MONKEY BUSINESS IN THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Ever since I encountered the word 'politics' in my early years I have never understood what it means.  Sure I get the gist of its meaning and I can use the word in conversation and understand essentially what people seem to mean when they use the word.  But like so many things, on deeper examination it seems to transmogrify and extend insidious toxic tentacles into any crack or crevice and extend itself like a fungal infection across borders and domains until just about anything can be said to be infected with the substance that justifies calling it 'political'.

It appears that there is a lot of controversy arising over a proposed Iceland Christmas advert.

I like Iceland.  I knew an intense and creative Icelandic nun at art college and it was Iceland that spawned the incredible, the inimitable, the inspirational, the insightful, the beautiful creative genius and extraordinary singer that is Björk Guðmundsdóttir.  Iceland is also the home of Birgitta Jónsdóttir who was co-founder of the Pirate Party and highly influential in much of the Wikileaks controversy.  She contributed significantly to protecting truth and integrity in the age of mega-meta-data and created the International Modern Media Institute.  It was Iceland that jailed at least 26 high profile bankers in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.

But that is not the Iceland which is the subject of this blog post.  The subject of this post and the surrounding controversy is the British supermarket chain which specialises in frozen food and pre-prepared meals.  Iceland Foods Limited (to use their correct title) planned to run an advert on British television in the run up to Christmas which Clearcast have allegedly banned.  I say 'allegedly' because it seems they don't 'ban' adverts but rather vet them for compliance with various rules and regulations.

Clearcast is effectively an 'independent' advisory service.  (Am I allowed to say "Independent my arse!" in this blog?  But there lies another story.)  Given they claim to be only an advisory service one has to ask one's self which channel is going to risk prosecution by running an advert which Clearcast has refused to clear?  According to a labyrinthine trail of definitions, guidelines, rules, regulations, and laws, Clearcast have determined that they have been "... unable to clear an ad for Iceland because we are concerned that it doesn’t comply with the political rules of the BCAP code."

BCAP stands for the Broadcast Code of Advertising Practice and is the defining standard used by the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) who are a 'self regulating' branch of the advertising industry in the UK.  The ASA, with which Comcast aspire to comply, is a non-statutory entity and as such, nominally, has no controlling power.  Well bugger me if this isn't beginning to sound like some non-specific sexually transmitted disease already.

Ofcom (Office of Communications) is the UK Government approved regulatory authority with responsibility to enforce the various statutory regulation and Acts of Parliament - or, in other words, to enforce the law.  A central law governing this issue of adverts and politics is the Communications Act 2003.  Specifically Part 3 Television and Radio Services ETC, Chapter 4 Regulatory provisions has a section entitled "Programme and fairness standards for television and radio" which contains a sub-section 321 entitled "Objectives for advertisements, sponsorship and product placement" in which clause 2 states: For the purposes of section 319(2)(g) an advertisement contravenes the prohibition on political advertising if it is: (a) an advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature; (b) an advertisement which is directed towards a political end; or (c) an advertisement which has a connection with an industrial dispute.

Well bugger me!

It is quite clear that, according to British Law, it would be illegal to air this particular footage as an advert on UK television.  In fact it seems to breach all three sub-clauses and, as such, is unequivocally in breach of the prohibition on political advertising in this Act of Parliament.

I would love to blame the Tories for this hideous assault on humanity but this Act was passed into law under the auspices of a certain purported war criminal going by the name of Tony Blair.  Tony Blair, lest you were not watching the show, was the latest Fascist Labour leader this country entertained.

If you see this cute little film as a reasonable way to communicate an important message about the harm being done in the pursuit of Palm Oil by psychopathic irresponsible global corporations, what can you do about it?  On one level this is too big an issue to deal with in this little blog.  We need a totally different 'political' structure and we need to pay more attention to the laws being created and the implications of those laws.  But on another level we can promote and publicise this film as much as possible, increase the controversy, complain to every department and politician, and make sure the issue goes viral.  We can support Iceland for raising the issue and for their opposition to the deforestation perpetrated by the Palm Oil industry.  Most importantly we need to change our own minds about the way we understand and respond to society.  We really need to stop complying with the corrupt social conventions which keep us all supporting the status quo.  We need to wreck havoc in the current 'political' landscape.  We must start to act as responsible individuals rather than responsible members of a corrupt and self destructive society.

There is generally too much assumption that the law is somehow good and that to be illegal is morally bad.  Laws, particularly nowadays, are being generated at an increasing rate in the corridors of power by self interested cabals of myopic and dysfunctional individuals.  The law can be wrong.  In fact much of the law is wrong.  It is irresponsible to comply with the law simply for your own convenience and comfort.  We need to break the law more often.  I'm not advocating breaking law for its own sake but rather braking immoral laws.  It is, after all, the only responsible thing to do.

MONETISING POVERTY

"Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X"
by Francis Bacon 1953

Someone posted a link to an article entitled: "Charities delivering DWP’s work programme 'must promise not to attack McVey'" and asked me what I thought. Ref: https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/charities-delivering-dwps-work-programme-must-promise-not-to-attack-mcvey/

Our culture is perverted - in the sense of it being turned from its natural course.  Words are changing meaning and concepts are being transmogrified.  I read a blog the other day which said "Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party should be sanctioned."  The writer appears relatively young and I guess not well read.  For me, I had to re-read it, disentangle it, and finally assess what they most likely meant it to mean.  Of course sanctioning something is to give it official legitimacy but the 'officials' have perverted the word by using it to 'sanction' their own otherwise illegitimate breach of contracts.  The word has now become synonymous with punish.  Punish is a word that simply legitimises (or sanctions) torture.

In the case of charities I don't know for how long they have been an abusive corruption of the concept of 'charity' but I suspect for thousands of years.  Recently, in the last 20 years or so, they seem to have been used quite deliberately by governments and corporations as a form of manipulation and control.

In February of last year I contacted National Debtline via their web chat:
Me: "Here's a question that I would like an answer to: As a charity, where do you get your funding. I'll pre-empt you with a guess; You get it largely from corporations and government. If I am right do you consider there may be a "conflict of interest?"
Him: "We are funded by Government and various banks and fuel companies, we can assure you that our advice is free and independent and we will always look to give you the best advice that suits your needs."
Me: "Hmm. That was predictable. I will apologise in advance if I seem a little unfriendly but I am very cynical and have spent many years seeking help in what I feel is a collapsing culture. And thank you for your frank answer regarding funding. People sometimes try to hide the underbelly of their operations."
Him: "There would be no reason for us to hide this."

I suspect he believed what he said but there is a conflict of interest and the problem with 'conflict of interest' is it's not always conscious or obvious.  It is paradigm orientated.  So the way they think of "debt" (like "sanctions" and "punishment") means something quite different to them than it might to me and yet we will appear to be speaking the same language.

I attempted to get some help from the Citizens Advice Bureau regarding rent and Council Tax some time back and I did point out that they seemed to have a conflict of interest since they are now a registered charity and get the majority of funding from the Council.  They clearly had no idea what I was talking about.  They, of course, couldn't help me because they are largely a triage operation who points people to other charities.  They pointed me to P3 (a charity helping the community or something) and I researched their funding which was primarily the Council.  But I continued along this path and the guy that came regularly to 'help' was only helping me find my way through their (the Council's) labyrinthine, bureaucratic, form filling exercises.  In other words he was helping the Council smooth out the path to whatever demonic realms lie beneath these perverted institutionalised mechanisms.  Genuine help may have included researching, and/or having knowledge about, the actual legality of Council Tax or special sub clauses that allow me to claim all my rent from the Council and/or have all my past 'debt' to the Council from unpaid Council Tax wiped from the record.  But these things were both beyond his capabilities and way outside his sphere of understanding.  He, of course, was eking a meagre living below the minimum wage and probably based on 'expenses' by doing this task which should be the responsible and professional operation of the Council.  Eventually, since I felt I was only being 'helped' to jump through the hoops of the bureaucratic circus ring for their ends and at my expense I wrote them a two page letter explaining how their conflict of interest was doing me more harm than good and pointed out that the help they offered was not the help they delivered and so they had declined to help me.  That will have been tidily filed away to no consequence and the world carries on.

When Mike, my nephew, attempted to take his own life in March last year because of the malicious nature of the DWP and their subcontracted private operators like Atos and Maximus I contacted Sue Marsh.  Sue Marsh was a protagonist in a group fighting the government over their devastating disability program and who produced the Spartacus Report which momentarily hit the headlines.  At some point she was offered a well paid job by Maximus as their Head of Customer Relations and took it.  This is a complex issue and pretty well all her thousands of supporters called her a Judas and decried her for working for the other side.  I entirely understand their perspective.  I made my position and views very clear to her and suggested I wanted to discuss these convoluted mechanism and how they work and the effective role they play in society - but most of all I wanted help for Mike.  Within less than 24 hours his benefits had been reinstated and he has since moved away and, as far as I can tell, is at least in a financially secure situation.  Sue did not take up my invitation to discuss these matters and I understand that too.  The reason I mention this is to close the gap between how charities are working within the greater construct of governments which are essentially subservient arms of the global corporations and how this extends all the way through the system to corporations actively ameliorating the harm they do.  This is, in some sense, the Neoliberal perception in the extreme.  Sue Marsh has been enrolled in a 'charitable' function within the combine harvester of the corporation to assist in reducing the attention grabbing screams of the children they slaughter.

I suspect it is impossible to do charitable work in any other way than a one to one activity nowadays.  If you acquire funds to operate a charity then you have to declare it and register as a charity.  As soon as you do that you become embroiled in the tangled web of the bureaucratic governmental establishment.  And there lies the inevitability of corruption.  They do not administer their hierarchical control at a loss - they couldn't.  And so not only does much of the money one acquires end up in the hands of the establishment, but one now has an inbuilt conflict of interest.  You might recall that the government introduced the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act in 2014 motivated by the desire to silenced the likes of the Trussell Trust and Oxfam regarding the massive increase in food banks in the UK in anticipation of the 2015 General Election.  Then there was the Anti-Advocacy Clause proposed for 2016 which I cannot establish whether it was enacted or transformed and disguised as something else but clearly a contentious piece of proposed legislation.  Now this latest obfuscated attempt to control and constrain charities into contractual straitjackets for the purposes of subcontracting what should be governmental activities in the first place.

It is far too complex and convoluted to attempt to clarify or comprehend without extensive, and probably impractical, research.  But the Government takes taxes to perform functions which it fails to perform and then manages and controls 'non-profit' (and that is virtually meaningless) 'charities', who collect more money from the public, to perform the functions for which they originally taxed the public.  To add to the complexity of this demonic fabrication the government doesn't actually 'collect' taxes it simply prints more money.  The national debt is essentially a record of the money printed and, as such, is not a 'debt' at all.

Charity is a laudable concept but organised charities are an abuse of people's good will and desire to help.  Governments manufacture poverty as a commodity they can monetise via charities they control.

CRAIG MURRAY DOES IT AGAIN

See below for video.

Craig Murray once again clarifies some of the deliberate obfuscation surrounding the Novichok incident.  To be really pedantic I don't believe the government, or even Boris Johnson, have ever categorically stated that they have proof the Novichok was manufactured in, or even delivered by, Russia.  But they have attempted to imply that assertion so strongly that they have definitely got too close to the fire.

In fact they are being hoist on their own petard in this respect.  They attempt to treat the British public, and indeed the rest of the world, as so stupid that they will fall for the intended effect of allusion and implication as if it were the facts.  In other words they have relied on people's reasonable need to have the truth summed up fairly and correctly.  They have abused their privileged positions as ostensibly 'respectable' and 'honourable' Members of Parliament.  The ever increasingly fine lines being used to divide the truth from deception are becoming fractured and meaningless.  The actual effect of these deliberate deceptions is that the public are getting fed up by the relentless lies.

Of this interview Craig Murray says: "Here is some hard truth. And to those who criticise RT as a medium, I should be delighted to tell this on BBC, Sky or ITN but they do not allow people with credible experience telling truths which run counter to the propaganda."

A LETTER TO THE CEO OF THE COUNCIL

Social cleansing and democide.

Dear [Chief Executive Officer]

As a child I was bewildered by images of Nazi death camps.  How could ordinary people end up building railways, infrastructure, and camps to oppress and murder swathes of other people?  I have given this phenomenon a great deal of thought over the years.  There is a lot that has been studied and written about this aspect of the human condition.  Many perspectives contribute usefully to a better understanding of how these disasters come about.  Those perspectives involve psychology, sociology, political theory, statistical analysis, mathematical theories, emergent behaviour, complex systems, fiscal policies, and so much more.

Having found myself financially vulnerable I naturally turned to the Council (amongst others) for whatever assistance was deemed reasonable in today's society in Britain.  I have been attempting to deal with Boston Borough Council for over a year now and I am deeply shocked at what I have encountered.  I refer you to my letters of 10 April 2017 and 8 June 2017 to remind you of some of the issues that are currently impacting upon me.  It seems that the Council's attempts, with their current methods and paradigms, to address and ameliorate the situation are, in fact, exacerbating matters and peculiarly escalating the convoluted, inconsistent, deceptive, and harmful mode of operation.  It seems analogous to a fermenting decomposition that is out of control.

Being somewhat knowledgeable and experienced in software development it is interesting to note that there is a phenomenon referred to as software decomposition.  It occurs when software is constantly altered in an attempt to remove what are called bugs.  Without a proper overview and a deep understanding of the underlying structure the net effect is that the "fixes" increase the complexity and throw up more unexpected and unrelated errors.  The software begins to decompose.  From my perspective in dealing with the Council this phenomenon is quite evidently occurring within the Council.

At the start of this letter I referred to that old cultural icon of the Nazi death camps.  My reason for that reference was to draw attention to the decomposition of British society today.  We are building a sociopolitical infrastructure which is emulating the guiding of the most vulnerable people via procedural railways to virtual incarceration and ultimately psychological and physical destruction.  Grenfell Tower was not a random accident.  No amount of looking for someone to blame is going to resolve the problem.  That would be akin to thinking you could have stopped the Aberfan disaster by finding the one stone that started it all.

So what has brought me to writing this letter to you?  What scale of disaster could possibly have occurred that is so serious I should be writing to the Chief Executive of the Council, my Doctor, my local MP, and others alluding to social cleansing and democide?  It is a remarkably minor incident.  I have been sent a Summons.  Taken out of context, as if everything else were functioning well, the Summons could be viewed as a minor incident which could be handled perfectly satisfactorily in its own right like a parking ticket.  Taking it out of context, however, would be to deliberately ignore the underlying problem and consequently be aiding and abetting the catastrophic context in which it exists.

What is remarkable about this Summons is how small and inconsequential it is in itself; like a small stone in the Aberfan disaster.  I don't know if it is normal practice for the Council to Apply to the Courts immediately the first month of Council Tax becomes overdue but it certainly seems extreme and ridiculous.  It is all the more surprising that the Council, who not only know I do not have enough money to live but have written to me acknowledging that fact and we are in discussions about the situation and I have been assured this would not happen, that they instigate this procedure attaching £75 of costs thereby increasing the debt they wish to impose by 284% for being a month overdue.  Wonga springs to mind and I didn't even borrow the money in the first place.

What could possibly be the meaning of discussions if the Council ignore the content of the discussion and carry on as if nothing had occurred?  In fact it isn't even that is it?  This action is clearly a consequence of those discussions.  It has somehow been unusually prompted by the current events and communications between myself and the Council.  It is, in fact, a startling "up yours" announcement from the Council.  And the disturbing thing is, it is done with legal instruments.  The Council are using the law to actively abuse me.

Not only have the Council hounded and assaulted us for over a year but I have written to explain that.  The Council, for fear of being exposed, immediately addressed the issue albeit insufficiently.  The Council have driven one of us to the point of attempting suicide.  [Dave] has consequently left the area because he cannot survive in this town and has found a more supportive community in Wales.  So the Council didn't quite succeed in killing him but they did get rid of him.  On a national scale this is social cleansing which is not only recognised internationally as a crime against humanity but it is also, in specific cases, clearly counter to any and all espoused and postulated values and intentions.

It really is quite stunning to any sentient, conscious, or rational entity that the Council could have caused such harm to a member of the community and, having been informed of the consequences of their actions and recognising their part in the events, they should not only continue the same behaviour but escalate it to the point of lying to me in a meeting and consequently scraping the bottom of the barrel for any trace of the same mechanism of assault available to them by issuing an Application to the Court for the paltry sum of £40.77.

It really is as if they are entertained by the harm they are causing.  Their behaviour is reminiscent of a child poking an injured bird with a stick.  It has an air of being so innocent, so child like, it lacks even the faintest trace of personal responsibility.  It is fundamentally institutionalised sociopathic behaviour.  It is attempted murder by any general sense of the meaning of that phrase quite regardless of any delineated definition in statute law.

The bigger issue here and what equates to the same constructs that give rise to genocide is that the DWP are also failing and the medical profession is hamstrung  with respect to addressing or dealing with the catastrophic harm being perpetrated by this current Government through its various bloodsucking tendrils via institutions like the Council.

I will be a little harsh here by way of attempting to convey my position clearly.  You may, and certainly some do, find it amusing that I would get so distressed by such a petty bureaucratic vexation.  But the malicious humour would only be a disguise for the inherent inner knowledge of the fundamental transgression against what it is to be human.  Nothing but a human could snigger or scoff at such a self evident, self contradictory, and cruelly harmful state of affairs.  Not only are you party to killing us but you want to hide that fact from public view by way of hiding it from your own conscious awareness.  You want impunity to continue to destroy those around you.

The current limited paradigms by which our culture attempts to interpret these events are now the cause of the problem.  Somehow we have to move beyond this simplistic, rather ignorant, anti-intellectual, dogmatic, authoritarian, oppressive, and catastrophically destructive mode of operation.

To conclude by bringing this letter to what could be interpreted as a more practical level I will explain what needs to happen.  The Council, in line with their purported intentions, need to pay the full rent on our current home.  They need to clear us of any Council Tax Liability.  The DWP need to provide whatever is required to meet the financial demands placed on us by this society to have the bare essentials to live in a half way civilised manner.  The NHS needs to put some serviceable resource into attending to the psychological and now physiological damage that has been inflicted on us by the actions of the Council and the DWP.  Then we could achieve a stable situation in which my daughter and I could recover and begin to be a productive asset to this community.  Failing that, your only justification for being employed is to continue to do harm to us to keep your job.  It is a salient observation that it cost this country well in excess of £20,000 to deal with [Dave] for the three weeks following his attempted suicide because you couldn't afford him his statutory pittance to live.

Do something creative and humane about this please.

Yours sincerely

GRENFELL: A CATALYST FOR A BETTER FUTURE

Sir Martin Moore-Bick to head Grenfell Inquiry?

Let's just have a little think about this.  I've seen too much of it before.  I respect authority.  I was brought up immersed in Roman Catholicism.  I respect authority like Jesus did.  Hypocrites garnished with outward signs of worldly authority are, to paraphrase Jesus, like whitewashed graves, pretty on the outside but full of death and decay on the inside.

I am confident that Sir Martin Moore-Bick is nothing more than a whitened sepulchre.  Do not misunderstand me; I have every sympathy for him and his efforts to varnish his image in the eyes of a God that he has perceived through his own tragically corrupt and myopic vision.  I am confident that he has expended great effort to be good in the eyes of an oppressor that he has mistakenly interpreted to be a benign God.  He is precisely theologically a devotee of Satan.  And as such I am sorry for his soul and his eternal damnation.

I have spent the best part of my life struggling to understand the apparent paradox of believing in a God who will not reveal himself and conveniently provides a fallen angel in the form of Satan who is so clever he could fool anyone.  I have represented this metaphor in my imagination as me drowning in the sea and being offered a rope to cling to from an unseen source.  Roman Catholicism (as with many organised religions) presents the case that God is offering a rope and all I have to do is trust the Lord and grab the rope.  But it is also implicit in the theology that I could not tell the difference between a rope offered by a benign God and a rope offered by Satan himself.  A veritable paradox it would seem.

I am happy to report that I have resolved the paradox.  It is not so easy for me to convey that perception in a post on the internet or I would be here to save the world and all souls in it.  But it is clear to me that anyone who damages another soul is destined for the ravages of hell fire.  There is a subtle issue to be understood here and it is that the act of damaging another soul is not the same as an interaction which results in harm to another.  If you are forced into an inevitable conflict and you struggle and those harming you are harmed then it is not you who have harmed them because they manufactured the situation in which they became harmed.  There is, to simplify it, every difference between defending what is right against the imposed forces of evil and interfering with an innocent soul for the purposes of self gratification and aggrandizement.  If you approach others in need for the sole purpose of benefiting from their plight then you are nothing more than a soulless cadaver.

I might speculate that the resolution of the drowning man allegory may lie in the notion that you are already provided with the wherewithal to swim.  It is only fear that leads you to reach out for external help and distracts you from the inner knowledge that you can swim.  Any attempt to rely on a magic or imaginary solution such as a rope from an unknown source is destined to failure.  It is not a gamble, it is a most certain failure.  You are, so to speak, in the water to swim.  If you find a way to fail yourself and not swim then you have failed.  It is almost as obvious as a simple equation.

To bring this back to Sir Martin Morbid and Grenfell Tower there is no amount of pretentious pondering and sycophantic pontificating which is going to render a satisfactory resolution to this, as yet, incomprehensible issue.  There is no external hierarchical authority that is going to fix this for the traumatised, dismayed, and confused collective masses.  There is no mileage in making a bargain with authoritarians to save our sorry souls.  There is only us.  The resolution resides in all of us and we cannot abdicate our personal human responsibility to others as if making them responsible for our lives allows us to continue to play in gay abandon believing they will protect us from ourselves.  They will not and they cannot.  All we are doing is grabbing the rope to avoid swimming and there lies the inevitable failure, the bargain with the devil, the loss of our own souls.

It is clear to the objective observer that the Grenfell disaster is the consequence of a flawed social structure.  It is immediately clear that any resolution resides in correcting that failed system.  This is not about revolution but rather revelation.  Not one of us can count ourselves as guiltless in this most dreadful manifest consequence of humanity's worst excesses.  All of us kowtow to an illusory external authority.  It is part of the very ingredients by which we arrive.  We are born vulnerable and dependent.  We absolutely rely on the efforts of others to help us grow and develop into autonomous, responsible, powerful, creative, compassionate, human adults.  Every irresponsible act as an adult towards a child or anyone vulnerable is a transgression of the natural laws by which we are bound.  There is no bargain to be made with God (using the theological allegorical construct).  God simply is.  That is how things are.  The only swapping of power, the only shifting of responsibility, to be had is against the balance of nature and, as such, with Satan.

As adults we are obliged to take personal responsibility for the society and culture in which we live.  We must collectively alter the arrangement and hierarchy of our society.  It is perfectly serviceable to have representatives whilst they are entirely vetted by the collective spirit.  It can never work to hand power over to others to rule over us.  It is not even in the nature of the beast to be able to handle that responsibility.  No small limited set of humans could ever be responsible for all others.  We can no longer tolerate this extreme distortion of power.  Every one of us is responsible for opposing abuse and oppression whenever we encounter it.  It is always easier if it is done piecemeal as we encounter it than when we allow it to get so far out of control that we have a tiny set of elite oligarchs looking after their own interests under the auspices of a hideously distorted and illusory edifice of constructed power.

There is a groundswell of intelligence rising through the hearts of the people that can lead us out of the fabricated materialistic intellectualised illusions of our abusive hierarchy.  In Britain the crest of the wave is currently in the Labour Party as led by Jeremy Corbyn.  It is not Corbyn who will lead us out of this mess, it is what he espouses and we must all understand it.  He is just the vessel resonating that which is good in all of us.  We must relieve these lost souls of the Tories and neoliberals from the burden of their own corruption.  We are not here to save their souls, they are already lost, we are here to sweep them and their ideas from the face of the earth.  If we want Grenfell to render a better future, if we want to honour the dead and the traumatised of Grenfell, if we want their lives and their suffering to mean something creative and good, then we must end this tyrannical and abusive attitude in society.

Join the Labour Party.  Talk to people.  Ignore the bullshit headlines designed to traumatise your very soul.  And if you are confused and don't understand something then look it up on the internet and solve that first puzzle in your mind for yourself.  Don't leave it to the media to lie to you.  Be active, be responsible, be creative, and you will have a happier life as well as improving the culture around you.  We have to reconstruct our cultural base, our youth centres, our libraries, our health and social welfare facilities, our education system, and our collective resources from the desolate wasteland of destruction caused by Neoliberalism and these materialistic, profit driven, Tory bastards.

Mr Sir Fucknut Morbidity himself neither can nor will render anything meaningful from his sanctimonious ivory tower of self delusion.  All he will offer is a few scapegoats and some thinly veiled excuse for why the rich and powerful were not to blame.

But there is a better future in sight now, and we must not fail to grasp it with extreme urgency.  There can be no lull, no moment to rest, no evasion of responsibility.  The elite are a wounded monster and as such they must be defeated now before they have the chance to run amok in their terror and their death throes and finally lay waste to humanity.

As Corbyn quoted Shelly at Glastonbury 2017: "Rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to earth like dew, which in sleep had fallen on you – ye are many, they are few."

Whatever happened to free speech?

Paul Grange's offensive t-shirt

There is a man called Paul Grange who visited a local public house sporting a t-shirt with the words "HILLSBOROUGH Gods way of helping RENTOKILL". [article in Belfast Telegraph] This caused a twitter storm and gained much media attention.  What I am seeing on Facebook is a lot of derision and disgust.  What is a little disturbing is the demonization of the man.  But even that seems within the bounds of free expression.  What seems dubious is to harass and threaten the man.  Understandable; it is, after all, a pretty ignorant, cruel and very provocative attitude to advertise on your t-shirt.

What bothers me most is the way this issue is used as a distraction from the instigators of the root problem.  Our political system needs tearing down and that's where the focus of attention should be.  Allowing the vicious, oppressive, authoritarian elite to "bring to justice" one individual, one misguided, indoctrinated pawn of the system, as if that gives them some credibility should ring alarm bells in all right minded and right hearted people.  The whole Hillsborough affair was about the insidious, deceitful, manipulative, malevolent authoritarian hierarchy literally getting away with murder.

What did happen to free speech?  It seems the frightened sheep will bustle around the hideous punitive teacher, jeering and feigning indignation in an attempt to garnish favour, whilst teacher satisfies their bloodlust by making an example of the offender.  It's like Salome's proxy request for John the Baptist's head on a plate to satisfy some other unrelated guilt.

Of course I am courting controversy to raise this issue and to question and even condemn the extreme vilification and calls for punitive "justice" of Paul Grange.  The man has a right to express his opinion.  It seems the landlord dealt with the situation quite admirably.  He was polite and asked the man to leave the pub.

I find the hue and cry seriously disturbing.  One might hate the sentiment expressed on this guys shirt but he has a right to an opinion and no one has to vote for him.  Instead, it seems, people will gain relief at his condemnation by the authority of the law and will soon be voting for politicians who are the inception, the enactment, the manifestation of the crimes that were committed at Hillsborough.  But our political system is far far worse than Hillsborough.  Our government with all its corruption is currently in the act of stealing all the resources from the people of this country, literally subjugating and enslaving them, whilst entertaining themselves driving the world to a nuclear war which may well destroy the entirety of humanity.

I know it is complex and a little difficult to handle but this issue, being so prominent in the main stream media and in the consciousness of the population, is actually a hysterical act of victim blaming and a frightening distraction from the real evils afoot.  It is, maybe inadvertently, supporting the oppressors.  It is exactly what the oligarchs want, predict, need, and foster.

Why would anyone waste time on this guy?  In a local context if I saw him I would probably tell him what I thought of the sentiment.  He might head-butt me; he looks stronger and more energetic than me.  I might end up in the Accident and Emergency department of the local hospital waiting for five hours for an overworked underfunded medical service (deliberately deprived by the authorities now being called upon) to give me a stitch or two and a pain killer.

I have to give Paul Grange credit for feeling so oppressed himself that against significant social pressure and conditioning he makes such a deliberately provocative statement by way of asserting his own sense of pride and dignity.  He's daring anyone to criticise him.  Well they did and the shit hit the fan and that is reasonable.  But what really scares me the most is how this feeds into the social and cultural conditioning of this nation.  By vilifying this man to such an extreme and effectively calling on the authorities (the known warped and corrupt authorities) to act against him the people are acting out the same insanity as David Cameron can verbally make explicit on the world stage of the United Nations [Cameron's 2014 UN speech] when he said "We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism."  He went on to say "Of course there are some who will argue that this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry."  It is a very dangerous road to travel to try to silence people who are frustrated and do not accept the current consensus, the  official line, or simply don't hold the same pleasant views as yourself.  People need to express their views and if they take offensive and harmful action that is the time to intervene.

How do people call on the authority that for years vilified the Hillsborough fans to serve justice on one jerk that prints an offensive message on his t-shirt?  Those authorities are currently supporting the rape and pillage of this country by something far worse than a global Mafia style elite.  But they, in the guise of puppet politicians, will lie to you and you will vote for them.  At least Paul Grange had the guts to state his position.  But the politicians won't state their position because their intention is to sidle up to you and stab you in the back.

It is a philosophical minefield but I am currently still of the opinion that words should be met with words and not punitive action.  In my opinion the views expressed on Paul Grange's shirt are despicable and saying so should be enough.  If people want to get indignant and even hysterical and want action taken then I wish they would aim their anger up the fucking line at the hideous power structure that is destroying this country and the entire world.

Letter to Cameron re Osborne's poisoned chalice.

David Cameron MP Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA

8 September 2014

Dear David Cameron

Could you please inform me (and the general public) whether you authorised George Osborne's claims, on 7 September 2014, regarding more autonomy for Scotland which were reported in numerous national papers.  Is this an official Conservative Party policy announcement or an arbitrary unofficial pronouncement with no authority?

The Guardian reported that Osborne said "... a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland. More tax powers, more spending powers, more plans for powers over the welfare state." and went on "... the moment there is a no vote in the referendum."

I bring this to your attention urgently because if the Chancellor has gone rogue I fear your silence on the matter may make you and the Conservative Party accessories to the illegal act of attempting to affect the results of a referendum with bribery at the eleventh hour.

A veritable poisoned chalice from which you may be inadvertently drinking.

This is a very serious matter and I would appreciate your urgent response.

Yours sincerely




Sam Spruce
B.A. M.Sc. MBCS CITP

photo credit (image altered by TD): The CBI via photopin cc

My letter to Cameron re. George Galloway attack.

David Cameron MP Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA

2 September 2014

Dear David Cameron


I was shocked to hear of the attempted murderous assault on George Galloway MP in London on Friday 29 August 2014 resulting in a dislocated jaw, severe injuries to his skull and broken ribs.

I am even more shocked at the deafening silence emanating from Westminster and in particular you and your Conservative Party over this matter.

Your contradictory messages are becoming bewildering.  It seems your government can support the murder of thousands of dispossessed civilians in a besieged enclave including hundreds of children and all done with internationally illegal weapons and entirely against international law.  You fortify Cardiff to a ridiculous extent, inconveniencing the local population to a serious degree, to protect a bunch of foreigners who seem to want to vilify Russia, without reasonable evidence, for being next door to a country whose democratically elected government were overthrown by a violent coup which you support.  You happily respond to a hoax video of a journalist being executed in a Guantanamo Bay jump suit by an alleged Islamic State persona by attempting to terrorise the British public that dangerous "terrorists" are going to attack us all in our beds and to attempt to introduce new laws which are utterly draconian to the point of being against international law and the Declaration of Human Rights.  But on the subject of an elected, and well respected, British Member of Parliament being savagely assaulted and nearly killed on a street in London you remain silent.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Tory Party is a bunch of intellectually challenged rich thugs who think themselves above the law and are happily desecrating British society sending this country into the Dark Ages whilst getting high on one drug or another.  There seems not one ounce of political integrity in the whole Tory Party.

Consider me profoundly shocked.


Yours sincerely




Sam Spruce
B.A. M.Sc. MBCS CITP

My letter of support for Cameron's policy on Israel

David Cameron MP Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA

11 August 2014

Dear David Cameron

I write to you as the current occupier of the position of Prime Minister of Great Britain and I respectfully request that you pass this message on to all the members of your government.

I wish to extend my thanks to you for your policies in the Middle East and in particular for your staunch support for the beleaguered state of Israel.

Had you been a little more circumspect it is possible that a large proportion of UK citizens may not have realised the severity of the problems and issues involving Israel.  But you and your government have been clear and straightforward in your unwavering support of Israel and its right to defend itself.  Had you not rallied the media, and the BBC in particular, to help support the desired view that the troubles in that part of the world were relatively minor and, although unpleasant, were right and morally justifiable, many people may have thought the Israeli response to the three murdered children in the West Bank was an overreaction.

Your government's statements, policies and actions have effectively resolved a transition in my life which some might call a paradigm shift.  It is more than that because I have always been a supporter of truth and justice but I have also always been dismayed at the apparent irresolvable paradoxes in the world of politics.  But you have provided me with an almost profound clarity.

During the second World War the people of Britain refused to be intimidated by a brutal dictator and their resolve was even strengthened in the face of the blitz.  People were willing to endure the most awful conditions to stand united against oppression.  During these more recent difficult times of economic depression in Britain your government has rallied the people to stand together and endure hardship to get this country through the bad times.

There are, of course, the opposing views that bailing out the banks, reducing the benefits bill, cutting back on legal aid, withholding money from poor residents to reduce the spare room subsidy bill, holding down minimum wage and public sector pay rises, cutting back on the arts, lending money to youngsters for their education, 'sanctioning' the illegal withholding of unemployment payments, vetting the sick and disabled, forcing people to work for private companies for their unemployment benefit thereby profiting the private company at the expense of the 'hard working' tax payer (which is tantamount to slavery)  and so many of your tough decision are not a good thing.

But you were in danger of getting away with it.  Then Israel let the proverbial cat out of the bag.  What were you to do?  How could you oppose oppression?  So without really understanding what you were doing you reacted in the only way possible - you defended Israel.  You defended the indefensible.  You defended the most barbarous, inhumane, savage, cruel, ruthless, bizarre, obscenity enacted by a world power against innocent civilians trapped in an enclave, blockaded and impoverished for years and held down by a UK backed military dictatorship called Egypt.  Wow!

Now I understand.  Had you come out against the overt crimes being committed by Israel you may have maintained the illusion.  Israel is acting illegally and they are using illegal weapons.  I don't know if you are aware but it doesn't take the United Nations or the International Criminal Court to make a crime exist, it only takes them to acknowledge that it is a crime.  They are clearly impotent at the moment - that does not change the facts.  Your policies have exposed your true perspective and agenda.  Your response to the genocide in Gaza has revealed your complicity in this insane behaviour of the Western powers.  Had you objected to the slaughter of innocents with the most heinous weaponry by your ludicrous ally I might not have realised that it is your very paradigm to oppress and devastate humanity for your own benefit.

You have effectively been rumbled.  You have become transparent.  Your deceptions, double standards, immorality and criminality have been exposed.  People can see right through your facade of moral righteousness to the wretched, self serving, pathological insanity within.  You have inadvertently precipitated an awakening of consciousness in the UK.  It is for that reason that I thank you "for your policies in the Middle East and in particular for your staunch support for the beleaguered state of Israel."  It is beleaguered by its own compulsive dysfunctional behaviour.  It appears you are of the same mindset.

I will not be voting Conservative at the next election.

Yours sincerely





Sam Spruce
B.A. M.Sc. MBCS CITP

"We Are Better Than This"

Gaza in the morning of 29 July 2014

Since the article: "We Are Better Than This" by Hilary Stauffer in the Huffington Post only allows for a 250 word comment I decided to put my reply on my blog.  Here it is:

So do I start with the good or the bad?

I am sorry to say that I am mildly unimpressed by Hilary Stauffer's attempt to intellectualise a complex human problem.  And I am a little bewildered at the italicised poetic ditty at the end of each paragraph.  There is an evident risk of a subtle smug self-righteousness weaving its way through this article.

On an intellectual basis Hilary Stauffer is on safe grounds by raising lots of reasonable and relatively indisputable affirmations.  I guess experience as a "legal adviser" and as a "lawyer" would contribute to that.  Many people wish the mob wouldn't go for their torches and pitchforks so readily but it is predictable and needs dealing with rather than dismissing.  Of course both sides are wrong in some respects and I am often dismayed by this notion that finding something wrong with the other side appears to justify some other wrong on this side.  Something missing is the realisation that we are all wrong sometimes and it doesn't prove that someone else is right.

Given that the whole situation with Israel and Palestine is a devastating tinderbox it is not enough to effectively excuse or justify one side or both with the implication of 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'.  If it were as simple as that one could, I guess, let them get on with it.  This vague amelioration avoids the fundamental problem that is giving rise to the unacceptable inhumanity.

There is unacceptable inhume behaviour happening.  That is what first motivates people to react.  Some (the approach that I wish to favour) are stunned and wounded by the human tragedy that is being perpetrated.  Some (in my view sadly) appear to react to the fear it triggers in them and they dehumanise the victims whilst looking for justification to appease their pain (some might call it conscience).  But, ironically, the majority of reactions, to give credit to the ditty, actually indicate that we are better than this.  It is because we care, and fear for others as well as ourselves, that people have such strong feelings.  So there is something that could be humanly (whether legally or not) called a crime being committed.

And here perhaps lies the crux of the matter.  The Israeli government's slaughter of so many innocent civilians in such appalling conditions is wholly disproportionate and violent in the extreme.  They are the sophisticated, powerful, educated, 'civilised' dominant partner.  Israel is, by virtue of the relationship, the 'responsible' party.  They have to find a better way.

I hear so much polarising, analogising and personifying of the situation one could be forgiven for forgetting this is about the dynamics of large populations and powerful vested interests.  Some do tend to imagine themselves as Israel living in a house being threatened by their scummy, primitive and violent neighbours who would ransack their house and kill all their children given half the chance.  Some imagine themselves as the Palestinians as the rape victim being tied up in the cellar and abused by a malevolent self interested psychopathic predator.  But trying to disentangle the situation by cognitively flip-flopping about two possible analogies only really illustrates the apparent intractability of the problem.

One has to get one's head outside of the problem and see it from as many perspectives as possible.  It then becomes clear that the violence must stop.  Given the shocking level of slaughter (I calculated: 16 times worse than the blitz per day) by the Israeli army it is incumbent upon them to stop this right now.  There is simply no legitimate excuse for this level of inhumanity.  This is such an extraordinary imbalance of power that it beggars belief that anyone could suggest there is any semblance of equivalence between the parties or any 'argument' thereof.

I have read up on Theodor Herzl and Zionism and it is clear the philosophy is based on the strange notion that there is 'us' and the rest of the world.  I am not a political animal or analyst but any philosophy, be it about nature, people, science or whatever that discards part of the whole as 'the other' is an incomplete philosophy doomed to failure.  Unfortunately the concept or manifestation of Israel must 'belong' to its environment and that includes the people around it.  The same applies to the Palestinians (much as they may wish Israel, as a state, had never been imposed on them).  Israel is, of course, entirely funded by that superpower the USA (plus some).  The USA, along with the UK and Europe are clearly building an 'empire' and control of the Middle East is vital.  Although I don't for one moment suppose Israel could easily 'integrate' it certainly can't whilst it is an American outpost.  So the summary is that the West (they have called themselves the New World Order) is forcibly imposing itself on the Middle East with Israel as the unfortunate front man.

Before the 'Jewish State' had even been manifest the Zionist philosophy was to spirit the indigenous population away by means of subtle appropriation of land and property and by denying the indigenous populating any employment.  Not only is this announced in their philosophy but it is quite clearly evidenced in their behaviour.  When the impoverished and subjugated population around them cry out that they want to destroy their oppressor there is no human justification for slaughtering their children because of some projected interpretation of what they might do if they were powerful.  This is the response of a dominant oppressive regime to stifle any possible future imagined threat.

Israel has indulged in the use of illegal weapons including, but unlikely limited to, "White Phosphorus", "Flechette" and "DIME" against civilians.  These are acknowledged transgressions.  They have also indulged in behaviour that is internationally deemed illegal one way or another by targeting schools and hospitals which under the current circumstances are in no way justified by their feeble claims that there are weapons in those buildings.

The overview is clear and Hilary Stauffer would be better employed using her superior legalese to state the case against Israel because, in this instance, they are unequivocally wrong.  If any Islamic state were doing this to Israel (after generations of impoverishment) it would be equally wrong.  The fundamental issue is that this behaviour is not something the human race wants to indulge in - not consciously anyway.

It is such a pity to see such beautiful intellectual prose, with added poetic ditty, put to such sinister and feeble amelioration of such inhumanity.  I am opposed to this insane slaughter and will remain so forever regardless of who is perpetrating it.

The Queen's Brain is Fracked.

Ok so I'm very distressed today.  Not only do Atos wake me when I am deeply asleep for the only 2 hours I got last night, leaving me shaking with my heart pounding and 'fluttering' (or more like positively gurgling in the most disturbing way) but I am left listening to the most appalling insanity being spewed out across the air waves by Radio 4.

The illusion of freedom.

So there we are like cattle being herded to the slaughterhouse through a number of channels.  Unlike cattle we come to junctions and, to allay our fears, there are kindly looking people explaining that we are free to chose which way to go.  "This is a democracy;  You can choose which way to go.  Would you like to go to the right or to the left?"  Too true we can choose but it's all going to the same end point.  Loki was right " It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation."

Radio 4 informs me that:
1: The queen has a new coach.
2: Fracking under your house will become legal.
3: A new 5p charge will be applied to supermarket plastic bags.

I don't know where to begin!

1. I looked into the Queen's new coach - "Not literally, fool!" - officially named "State Coach Britannia" and it is a far more interesting story than I had anticipated.  I love art and craftsmanship and this coach excels in many respects.  It is not only a traditional ornate masterpiece of coach building but it encapsulates an extensive range of historical artefacts from the Mary Rose to the Stone of Scone.  At only a few million quid's worth when you consider the years it took to build I can't help feeling that although it represents the opulence of the dominant plutocratic class it is actually and ironically a jolly good thing in itself.  Of course the inequality across the globe and in the UK is disgusting, unacceptable and inhumane and as such this artefact is symbolic of the abusive nature of our culture but compare it with the neoliberal madness, the corporate insanity and the utterly dehumanising nature of industrialised manufacturing and what we have in the coach is a lot of dedicated and creative people working diligently with integrity and skill on an individual masterpiece with some functional purpose.  Human beings at their best - just a pity it is in the service of such a ridiculous hierarchy.  But 'value for money' is probably surprisingly true.

So my presumption that the tax-payer (what a fucking stupid bit or Orwellian doublespeak) had been robbed to provided the Queen with more moreness was partially wrong and the whole topic is too complex to sum up because the artistic endeavour is good and the sycophantic adoration of authority is bad so I will simply leave it at that for the time being.

But items numbered 2 and 3 are simply overt madness.

2. In the Queen's speech of 4 June 2014, in only her second sentence, she says "My government’s legislative programme will continue to deliver on its long-term plan to build a stronger economy and a fairer society." That is simply not true.  Some would call it a lie.  Some people may believe that the lunatic neoliberal philosophy will deliver more fairness but there is no substantial rational or logical indication that it could nor is there any evidence to date to support that belief.  The evidence that is available clearly indicates it creates inequality which as far as the English language stands today means a reduction in fairness.  And in line with the usual perverse political doublespeak she goes on to say "The Bill will enhance the United Kingdom’s energy independence and security by opening up access to shale and geothermal sites and maximising North Sea resources."  Well that makes it sound like a jolly good idea.  "Enhance UK's independence" from what?  The unspoken assumption is from dependence on the supply of oil from other countries (arguably breaching the fair trade agreements with those countries and their ability to profit from the UK) but this is not made explicit and there is also the unspoken assumption that destroying the geological integrity of this country is a reasonable manner in which to achieve that "independence" which it is not.  If the UK wishes to be 'independent' there are numerous ways of achieving that but the Queen goes on to say "by opening up access to shale and geothermal sites".  So the objective is not independence but rather the 'method' of achieving that condition.  Independence is the excuse not the objective.  The objective is to enable fracking in the UK and even this is denied any explicit mention by, instead, obliquely referring to "shale and geothermal sites".  So, inherent in the wording is the overt guilt that what is being done is illegitimate.  What this woolly wording aims to obscure is the real subject of breaking the laws governing trespass.  Because the oil and gas industry cannot damage the underlying structure of land which is owned by someone else this makes it impractical for them to indulge in their massively destructive process of eking out the traces of gas in the geology of Britain.  The intent is to write new laws making it 'legal' to steal other people's gas and destroy the land upon which their house is built.  This is legalising theft by large corporations- as simple as that.  It is not only insane it is also cruel and unacceptable.

