ARTICLE: Prime Minister David Cameron Says “Non-Violent Conspiracy Theorists” Are Just As Dangerous As ISIS

..So if we send our enemies flowers and not bombs we are, by our dissident mindset, still ‘terrorists’ and will therefore feel the full wrath of the State? Welcome to post-Modernity, people… WE ARE ALL ‘TERRORISTS’ NOW.

 

David Cameron told the U.N. that “non-violent extremism” is just as dangerous as terrorism and must be eradicated using all means at the government’s disposal.

He references 9/11 and 7/7 Truthers as examples of the type of extremism that must be dealt in a similar fashion to ISIS.

If you thought Obama’s War is Peace speech to the U.N. was creepy, wait until you get a load of this.

Cameron is officially announcing a the plan to use a full assault on dissenting views.

 

Hat tip: http://www.globalresearch.ca/david-cameron-says-non-violent-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isis/5404412?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=david-cameron-says-non-violent-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isis

 

warmongers

cameron sulking

syrias-bullshit

domestic terrorists

2ea6c-democracy

pic-image-2-359981302

david-cameron-and-nick-clegg-581678590

cameron_clegg_inbed_626x260

cameron_clegg_baby_photo

condemnation-640x724

 

(2014) “Conservative” Party’s Warmonger Brooks Newmark -RESIGNS IN DISGRACE AMID SENDING PORNOGRAPHIC PHOTOS OF HIMSELF TO A REPORTER

ABOVE: Brooks Newmark MP and his flight of fancy who he presumed is more appealing than his wife.

A Tory minister leading David Cameron’s drive for more women in politics exchanged X-rated photos with an undercover reporter posing as a female party activist.

Married dad-of-five Brooks Newmark, 56, who co-founded campaign group Women2Win, stepped down as Minister for Civil Society yesterday – and today admitted he had been “a complete fool”.

The MP for Braintree, Essex swapped sexually explicit images and asked to meet the reporter, who was posing as a young Tory PR girl called Sophie while investigating the alleged inappropriate use of social media by MPs.

Newmark initiated a private message conversation online and, during ­flirtatious chats and photo exchanges, sent a graphic snap exposing himself while wearing a pair of paisley pyjamas.

During a late-night chat with the undercover reporter, who had sent him an explicit picture supposedly of “Sophie”, Newmark asked for a more explicit picture “without your hands in the way and legs parted”. He then said: “I will send you something in return – that way we each have a secret.”

The sleaze scandal will send shock waves through Downing Street as the Tories state their case for re-election at their party conference this week.

It heaps fresh embarrassment on the Prime Minister who faces accusations of sexism after failing to attract women to take up leading political positions.

The male reporter, a freelance ­journalist who passed the information to the Sunday Mirror, was carrying out an undercover probe into claims by sources that MPs were using social media networks to meet women.

Posing as a “twenty-something Tory PR girl” called Sophie Wittams, he set up a Twitter account featuring a profile picture of an attractive blonde female and began following several MPs.

cameron sulking
ABOVE: Cry-baby Ca-moron knowing he and his traitors in the “Conservative” party are finished. Two Tory MPs have already defected to UKIP. 

After posting a string of innocuous public tweets about tennis, Sophie was then followed by Newmark, who sent her a direct private message on July 6 saying: “Glad you appreciate my humour and how seriously I take my sport!”

He initiated a lighthearted chat about his “mundane” political tweets and asked her to follow him on Facebook.

Three days later Newmark invited Sophie to a Women2Win event and told her to “feel free to drop by Parliament anytime for a chat”.

He then said it would be easier for them to communicate over the phone via text messages and gave her his personal mobile number.

The pair continued to chat on the networking site Whatsapp where they initially discussed Sophie going on blind dates with other men.

On the evening of July 16, after Sophie told him she was lying in bed, Newmark wrote: “By the way I have no idea what you look like so post a pic to me on Whatsapp so I know what you look like when I meet you.”

In reply to a picture Sophie sent after midnight, the balding MP sent a picture of himself sitting on his bed and wearing a white T-shirt.

He forwarded another of himself below the waist as he reclined on his bed watching television in a pair of dark blue and red paisley pyjamas.

