GL-W's WEBlog

The views, reprints & thoughts of Greg Lance-Watkins

Archive for the ‘Christopher BOOKER;’ Category

GP – RN: ‘Free Speech’ & Charlie Hebdo

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 18/01/2015

.

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

Guest Post – Dr. Richard North:
‘Free Speech’ & Charlie Hebdo

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,in the light of my earlier postings on this subject and its background I must admit I was unsurprised to find that both Christopher Booker and Richard North would seem largely to hold the same views, though clearly they have expressed them in a more susinct and less verbose manner!

Though the style may be different it seems the understanding and belief is the same – this I attribute to the fact that both of them are professional journalists whilst I am but a casual (unpaid) blogger, expressing my views and exposing the criminality and venal nature of some in public office.

 EUReferendum

Sunday 18 January 2015

000a Booker-018 Hebdo.jpg

As the founding editor of Private Eye, Christopher Booker has a better claim than most to judge the nature of satire. And, in this week’s column, he explores the dark side of Charlie Hebdo, and the events surrounding the recent horrendous events in Paris.

As the dust begins to settle on those, writes Booker, a clearer sense of perspective is starting to creep in round the edges. The Pope suggests that those who are too provocative to Islam can expect “a punch”. And even a co-founder of Charlie Hebdo says that its murdered editor’s urge to provoke had “dragged the team to its death”.

And it is as the original editor of Private Eye, who over the years has probably contributed as many words as anyone to its “satirical” pages, that Booker has looked askance at much of what has been said and written about these events in recent days.

When David Cameron announced on Twitter that he was joining that vast rally in Paris “to celebrate the values of Charlie Hebdo”, one wondered whether he had even previously heard of that little magazine, let alone looked at its pages.

Did he really wish to celebrate crude cartoons showing a naked Mohammed with a star coming out of his bottom, captioned: “A star is born?” Or another, captioned “The film that embraces all the Muslim world”, showing a naked Prophet holding a camera to his bottom, saying: “And my ass? You love my ass? “

Did our Prime Minister really want to applaud a picture of the Pope, scantily clad as a Rio prostitute, saying: “Ready for anything to win some clients?” Even these are only among the images available online. There are others even more dubious, showing Jesus masturbating and the Virgin Mary engaging in sexual acts.

If this is meant to be “satire” that only someone without “a sense of humour” would find offensive, some might point to that strain of British cartooning exemplified by Gerald Scarfe.

For decades, he has repeated images of some powerful man exposing his bottom to a lesser figure trying to kiss it. At different times, these might have represented Harold Wilson grovelling behind President Lyndon Johnson, or Tony Blair likewise behind President Bush, or David Cameron with Rupert Murdoch.

But this hardly ever has represented satire at the wittiest and cleverest level of which it is capable. (The only cartoon on recent events that evoked a faint smile was one that showed a masked terrorist standing with his gun over a dead cartoonist, saying “He drew first”.)

In trying to understand in human terms why this particular conflict came to such a gruesome climax, we must also call into play the plight of those five million Algerians living in France. For decades, they have lived as third-class citizens, stuffed away in the ghastly concrete suburbs of Paris and other cities, treated with contempt by the authorities and horrifying violence by the police, and this has created a sense of utter alienation and despair.

It is out of that rejection that the terrorists came, with murder in their hearts, seeking deadly revenge for the deliberate insults given to the religion which, however pervertedly, gave them a sense of identity. Thus did we see yet again that age-old pattern whereby opposing extremes feed on their obsessive hatred for each other.

All this culminated in last Sunday’s extraordinary display of emotion on the streets of Paris, led by an array of besuited “world leaders”, with television interviewers rushing round trying to get people to explain why they had wanted to join this demonstration of “solidarity”. With shining exceptions, they replied like automata that they were there to support “democracy” and “the right to free speech”.

No sooner did these pious phrases emerge than one began to wonder how meaningful it is any longer to talk about “democracy” in a Europe where people have never felt more estranged from their politicians – and where they are now so lost and unhappy in the grip of that great act of make-believe, the “European Union”.

How ironic, we thought, that this mass demonstration in favour of “the freedom of the press” should take place in a country whose “Ministry of Culture” has lately detailed the huge state subsidies given to France’s leading newspapers, to help keep its press more cowed and tightly controlled than any west of Russia.

In a time when there is such pressure to prevent people saying things that do not conform with group-think – when every kind of “political correctness” rules; when Christians are arrested for quoting the Bible in the street, for fear of giving “offence to minorities”; when boarding-house owners are prosecuted for not wishing to let rooms to gay couples; when there are calls for “climate change deniers” to be sacked or put on trial; when judges repeatedly threaten people with imprisonment for trying to expose the travesties of justice in their “child protection” system – who really knows what “freedom of speech” is any longer?

There has been no better comment on the clouds of humbug recently billowing in all directions than the admission of BBC employees that they are under an edict from apparatchiks on high that they must not on any account describe to their audiences the contents of any of those Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

It is the kind of thing that made Booker want to put a collective photo-bubble on those shots of the politicians leading two million people through the streets, all in grey unanimity, intoning the words of the old song, “Clap hands, here comes Charlie”. They didn’t really have the faintest idea what they were talking about.

Richard North 18/01/2015

To view the original post CLICK HERE
To view my original post on the background CLICK HERE
To view my original post on Charlie Hebdo CLICK HERE
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

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

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 –
number with-held 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 Charlie Hebdo, Christopher BOOKER;, Richard NORTH, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

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

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/04/2014

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

.

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

.

Hi,

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To view the original CLICK HERE

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

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

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

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

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

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

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

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

#G300* – WHY DO SOCIAL SERVICES SO OFTEN GET IT WRONG?

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 04/07/2010

#G300* – WHY DO SOCIAL SERVICES SO OFTEN GET IT WRONG?
Hi,

here is another look at Social Services – there are obviously mistakes in tollerance and abuse, over use of powers and failure to use them.

Can it be so very difficult to see the difference between cases like the Baby P case and the Debbie & Tony case.

For all the fuss and bluster just look what a mess has occurred because the authorities failed in their duty to step in and a mother paraded her 30 year old daughter who had acute learning difficulties, Downs Syndrome and a mental age of 3.1/2 we are told. Clearly the authorities should have stepped in when the mother with what seems to be a fanciful ‘STORY’ of abuse, cover-up and murder for which there was absolutely no valid evidence but sufficient for the daughter to be turned into a FaceBook cause celebre for the nuttier end of society and an exhibit in studios and at public meetings!

Where were Social Services in the protection of these two vulnerable women over well over a year of lewd publicity?

It is good to see Christopher Booker featured as he clearly deserves it for his work on behalf of these children as StolenKids clearly shows.

For children whatever their age now, who are or were the victims of abuse or sexual abuse there is also the empowering site of StolenChildhood

Posted in Christopher BOOKER; | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: