are As They Seem!

Posted on 02/09/2011

#G0607* – LIBYA – Few Things Are As They Seem! You may also feel more information is worth having see CLICK HEREAlso HERE “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) Regards,Greg L-W. for all my contact details & Blogs: CLICK HERE  British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit of their own agenda […]

Read the rest of this post…

 

#G0603* – LIBYA’s GREAT Man Made River

Posted on 23/08/2011

#G0603* –  LIBYA’s GREAT Man Made River Hi, just why EXACTLY is NATO slaughtering Libyans and destroying their achievements? No politician has yet given a clear and coherent explanation of EXACTLY why we are attacking Libya. Who gains? Do we seek a puppet government or just a tribal change and what moral right have we […]

Read the rest of this post…

Perhaps you should also be minded that but for the lies and distortion of due process by Lord Cullen it would have been clear that Libya had absolutely zero involvement in the Lockerbie Bombing of Pan Am flight #103 and that there is considerably more evidence to implicate a rogue element of US Intel. Who were involved in the suppression of evidence that the Bush family and associates were involved in the arms and drug industry of the Middle East:

Documents Show: ‘Lockerbie Bomber Was Innocent’.

Posted on 29/02/2012

Documents Show: ‘Lockerbie Bomber Was Innocent’. . Lockerbie Bomber Was Innocent; New Documents Support the Obvious By Keelan Balderson On February 29th, 2012 | Featured Articles, War And Terrorism New documents shed further doubt over the evidence used to convict a Libyan man for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, on December 21, 1988. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who […]

Read the rest of this post…

May I also remind you that armed police were present at the siege at the Libyan embassy which achieved the sum total of zero to save the life of WPC Fletcher – yet again there was no evidence to link the death of WPC Fletcher to Gaddaffi’s regime, indeed it is believed the shooting was by a scholarship student at Edinburgh University who acted independently on his own initiative and rumour has it that Gaddaffi paid a the prodigious sum, at the time, of £!Million in compensation – not in guilt but in humble generosity.

Just as he agreed to pay a sum of some £2Billion in compensation to the victims of the Lockerbie Bomb, not in guilt but to reinstate Libya as a diplomatic entity on the world stage – one might call it a bribe.

Perhaps you would care to retune your moral compass and make comment on the various blog postings.

 Regards,

Greg_L-W.

My primary correspondent replied; thanking me for my comment and praising the British system where such matters can be openly and freely discussed – a comment I totally endorse!

However another eMail came winging its way from someone on the mailing list:

A comment I found barbarous in its simplicity as it seemed to justify the mass execution of criminals by poorly led and often incompetent and under qualified police death squads!

Sent: 11 January 2014 13:35
To: Greg Lance – Watkins
Subject: Re: MARK DUGGAN

Well, that’s some diatribe! So full of hyperbolic assumptions, wild accusations, slanderous unsubstantiated rumour, and emotive phraseology as to be in no way impressive or noteworthy.

Armed criminal brandishes firearm as he exits vehicle, split-second decision has to be made. Correct decision made. One dead villain. End of story.

 

To which I felt it apposite to respond as follows:
Hi,
 

Sadly there was absolutely no credible evidence that Mark Duggan was armed when he was killed!

Astonishingly the killer stated immediately after the event that he had seen Duggan aiming a sock at him which contained a firearm!!!!! Wow – Xray vision!

Further the police announced at a press conference immediately after the killing that Mark Duggan was killed in a ‘Shoot out’ – a shoot out which actually never took place! The police failed to correct this statement until it was proven by the media that no such event took place! How can anyone trust a policeforce that invents such crucial evidence purely for spin?

There was of course no such weapon in his hand when he was killed. Further, despite the number of police etc. there was no claim by anyone that they saw him dispose of a weapon.

We do not have a death penalty in this country by ANY legal means therefore it is unacceptable to have police death squads, particularly when on an average day 34 instances of armed response are made to events that subsequently are rarely responsible response and when the executions that are carried out seen firstly not to save lives nor for crimes that have EVER in modern times been eligible for a death penalty.

I do not agree the implication of your comment that it is acceptable for police to execute people on the streets just because they may be villains. I know of no crime Mark Duggan has ever committed that would have carried a death sentence in the last 100 years – do you?

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

On a more thoughtful plain a friend and colleague responded to my original letter and posting:

 

Sent: 11 January 2014 14:47
To: ‘Greg Lance – Watkins
Subject: RE: MARK DUGGAN

Here is the opposing view to yours.

I still favour, not always but as a general rule, giving the police the benefit of the doubt.

If I was involved in an operation such as the three car stop of Duggan who I knew had a gun and I thought he had a gun, but it turned out after my SPLIT second  decision to shoot him, that my eyes had plays tricked with me and it was holding nothing more than a shadow, then tough luck Duggan you should have acted as a gun carrier. If he couldn’t take the consequence he should have tried going straight.

Do you at least see my point of view?

REDACTED.

I responded:

Hi,

Indeed I hear your point of view but I find it deeply flawed as follows:

‘I still favour, not always but as a general rule, giving the police the benefit of the doubt.’