3. This would be funny if it were not so incredibly gratuitous and profoundly stupid.  The Queen, with her very royal fucking vocal chords, then uttered the insane nonsense "My government will continue to implement major reforms to the electricity market and reduce the use of plastic carrier bags to help protect the environment."  The most amazing thing is that one expects the Queen to have standards even if her speech writer is an ignorant arsehole.  Yet again the actual subject remains unspoken.  The subject is 5p on supermarket carrier bags.  The wording yet again refers to an excuse not an objective.  And the excuse is overtly contradictory with other issues raised in the same speech - namely fracking.  How, exactly, is fracking protecting the environment?

The stark stupidity is stunning to anyone with the slightest ability to string two thoughts together.  It seems the Queen's brain has been fracked for profit.

Britain could achieve energy independence by investing in wind, sun and sea power which we know are more environmentally friendly than oil and gas.  Supermarkets already produce biodegradable plastic bags and could easily provide free paper bags.  But what is so insidious about this is that it is another tax on the poor masquerading as an environmental issue specifically to distract from the corporate rape and murder of the ecology of Britain.

Bitcoins and rhinos

Blogs eh!?  What to do with them.  Some people write seriously investigative and revealing articles that are interesting enough to read and you feel you have learnt something at the end of it.  Me - I sometimes write interesting stuff but more often than not it is a ramble or a tirade of abuse or a surreal rampage but, to me, some are worth reading and some are not.  I can never tell which are the best until later.

HOWEVER - This time I have a few important gems to share.

Here is the Max Keiser Report (episode 521) for 8 November 2013.  It is worth a watch. One nice quote from Max "Gold, silver and bitcoin are, to the banksters, what crucifixes and garlic are to vampires."

And on the subject of democracy and the false presentation of reality via our media networks he mentioned the Million Mask March saying "Just this week we had the 'Million Masked March' which was replicated all over the world.  Thousands of people on the streets.  It wasn't on the BBC which is the main media outlet in this country.  It wasn't on their main story for their main network.  It wasn't even on their local London news.  It wasn't covered at all."

He was also talking to Zac Goldsmith, a (Conservative - eek) Member of Parliament for Richmond Park who, on the subject of the 'Economics of Extinction' said "We had evidence in parliament the other day from a Chinese lady who said that there are investment companies, now, who hoard Rhino horns for exactly the same reasons, and there are people who suspect them for being behind some of the killings we seen because, obviously, wipe out the rhino in the wild, their stock is worth an absolute fortune."

If you have watched the video you will know that Zac Goldsmith has an HM Government e-petition to "Introduce a proper Recall mechanism for MPs" which needs signing.  Did you get that?  It NEEDS signing.

More information here...
The Steeple Times: Total Recall - Zac Goldsmith MP launches petition

And the PETITION is here --> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56449

Is the UK government committing genocide?

NxtGenUK

I watched the video below and my eyes nearly popped out of my head.  NxtGenUK has a giant talent for poetry and facts as well as an astute political awareness.  This is very important.

So I was impressed - and it got me to thinking how I consider these policies of the UK government to be close to genocide, so I looked up 'genocides in history' on Wikipedia.  It sent shivers down my spine.  Clearly I have to do some more research but for now this is part of the opening paragraph on Wikipedia:

It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) of 1948 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the groups conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

UK Children Services confiscated over 10,000 children in 2010 from their parents (and it seems the number per annum is increasing).  More than 10,600 people died within six weeks of being found 'fit for work' in the first 11 months of the Atos test introduced by the DWP (that is about 12,000 per annum and probably rising). We know people are committing suicide because of the insane and ruthless welfare cuts.  Legal aid has been slashed.  People are forced to work for their benefits putting other people out of work and on benefits.  It is expected that the deaths due to fuel poverty will rise yet again this year.  Approaching half a million people use foodbanks and the Red Cross has launched an emergency food parcel program for the UK.

It is clear that significant aspects of genocide are occurring.  There is no doubt that a 'national' group, the poor, is being targeted (the poor include disabled, sick, elderly, and unemployed).  It is clear that they are being destroyed in part.  It is clear the welfare reforms are causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group.  It is clear that the policies are inflicting conditions of life which are bringing about physical destruction in part.  And there is frightening evidence of forcibly transferring children to another group.

Discussions about charging IDS and other members of this government with genocide have stalled on a number of accounts including 'intent'.  A valid question would be: if it is not 'intentional' is there some serious suggestion that it is 'accidental'?  IDS has lied about the death toll figures.  Those figures were mysteriously removed from the government web site but reappeared when a storm blew up.  His department has repeatedly, and illegally, refused to respond to FOI requests about the death toll.  The DWP have stated that they are no longer counting the death toll after Atos examinations.  Possibly a majority of the UK population 'know' this is an assault on the poor.  I say that because there are those who clearly see it that way and then there is the 'negative' press 'justifying' austerity by denigrating the target (the poor, the sick, the mentally ill, the elderly, the disabled etc).  By denigrating the target it is an implicit acknowledgement of the assault because the suggestion is 'they deserve it'.  There is quite a large consensus that what is happening is a crime;  The problem is prosecuting the government.

Is this UK government indulging in the international crime of genocide?

There are attempts to deal with the genocidal aspects of 'austerity' as discussed on Vox Political: Greek case for austerity “genocide” creates hope in UK.

Please give me any leads you can and I will attempt to investigate further.

Why is all this irrational junk accepted?

This is just a meander.  Why?  Because there are too many issues taking up my time which are important but there is no time to do them justice.  But then this seems to be how it is meant to work.  And the associated image has no relevance to the text except that politicians are wallies.

I was listening to the radio this morning and although I usually like to check my references, get my facts right and generally make sure the writing is correct and that the references are supplied and can be validated I am not going to do this on this occasion because the message is more important than the medium.  The medium, in this case, being the examples which illustrate the point.  The point being that utter bullshit is being swallowed whole by the British public on a daily basis.

So I am listening to the radio hoping to get back to sleep.  It is the Money Program, or something similar, and the gentleman presenting the program has a droning sort of voice ideal for somnambulising me.  But he is talking about John Lewis and some situation where they have been underpaying their workers.  Oh the details!  The wonderful details.  The long and the short of the story is that JL have 'discovered' that they have been underpaying workers due to complex European regulations relating to holiday pay and how it is worked out.  Having acknowledged that they have been underpaying folk they have agreed to put the situation right and to back pay all the underpayments.