Sophie wrote: “Should I send another pic that is the question.” Newmark replied: “Wasn’t that the deal?”

Sophie asked how far he was willing to go. He wrote: “That’s very brave talk.”The reporter then sent a more intimate image, supposedly of Sophie, and Newmark wrote back saying: “You took my breath away!”

He then sent her a close-up of him with his hand covering his bare chest.

The pair discussed taking “it to the next level” before Sophie replied with an explicit naked picture and asked him to promise not to show anyone.

Newmark wrote: “You must be kidding! I’d never do that. But resend without your hand in the way and legs parted and I will send something in return. That way we both have a secret.” He added: “Assuming it meets my request and I reciprocate you MUST swear on a stack of Bibles you won’t show pics as I promise not to show pics of you? OK?”

The MP then sent a graphic image of himself to the reporter.

It comes as Westminster faces angry calls to crackdown on a culture of lechery and sexism in the wake of several sex scandals including accusations made against Lib Dem Lord Rennard by female party members.

Ministers are bound by a strict code of conduct requiring them to uphold “the highest standards of propriety”. Two days after sending the explicit snap he sent another message saying: “I want a standing full body shot but you can cover up any modest bits you wish.”

cameron_clegg_inbed_626x260
cameron_clegg_baby_photo
condemnation-640x724
david-cameron-and-nick-clegg-581678590

PARASITE: Ex-Lib-Dem Councillor racked up £2,400 bill ringing sex lines from taxpayer-funded phone

Robert Bleakley

“PARASITE: A creature which obtains food and physical protection from a host which never benefits from its presence.” (Chambers English Dictionary)

A POLITICIAN who used his council-issued mobile phone to rack up a £2,400 bill calling premium rate sex chat lines and sending sexually explicit texts has escaped the sack.

Tyldesley councillor Robert Bleakley, a member of the Wigan Independents, was caught after Wigan Council reviewed its mobile phone contract and found he had spent £2,418.95 at taxpayers’ expense, sparking an investigation.

A council standards committee was told that, as well as calling sex chat lines, Cllr Bleakley had sent sexist and derogatory texts, including one saying: “No wonder women are just cooking and washing material”.

He also sent a message calling ex-Lib Dem activist Alison Smith an offensive name.

More were read to the panel, which Cllr Bleakley did not attend, but are too foul-mouthed and sexually explicit to print.

Wigan Council has now instructed its female employees not to speak to him, and Cllr Bleakley has had his mobile phone removed and been ordered to attend equal opportunities training.

It is the third time Cllr Bleakley has been subject to a standards hearing, after he was found guilty of deliberately altering an e-mail to jeopardise a senior employee’s job in February, and found to have watched porn on his council-issued laptop in March.

Donna Hall, chief executive of Wigan Council, said she was “appalled and sickened” with the language used in the text messages.

She said: “It is quite clear, judging by the content of Cllr Bleakley’s text messages, that he has a problem with women.

“I will not tolerate this prejudice, nor will I allow him to come into contact with female officers until he has undertaken equal opportunities training.”

The panel agreed that Cllr Bleakley had broken the council’s IT policy and breached the councillors’ code of conduct.

She added: “As a result, Cllr Bleakley was given a number of sanctions, including the removal of his IT equipment, including his mobile phone, and removal of his internet access.

“He must also undergo equal opportunities training, and female officers will be instructed not to speak to him.”

 

ARTICLE: House of Perks: MPs claim record £103mn in expenses

1

MPs’ staff, travel and accommodation costs reached £103 million last year, up from £99 million the previous year and £95 million in 2009 – the peak of the parliamentary expenses scandal.

More than £80 million was spent on staff salaries and £11 million on office costs. The bill for accommodation, covering hotels, rented homes and utility bills, was £6.9 million, while £4.5 million were claimed for travel and subsistence.

The Democratic Unionist Party’s Jim Shannon had the biggest claim at £229,262, including £38,215 on travel and £12,126 on hotels.

The bill for MPs’ expenses reached record levels last year, as more politicians put their spouses and children on the public payroll.

A total of 170 MPs employed relatives, at a cost of more than £4 million. The previous year, 150 MPs had family members on the payroll.