I contend they have done far too much to earn the distrust of the public, entire communities and myself amongst others.

That they authorised themselves to use firearms on avg. 34 times a day and found that a mere handful of occasions justified (in their opinion) using them shows just how shoddy is their leadership and decision making. You need only think of the incompetence and poor leadership of Cressida Dick in the murder of Charles de Menenez to be aware of how poor is their decision making and leadership.

‘If I was involved in an operation such as the three car stop of Duggan who I knew had a gun and I thought he had a gun, but it turned out after my SPLIT second  decision to shoot him, that my eyes had plays tricked with me and it was holding nothing more than a shadow, then tough luck Duggan you should have acted as a gun carrier. If he couldn’t take the consequence he should have tried going straight.’

Firstly the police did not KNOW he had a firearm. Secondly the killer was very specific that he saw that Duggan had a firearm wrapped in a sock!!! A claim that was palpably garbage and proven to be seconds later when he killed him!
There is no reason to believe the police as they clearly stated that Mark Duggan was shot in a ‘SHOOT OUT’ and briefed the media accordingly, a briefing they never corrected until it was proven to be a lie by the media!
The police clearly mishandled the stop as the manner in which they stopped the car needlessly exposed themselves to fire had Mark Duggan had a firearm, which he did not.

The murderer clearly stated that he saw Mark Duggan had a firearm wrapped in a sock BEFORE such a weapon was found) a firearm wrapped in a sock) some distance from the event and at no time did any of the many present claim they saw Mark Duggan throw ANYTHING in any direction.

‘Do you at least see my point of view?’

Indeed I see your point of view, however I would contend, for the many reasons I have given, that it is unsound.

Do you see my point of view? 😉

Regards,

Greg

His reply was:

 

Sent: 11 January 2014 17:37
To: ‘Greg Lance – Watkins’
Subject: RE: MARK DUGGAN

I think your view is probably better than mine but how come a jury sided with the Police?

Surely 12 members of the public, who know only too well what tossers our Police now are, would NOT have gone along with the sock story etc. 

As to carrying a gun was he not even gun running and did he not discard the weapon onto the grass? Did they find the shoe box?

Even so I stand by my point, OK so not totally applicable in this case, that in the split second it would take for a villain to shoot me I might react to shoot him first and under these circumstances tragic mistakes will happen. 

REDACTED

My reply was:

Normal

Hi,

To answer your questions the lazy way 😉

 ‘I think your view is probably better than mine but how come a jury sided with the Police?’

The jury is by nature intimidated by the law and I would contend the law itself is at fault which on the one hand shows the society to have abrogated on its duty of care for the innocent by failure to ensure a death sentence can be imposed for certain crimes such as murder one, aggravated rape and habitual abuse of children sexual or severe which all too often lead to recidivist repeat! Thus I contend it is morally repugnant to then arm police death squads where the police are so inept they have an avg. 34 armed responses a day yet find that only a tiny number required an armed response per annum and all too often lead to the execution on the streets of those innocent of any capital crime.

That Paul Boteng and Jack Straw were each unable to provide examples of ANY specific life being saved by the use of police firearms when they responded to FoI requests. Further on behalf of the Home Secretaries office they were unable to state the number or type of firearms that were at the disposal of the British police!

I would contend the jury came to a perverse decision based upon a failure to competently interrogate the police who clearly were working on a mere hunch that the miscreant was armed and despite zero evidence beyond the word of a criminal informer, undeclared, that Duggan was armed – a crime for which he had no track record the gratuitously assumed he was armed and could be expected to fire his ‘SOCK’ which the police killer, uncorroboratedly, stated contained a firearm loaded and aimed at him and the jury were told that the police informed the media in a press conference afterwards that Mark Duggan was executed in a ‘SHOOT OUT’ which subsequently transpired to be untrue and which the police failed to correct until proven to have lied!

‘Surely 12 members of the public, who know only too well what tossers our Police now are, would NOT have gone along with the sock story etc.’

12 individuals who spent 3 brain stunningly boring months listening largely to the police stories and police presentation of their ‘STORY’. I understand the police claimed there was a shoebox found in the taxi (empty) further there was no publicly presented claim that it bore DNA evidence that Mark Duggan had ever touched it likewise the sock and the firearm subsequently found some distance away.

As to carrying a gun was he not even gun running and did he not discard the weapon onto the grass? Did they find the shoe box?

The sock and the firearm subsequently found some distance away. – for which there was no plausible way evidenced as to how Duggan may have transported the gun to the distant grassy bank! Let alone without any DNA. There would seem to be no clear evidence with any reasonable plausibility which shows Mark Duggan to have been armed beyond police claims they had been informed by some ‘snout’ of questionable authenticity and reliability and a claimed shoebox and a distant firearm wrapped in a sock neither of which can be linked to Mark Duggan by DNA or clear evidence trail!

‘Even so I stand by my point,’ 

I would contend you and the Governme3nt have failed to make ANY valid case for suspension of a legally enforced death sentence under very specific terms and the subsequent arming of incompetent police who authorise 34 instances a day of police executioners on the street when patently they are inappropriate even by their stamndards in all but a hand full of occassionas per annum.

‘OK so not totally applicable in this case, that in the split second it would take for a villain to shoot me I might react to shoot him first and under these circumstances tragic mistakes will happen.’

More competent police would not put themselves in a potential line of fire and thus would have no need of firearms particularly as they have proven completely incompetent to provide and identify a single instance where their use of a firearm has saved a single life, let alone beyond reasonable doubt! This in the week when a police employee has been arrested for rape and blackmail in North London and another police officer has admitted to having lied with regard to Mitchell re ‘Plebgate’ and claims he will resign! A resignation which I trust the police will have the integrity to reject so that he can be dismissed with ignominy prior to his lengthy prison sentence and loss of any and all pension rights.

Regards,

Greg

 I trust these exchanges help clarify the situation and my thoughts on the issue

.

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 ofOUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  
 

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

FUKUSHIMA Underground Nuclear Explosions 31-Dec-2013

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 02/01/2014

FUKUSHIMA Underground Nuclear Explosions 31-Dec-2013

.

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

.
Hi,

I freely admit I lack the scientific expertise to confirm or refute this media report – however I do believe that it is likely to be correct in the light of the many items of missinformation we the public have been fed on this issue to date!

Underground Nuclear Explosion At Crippled Japan Atomic Plant Shocks World

An ominous edict issued from the Office of the President of Russia today to all Ministries of the Russian Government ordering that all “past, present and future” information relating to Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster now be rated at the highest classification level “Of Special Importance” states that this condition is “immediately and urgently needed” due to a series of underground nuclear explosions occurring at this crippled atomic plant on 31 December as confirmed by the Ministry of Defense (MoD).

“Of Special Importance” is Russia’s highest classification level and refers to information which, if released, would cause damage to the entire Russian Federation.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a catastrophic failure at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on 11 March 2011. The failure occurred when the plant was hit by a tsunami triggered by the 9.0 magnitude Tōhoku earthquake.

The plant began releasing substantial amounts of radioactive materials beginning on 12 March 2011 becoming the largest nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the second (with Chernobyl) to measure at the highest Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

According to this report, MoD “assests” associated with the Red Banner Pacific Fleet detected two “low-level” underground atomic explosions occurring in the Fukushima disaster zone on 31 December, the first measuring 5.1 magnitude in intensity, followed by a smaller 3.6 magnitude explosion moments later.

The MoD further reports that the 5.1 magnitude event corresponds to the energy equivalent in megatons of TNT of 0.0005, while the 3.6 magnitude event equals 0.0000005.

As a comparison, the MoD states that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 by the United States released the equivalent of 16 Kilotons = 0.016 megatons of TNT, about the energy equivalent of a magnitude 6 earthquake, and the largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated was the Tsar bomb, a device exploded by the Soviet Union on 30 October 1961, with an energy equivalent of about 50 megatons of TNT.

Important to note, this report continues, was that the architect of Fukushima Daiichi Reactor 3, Uehara Haruo, warned on 17 November 2011 warned that a “China Syndrome” (aka: Hydrovolcanic Explosion) was “inevitable” due to the melted atomic fuel that had escaped the container vessel and was now burning through the earth.

The MoD further reports that evidence that these underground nuclear explosions were about to occur began after mysterious steam plumes were first spotted on 19 December for a short period of time, then again on 24, 25, 27 December, and confirmed by a report Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) published on its website.

Most curious to note, this report continues, is that the United States appears to have had a more advanced notice of these underground nuclear explosions as evidenced by their purchase earlier this month (6 December) of 14 million doses of potassium iodide, the compound that protects the body from radioactive poisoning in the aftermath of severe nuclear accidents, to be delivered before the beginning of February 2014.

With experts now estimating that the wave of radiation from Fukushima will be 10-times bigger than all of the radiation from the entire world’s nuclear tests throughout history combined, and with new reports stating that dangerous radiation levels have been detected in snows found in Texas, Colorado and Missouri, this MoD report warns the US, indeed, is going to face the severest consequences of this historic, and seemingly unstoppable, nuclear disaster.

And not just to human beings either is this nuclear disaster unfolding either, this report grimly warns, but also to all biological systems as new reports coming from the United States western coastal areas are now detailing the mass deaths of seals, sea lions, polar bears, bald eagles, sea stars, turtles, king and sockeye salmon, herring, anchovies, and sardines due to Fukishima radiation.

As to the American people being allowed to know the full and horrific mass death event now unfolding around them, this report warns, is not be as the Obama regime has, in effect, ordered all of their mainstream news media organs not to report it, and as recently confirmed by former MSNBC host Cenk Uygur who was told not to warn the public about the danger posed by the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant during his time as a host on the cable network.

And with Russian experts now warning that as Fukushima pollution spreads all over Earth (as large amounts of fish, seaweeds, and everything in ocean has been already been polluted, and these products are the main danger for mankind as they can end up being eaten by people on a massive scale) this report warns that Putin’s order to classify all information relating to this nuclear mass death event “Of Special Importance” is vital to protect the economic and social stability interests of the Russian Federation as this global catastrophe continues to worsen by the day.

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
  
 

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

 
%d bloggers like this: