Obvious obscurantism; overtly obsequious...

---

Opaque or obtuse? [edited] Lots of 'o's describing the government attempts at professional behaviour; they are woefully poor. That and:  'The Government has ignored the basic principles of successful negotiation in its dealings with Brussels', IMHO they have ignored the basic principles of standing up for themselves and those they purport to represent. But David Heathcoat-Amory - once a near neighbour - writing at Brexit Central hits the nail/s on the head; hopefully the nails of the 'Chequers' coffin. Firstly, and most importantly:

"The EU referendum decision was categorical and final. Both sides of the argument agreed this in advance. The Leave decision is not a radical constitutional experiment: Britain will be joining the rest of the world, which is founded on the principle of national self-government, which includes unconditional control over citizenship, borders, laws and trade policy."

Only those with open or hidden invested personal (monetary) interests that are jeopardised would seriously believe anything different. And they are most probably wrong about the 'jeopardised' bit too.



Heathcoat-Armory makes one mistake, he says "At root there is a failure to understand the true nature of the EU", IMHO this is simply not true: May and Hammond, the treacherous senior civil servants in their dealings, plus Soubry, Clarke, Clegg, Blair, Major, Mandelson, Campbell, Adonis et al in their vociferous and increasingly shrieky cries for a 2nd referendum (or cancelling of the 2016 vote) understand all too well the true nature of the EU. That is precisely the problem: the blithering ramblings, the convoluted speeches, the twisting of words and the seeming incompetence at all and every step is all intentional: they know the true nature of the EU and want it!

"The EU is not an association of nation states coming together for certain common purposes. It is a highly self-interested bureaucracy which has one response to any problem: more Europe. Its entire legal order is founded on the principle of ever closer union."

This has always been the case and to be honest, most EU founders, formers and followers have never denied it!

Obvious obscurantism; overtly obsequious...

---

Opaque or obtuse? [edited] Lots of 'o's describing the government attempts at professional behaviour; they are woefully poor. That and:  'The Government has ignored the basic principles of successful negotiation in its dealings with Brussels', IMHO they have ignored the basic principles of standing up for themselves and those they purport to represent. But David Heathcoat-Amory - once a near neighbour - writing at Brexit Central hits the nail/s on the head; hopefully the nails of the 'Chequers' coffin. Firstly, and most importantly:

"The EU referendum decision was categorical and final. Both sides of the argument agreed this in advance. The Leave decision is not a radical constitutional experiment: Britain will be joining the rest of the world, which is founded on the principle of national self-government, which includes unconditional control over citizenship, borders, laws and trade policy."

Only those with open or hidden invested personal (monetary) interests that are jeopardised would seriously believe anything different. And they are most probably wrong about the 'jeopardised' bit too.

Heathcoat-Armory makes one mistake, he says "At root there is a failure to understand the true nature of the EU", IMHO this is simply not true: May and Hammond, the treacherous senior civil servants in their dealings, plus Soubry, Clarke, Clegg, Blair, Major, Mandelson, Campbell, Adonis et al in their vociferous and increasingly shrieky cries for a 2nd referendum (or cancelling of the 2016 vote) understand all too well the true nature of the EU. That is precisely the problem: the blithering ramblings, the convoluted speeches, the twisting of words and the seeming incompetence at all and every step is all intentional: they know the true nature of the EU and want it!

"The EU is not an association of nation states coming together for certain common purposes. It is a highly self-interested bureaucracy which has one response to any problem: more Europe. Its entire legal order is founded on the principle of ever closer union."

This has always been the case and to be honest, most EU founders, formers and followers have never denied it!

Oxfam obitual oakum..

---

Oxfam have been warned they could lose official funding (not fundraising income). To be honest what is going on is hardly a surprise but the depth of depravity in some of the news and the witness/whistle-blower statements is sickening: the complaints, the covering-up, the bullying, the Catholic Churchesque moving of culprits to other areas, the harassment etc are bad enough but where is the due-diligence in hiring/taking on/controlling/ managing these fucking cunts. [edit: now we hear of rape and attempted rape of co workers before even starting any relief work..."around 10 percent of staff had been sexually assaulted and others had witnessed or experienced rape or attempted rape by colleagues"]. What the fuck is wrong with some people; do we have to BAN men from doing this sort of work?



We've thought it - through anecdotal mutterings - for multiple decades; we've actually KNOWN about it for literal decades (Sexual Violence & Exploitation: The Experience of Refugee Children in ...[insert country name here]).



That's one side of this shit-storm. The other side is more manageable: we've called them fake charities for years and we continue to read about the "fat-cat pay, appalling waste and hidden agendas". The multiple billions being poured into 'charidees' with their multi-million mid-London office rents, lavish exec lifestyle and merry-go-round appointments for New Labour and Common Purpose apparatchiks. Another reason to hate Tony Blair and associated cunts.



In the UK charities are a massive massive 'industry': eighty BILLION GBP is the estimated total annual income, which equates to 120+ quid/year for every man woman and child in the country (if the official population census figures are to be believed...ha-ha). However this mammoth amount is well spread with about 200 thousand registered charities and nearly 200 thousand more unregistered (bear in mind however many schools, churches, all mosques etc are also "charities". More than 10% of the £80 billion is spread amongst the top 100, charity financial spotlight on the Top 100 are listed HERE (PDF) with the top 10 raising 2 billion, swelled to 3 billion by government funds (so we are giving at least twice). Interestingly "Faith-based charities dominated the fastest-growing fundraisers".

Oxfam obitual oakum..

---

Oxfam have been warned they could lose official funding (not fundraising income). To be honest what is going on is hardly a surprise but the depth of depravity in some of the news and the witness/whistle-blower statements is sickening: the complaints, the covering-up, the bullying, the Catholic Churchesque moving of culprits to other areas, the harassment etc are bad enough but where is the due-diligence in hiring/taking on/controlling/ managing these fucking cunts. [edit: now we hear of rape and attempted rape of co workers before even starting any relief work..."around 10 percent of staff had been sexually assaulted and others had witnessed or experienced rape or attempted rape by colleagues"]. What the fuck is wrong with some people; do we have to BAN men from doing this sort of work?

We've thought it - through anecdotal mutterings - for multiple decades; we've actually KNOWN about it for literal decades (Sexual Violence & Exploitation: The Experience of Refugee Children in ...[insert country name here]).

That's one side of this shit-storm. The other side is more manageable: we've called them fake charities for years and we continue to read about the "fat-cat pay, appalling waste and hidden agendas". The multiple billions being poured into 'charidees' with their multi-million mid-London office rents, lavish exec lifestyle and merry-go-round appointments for New Labour and Common Purpose apparatchiks. Another reason to hate Tony Blair and associated cunts.

In the UK charities are a massive massive 'industry': eighty BILLION GBP is the estimated total annual income, which equates to 120+ quid/year for every man woman and child in the country (if the official population census figures are to be believed...ha-ha). However this mammoth amount is well spread with about 200 thousand registered charities and nearly 200 thousand more unregistered (bear in mind however many schools, churches, all mosques etc are also "charities". More than 10% of the £80 billion is spread amongst the top 100, charity financial spotlight on the Top 100 are listed HERE (PDF) with the top 10 raising 2 billion, swelled to 3 billion by government funds (so we are giving at least twice). Interestingly "Faith-based charities dominated the fastest-growing fundraisers".