Senior Conservatives who employ relations include Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. Laurence Robertson, the MP for Tewkesbury, employs his ex-wife and his wife. Anne Adams is paid £40,000 to £45,000 as a senior parliamentary assistant, while his ex-wife Susan Robertson gets paid £25,000 to £30,000 as a senior secretary.

Andy Silvester, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers will be deeply concerned that the cost of Westminster is going up again.

“David Cameron pledged to reduce the cost of politics after the excesses of the expenses scandal. Politicians must be held accountable for their promises. Combined with the ever-increasing number of peers, that promise looks increasingly difficult to keep.”

He added that there was “nothing wrong with employing family members if they’re qualified for the job, but there needs to be total transparency whenever that’s the case.”

The details were released in an annual report by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) on Thursday, which was set up to handle MPs’ pay after the 2009 expenses scandal.

In 2009, the Telegraph revealed that MPs misused their allowances for private purposes for years, causing public outrage. The political scandal resulted in arrests, resignations and dismissals, as well as public apologies and the repayment of expenses. Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who claimed back expenses for her husband’s adult movies, was one of the high-profile politicians that were exposed.

IPSA chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said reforms to the system had saved £58 million over four years. He said: “Such is the progress made since the scandals which came to light in 2009, our work is attracting the attention of parliaments around the world.”

This week, Marcial Boo, IPSA’s chief executive, proposed that MPs should get a 9 percent pay rise next year, arguing that MPs did an important job and should not be paid a “miserly amount.” David Cameron, whose basic salary as prime minister is £142,500, has opposed the salary increase for MPs.

The basic annual salary for MPs currently stands at £67,060, two and a half times the UK average salary of £26,500.

Source: http://rt.com/uk/187252-mps-claim-record-expenses/

STATE CRIME: Videos and Analysis of Vote-rigging in the Scottish Referendum

Stalin Voting

RON PAUL SUSPECTS FOUL IN SCOTLAND REFERENDUM!

Scottish referendum: Police investigate electoral fraud probe in Glasgow

PETITION: We the undersigned demand a revote of the Scottish Referendum, counted by impartial international parties.

VOTE FRAUD IN SCOTTISH REFERENDUM?

 

WARNING: Something terrible could be happening in Parliament on Monday

This is from Tom Watson MP. If he’s right, it’s vitally important that you read the following and act on it:

Last Thursday there was a curious announcement in the Chamber of the House of Commons. At the session to announce future business, Leader of the House, Andrew Lansley said this:

“Monday 14th July — consideration of a Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first report from the Committee on Standards on the respect policy”

If you look on Parliament’s web site tonight, you will not see the name, nor the text of the Bill to be considered.

None of your elected backbench MPs have been told what Bill is to be debated on Monday. It’s Wednesday evening. Tomorrow, MPs are on a ‘one line whip’ ie they can return to their constituencies this evening.

Imagine how outrageous it would be, if tomorrow, the government were to announce emergency legislation to an empty chamber. Imagine if that emergency legislation was to be introduced on Monday or Tuesday, with the intention of it slipping through the Commons and the Lords in a single day. Imagine if that Bill was the deeply controversial Data Retention Bill.

It’s a Bill that will override the views of judges who have seen how the mass collection of your data breaches the human rights of you and your family.

Regardless of where you stand on the decision of the European Court of Justice, can you honestly say that you want a key decision about how your personal data is stored to be made by a stitch up behind closed doors and clouded in secrecy?

None of your MPs have even read this legislation, let alone been able to scrutinise it.

The very fact that the Government is even considering this form of action, strongly suggests that they have an expectation that the few people on the Liberal Democrat and Labour front benchers who have seen this legislation, are willing to be complicit.

No matter what you think about this issue, if you care about democracy, make sure your MP does not walk through the chamber and vote for legislation nobody has had the chance to debate and question.

Hat tip: http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/something-terrible-could-be-happening-in-parliament-on-monday/

ARTICLE: Government Passes a ‘Gagging Law’ to Outlaw Critics Ahead of 2015 Elections

untitled

Massive hat -tip to Scriptonite

In January 2014 the UK government passed the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.  A bill gagging charities, NGO’s, bloggers, community groups and most attempts at organised opposition to the government in the year prior to a general election…and just in time for the General Election next year.