But there is a catch!  They are only going to do that for the people who could cause them a problem if they don't.  People who have left the company and are rightly owed some money WILL NOT get what they contractually deserve.  It is a contract and it is legal.  John Lewis OWE them the money.  But, and this is the bit that causes the problem for me - NOTE - I didn't say it WAS the problem for me and there is a reason for this;  It is the issue that causes the problem. 'It', the 'bit' or the 'issue' is that due to recent changes in the law it will no longer be economically viable for people to make a claim against John Lewis.  The law has recently changed such that if you want to claim justice, if you want a tribunal to ascertain if, or that, JL owe you the money you have to pay a non refundable £400 for the privilege.  Of course you will need a lawyer, or a degree in law (costing thousands of pounds borrowed from ... from who exactly?  Currently it is the government that 'lends' money for education but that is just step-politics until you get either used to it or dependent at which point they will 'privatise' the loan system with the banal suggestion that it is to make it more competitive and ultimately cheaper to the customer.  But there is no competition when the government are 'providing' loans at no profit to 'the government' because 'the government' is the system by which we 'govern' 'us'.  Those jerks in suits acting like spoilt toffs are the people representing us in the 'house of discussion' - You know The House of Parliament.  There is no 'government' which is them and not us.  They cannot take money from us because they are us.  They can't make a profit from us.  If they could they would no longer be representing us.  But all that is too much for the ignorant population to understand so they carry on with their irrational junk justifications for whatever it is they want to do next to get their rocks off at our expense.)

This is how it turns into a rant.  Getting back to the point: The politicians have used the mask of austerity to claim that legal aid is a drain on the hard working people of this country.  (Note the divisive and prejudicial verbiage "hard working".)  But what they have really done is only made 'expensive', or large sums, affordable for justice.  To people with money this seems to appear to be like it not being worth stopping your Lamborghini in the street to get out and bend over to pick up a 20p piece.  I think all of us could understand the rational of that.  But what the politicians seem to deliberately ignore and the ignorant public don't notice is that very few people have Lamborghinis .  It is true that it is not worth stopping your Lamborghini for 20p.  It probably costs that in petrol just to stop and start the car.  But for poor people who only have a pound, when they drop 20p they have to stop and pick it up.  After all it is 20% of what they have.  20% of the Lamborghini alone (not counting the mansion you have to have first and the garage with electric doors and the insurance and the unearned income) would be £40,000.  Why do the poor people who are so dumb as to fall for the fake sycophantic bullshit ... I can't put it into a simple sentence.

I am going to get legitimately offensive here.  The FUCKING STUPID MORONS who are working seem to willingly swallow the spunk produced by their abusers because ... because ... because WHY?  Because they are being favoured by the abusers because they comply with the abuse.  They don't want to be the 'poor' people being killed off.  This is profound cultural Stockholm Syndrome.  They shave their heads, call themselves skinheads or BNP or EDL or UKIP and ponce around arrogantly as if they are 'hard working' people denigrating the poor and licking up to (literally in many cases) the bullies.  It is simply not reasonable to withdraw legal aid for 'small' cases'  If large corporations are derelict in their responsibilities and a poor person wants justice they simply MUST be held responsible.  If one supposes that there would be so many illegitimate small claims that the poor lucrative business would go bankrupt defending itself against these claims than one is not living in the real world.  But there's the rub - they are not living in the REAL world.  Interestingly they are living in the PARANOID world.  They don't think they are because they project that attribute onto people they are abusing and they believe that the people beneath them would steal form them given half the chance.  They believe that the people they are 'holding down' would abuse them.  Why would a person who had been brought up in a secure and supportive family situation where they could assume they were valuable and loved act in such a prejudicial and frightened way?  It is simple - they have been abused as children.  Research can, and does, illustrate this no end of times.  There are acres of literature about this.  But it doesn't need the research, it only requires rational logical thought about the evidence in front of you.  But people are frightened out of doing that at school.  I guess it does get complicated to explain it.  John Lennon is a good starting point.  Check out his life story - his life of abuse and how it turned him into an abuser.  Check out how he could see something was wrong and paid attention to it.  Instead of being abusive he tried to figure out how and why.  Then go check out Arthur Janov, the Californian psychotherapist, counsellor bloke who is famous for the misnamed "Primal Scream Therapy" of the 1960s and read his books like "Prisoners of Pain" and "The biology of Love".  The research has been done.  This is not just a fancy idea.  But I guess to many it is like trying to explain Einstein's theory of General Relativity and trying to explain spacetime.  You don't even have to understand it to believe that GPS wouldn't work without the understanding.  You can ascertain that yourself and the people who do know do know.  So why are we so vulnerable to this abusive culture that the general population continue to support the abusers for fear of something worse.  The only 'worse' threat is coming from them.

So back to the Money Program:  Why do people let the fact that people who are no longer employed by John Lewis cannot get justice simply slip by?  In my opinion the whole bloody country should stop until John Lewis pays them.  John Lewis - well the executives enacting this crime - should be jailed if they don't sort it out within 24 hours.  Then, of course, the politicians who allowed the reduction in legal aid should have all their assets confiscated and lose their jobs since they cannot be trusted.  Then the people who instigated the injustice, the illegitimate legislation, should simply have everything confiscated and be thrown into jail.  They will be given the option of a fair trial if they can 'earn' (by being 'hard working' folk) the lawyers' fees and the judges' fees and the rental costs of the court houses from within their prison cells.  What?  That is impossible and so not fair - GOSH!  Pardon me for not noticing!

And there were numerous other things I wanted to mention but that will just have to wait.

Censorship is philosophically wrong!

Censorship is immoral.  Censorship is wrong.  Censorship is an evil.

Of course there are some cases where certain information is usefully hidden from some particular audience for some particular purpose.  But philosophically censorship is wrong.

Most people who support (as opposed to promote) censorship are thinking of cases such as protecting young innocents from obscene pornographic material.  That cannot really be described as censorship.  It is quite reasonable to protect people you care about from damaging circumstances including the shocking and potentially harmful effects of certain visual or literary material.  There are perfectly serviceable solutions to this problem.  There are legal frameworks that make rape, underage sex or child abuse illegal.  It follows that if someone puts images of acts of paedophilia on the internet it is already illegal and the powers that be are well within their rights to prevent this happening.  But this is enacting the law - not censorship.  The law can deal with preventing illegal material being promulgated.

For entities like schools, parents or clubs who want, for whatever reason, to limit access to material they are perfectly at liberty to select the material they wish to make available to their charges or members.  There is even money to be made selling various filters and there are plenty of those already available.

It is not censorship for a school to not purchase obscene pornography for its library.  The nine o'clock watershed is not fairly described as 'censorship'.  There is plenty of scope for selecting what is appropriate in any particular circumstance.

People who promote censorship are trying to control what other people think.  There are two issues of importance here.  One is that nature is as it is and humanity will evolve the way it evolves.  Reality is what it is and truth is the awareness of reality.  Censorship is an attempt by one individual or group to falsely represent reality to another individual or group.  This is clearly contradictory to reality.  The other issue is that of freedom.  If we support the autonomous freedom of individuals then censorship is contradictory to that belief.

Censorship is generally used as a tool of control by an authority over a subjugated population.  Censorship is a generalised term to allow arbitrary control of information.  To enact laws of censorship is to give impunity to a controlling influence to enact its power over others.

If certain things are deemed by the collective group to be unacceptable then they can be described and made specifically illegal by mutual consent.  But censorship is an umbrella term which hands unlimited control to the ruling authority.  This is entirely against freedom and is immoral and ultimately evil.  It may be that reality is painful but 'protecting' people from the pain of reality has never worked in the long run.  All it achieves is to make some people more comfortable in the short term at the expense of other people in the long term.

Here are some petitions that need signing:

change.org
UK Prime Minister David Cameron: Stop the unnecessary censorship of "esoteric" websites and web forums!

Avaaz
Stop The Censorship of 'Esoteric' Websites and Alternative Spirituality

UK HM Government e-petition (must be UK citizen to sign)
Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content