What is the Gagging Law?

 The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, or Gagging Law, was hailed as the UK government’s answer to the issue of commercial lobbying.

But, this bill does not take on the political power of wealthy corporate lobbyists.  Instead, it kneecaps any attempts at organised local and national opposition by civil society, so as not to influence the outcome of general elections.  It is a gagging law.  The law puts in place a range of bureaucratic and financial barriers amounting to a gag on free speech and effective opposition.  These include:

  • The maximum that can be spent before groups have to be registered with the Electoral Commission £20,000 in England and £10,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
  • Reduce the overall UK-wide spending limit before elections from £988,500 at present to a new limit of £450,000.  To put this in perspective – campaign group 38Degrees has 1.7m members, this would mean neutering their spending power on posters, staff, adverts and ancillary costs to just 26p per member.
  • Putting in place a spending cap of just £9,750 in a particular constituency, in the year running up to a general election – while the local MP can spend as much as they like until just 4 months from the election.

The new spending limits will come into effect on 19th September this year.

This is the state if affairs after a successful campaign of opposition put forward by the likes of 38Degrees, Oxfam and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party MP, along with concerned bloggers such as Another Angry Voice and Vox Political, and journalists like Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones.  This opposition won important concessions – but the bulk of the bill remains intact and now, law.

What Does this mean for Free Speech?

This means that groups across the political spectrum, find themselves in an unlikely alliance of  opposition to a bill that will silence them all.  Whether you want to bring back fox hunting or save your local hospital, the Bill will prevent you organising to do so.  As 38Degrees put it:

“It’s telling that so many groups who wouldn’t normally agree with each other have united to oppose the gagging law. Groups that speak out in favour of hunting, windfarms, HS2 or building more houses are joining together with groups who say exactly the opposite.”

The British Medical Association: “if the Bill is passed, its impact could be deeply disturbing, especially as it raises concerns about what this would mean for freedom of expression”.

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) Head of Campaigns Nigel Stanley called it a “chilling attack” on free speech.

Iain Anderson, the deputy chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants said “The bill doesn’t capture the vast majority of what lobbyists do. We want all lobbying covered in a statutory register.”

Tamsin Cave, of pressure group SpinWatch called the Bill a “deliberate act of divide and rule, that has the signature of Lynton Crosby [the Conservative Party's election strategist] all over it…This bill, as it stands, is worse than nothing. It is bogus.”

Liz Hutchins, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said it was a “bad day for anyone wanting to protect the environment, save a hospital or oppose tuition fees”.

And Corporate Lobbying Remains Untouched

 It is beyond challenge that UK politics has become corrupted by commercial interests.  This is not a single party issue, but a systemic issue.  But it is not merely about commercial interests paying campaign donations – we have a broader system of revolving doors between politics and business, combined with patronage and favours that this Bill will not touch.  Here are just a sample of modern examples this bill will do nothing to prevent:

Osborne

In 1994, future Chancellor George Osborne was photographed at a party, with his arm around a sex worker called Natalie Rowe, sitting at a table full cocaine.  In October 2005, Natalie Rowe came forward to release the picture and her story to the press.  Rowe sold her story to the Sunday Mirror.  However, to the surprise of Rowe and the Mirror, Andy Coulson broke the story in a leader column in the News of the World.  Not only that, but the story was spun in a manner entirely sympathetic to Osborne, stating that he was ‘a young man when he found himself in a murky world’.  Rowe’s lawyers allege that Coulson stole the story by hacking her phone, and used it to gain leverage with the future chancellor.

And lo, on news of his resignation from the News of the World – Andy Coulson became Director of Communications at Downing Street, despite recently resigning in shame over phone hacking allegations.  He was recruited on the recommendation of none other than George Osborne.

Theresa May

Present day Home Secretary Theresa May’s husband is a director/shareholder in G4S. May has faced several conflict of interest allegations during her tenure.  One of the most egregious was the case of G4S winning a £200m contract to run Lincolnshire police operations.  G4S had recruited law firm White and Cade to support their bid.  In a stunning coincidence, May invited Tom Winsor, a lawyer from the same firm, to conduct ‘an independent review of police reform’ in the run up to the bid – giving the lawyer access to privy information and contacts.Stephen Green & HSBC

HSBC were found guilty in a court of law of funnelling the proceeds of crime through their books knowingly and deliberately.  This was not the act of some rogue trader.

HSBC set up a subsidiary firm with the specific intention of using it to launder the money of Mexican drug barons.  It spirited over $7bn of the stuff between 2001 and 2007.

Stephen Green, the Chairman of HSBC while all this took place, was appointed Trade Minister by David Cameron and now sits at the heart of UK government.

Philip Green

The owner of retail outlet Arcadia, which owns Topshop, is notorious for his tax avoidance schemes.  In 2005, he gave himself the biggest pay cheque in UK history, £1.2bn.  However, by putting Arcadia in his wife’s name (who lives in the tax haven of Monaco and hasn’t done a day’s work for the company) and channelling funds through a string of offshore accounts, Green managed to shift £300m out of the hands of the taxman.  This money could have paid the full £9,000 a year tuition fees for 32,000 students, or the annual salary of 20,000 nurses.  Instead, it sits in Green’s bloated wallet.

Furthermore, despite building a £5bn empire on the back of sweatshop labour – Green refused to sign a pledge to improve safety conditions for Bangladeshi workers after a series of avoidable accidents which left scores dead and injured.

Yet, the Tories appointed this man as their business tsar, leading an ‘efficiency review’ into government spending.  Therefore while Green refuses to pay his share into the pot of public money, he is given power to dictate how that public money is spent.

Libor

Despite persistent rumours about rate-rigging, and receiving information from several sources that an investigation was required – the UK regulator failed to act until it was forced into action by US regulators in 2012.  So why were the Tories so slow to act?

It might be coincidental of course, but some of the Conservative party’s most generous and powerful donors were involved in the scam.

Former Tory Party Treasurer Michael Spencer has donated almost £5m to the party.  This gave him access to dine with the Prime Minister at Chequers.

His firm iCap was fined £55m by regulators in the US and UK for LIBOR rate rigging, and three of his employees face up to 30 years in jail if convicted.  It is notable that while the US fine stood at £41m, the UK fine was a mere £14m (just 4% of their £330m pre-tax profits in 2008, the height of the rigging).  One might suggest this was a decent return on a worthwhile investment.

Lynton Crosby

Cameron has paid £500,000 to appoint Lynton Crosby as the Tory party election strategist.  Crosby is Cameron’s political compass, steering the Prime Minister to launch and ditch policies, and gain the party victory in 2015.

Crosby is an Australian strategist who helped John Howard to four elections victories, and was behind Boris Johnson’s successful campaign to gain re-election as London mayor.

Other items on Crosby’s CV include lobbying for tobacco firm Philip Morris, and he is reported to have signed a £6m deal to lobby on behalf of the firm just last November.  Crosby has also advised energy firms engaged in Fracking in Australia, championing shale gas over sustainable and renewable energy.

And in a remarkably unsurprising turn of events, this year the Tory party chose to ditch its policy on plain cigarette packaging, Osborne announced a raft of tax breaks on Fracking firms, and David Cameron went from promising “Vote Blue, go Green” to “get rid of all this green crap.”

The Bill will do the sum total of diddly squat to deal with these consistent and endemic abuses of power and privilege.

And don’t think Labour are coming to the rescue either.  I have previously covered the parallel issues for the Labour Party.  Labour will not overturn this legislation if they come to power, they have zero interest in doing so.

What Now?

One word: Resist.

Charities, campaigners, community groups and yes, bloggers like myself, will now figure out exactly what their legal standing is in this dark new age of restricted speech – we just don’t know.  But regardless of whether our opposition is legal or not, in coming months and years, we should not bow our heads in resigned acceptance of this most blatant attack on hard won democratic rights.  It is not enough for us to wave our hands, sigh and comply.  If opposing the government in a non-violent way such as organising a leafleting campaign, or transporting people to protests, or writing blogs and petitions calling on voters to act in their own interests is illegal – then let us break the law.  Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” Well, man or woman, our time has come.