Outrageous or obvious?...

---

From the DT: "Nigel Farage: Migrants could pose sex attack threat to Britain". 'Women may be at a particular risk from the "cultural" differences between British society and migrants' [Link]. What he says is perfectly true and blatantly obvious, especially when we know what happened in Cologne, Germany where gangs of immigrants - all young men - sexually abused hundreds of women last New Year’s Eve. What really irks me is that even now the Telegraph says "allegedly"...so does the BBC but you'd expect it from them. In the BBC link Treasury minister Andrea Leadsom - amongst others ('sunk to new depths', 'disgraceful') - is calling Farage's comments 'outrageous'.



What is in fact REALLY outrageous is that we have had THOUSANDS of such cases here in the UK already, worse: rape of children, drugged and abused and passed around between groups of pervert scum; ignored and swept under the carpet for over TEN YEARS (we know it is at least 2 or 3 decades of Muslim abuse: "it appears that racially motivated grooming of girls stems from 1990s onwards and is being underplayed by the media and politicians fearing political correctness.") by Police, social workers, council employees etc. Rotherham is the most infamous but there's Derby, Rochdale, Telford, Keighley and more; or further south Peterborough, Banbury, Bristol, Oxford, Aylesbury...and more; you'd think they would have noticed.

Apologies if this offends anyone: unfortunately the caption underneath is 100% true. 

The press ignored it too, similar to Cologne where the press was told not to report on the Cologne attacks. Sinister. So, it isn't outrageous for Farage to say this: it is stating the bloody obvious. This and dozens (probably hundreds) of cases are happening every day, across Europe: the common denominator - apart from Islam - is the attempts to hide it, to cover it up. Sweden in particular for well over a decade: when they realised their crime figures pointed to the clear and obvious over-representation (by miles) of Muslim (yes, it has to be said) immigrants they did what? Clamp down? No. Mass arrest? No...they stopped publishing the crime stats!



You might think the UK problem was mainly Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Somali and those that are coming are predominantly Syrian, Afghan and Iraqi but unfortunately I doubt it's entirely the rural/izzat thing: they are already fighting each other over child abuse! "Afghan and Pakistani migrants have fought each other, rioted and burnt down brand new accommodation on the Greek Island of Lesbos after the two ethnic groups accused each other of molesting children and stealing."



Jesus Wept. 

Outrageous or obvious?...

---

From the DT: "Nigel Farage: Migrants could pose sex attack threat to Britain". 'Women may be at a particular risk from the "cultural" differences between British society and migrants' [Link]. What he says is perfectly true and blatantly obvious, especially when we know what happened in Cologne, Germany where gangs of immigrants - all young men - sexually abused hundreds of women last New Year’s Eve. What really irks me is that even now the Telegraph says "allegedly"...so does the BBC but you'd expect it from them. In the BBC link Treasury minister Andrea Leadsom - amongst others ('sunk to new depths', 'disgraceful') - is calling Farage's comments 'outrageous'.

What is in fact REALLY outrageous is that we have had THOUSANDS of such cases here in the UK already, worse: rape of children, drugged and abused and passed around between groups of pervert scum; ignored and swept under the carpet for over TEN YEARS (we know it is at least 2 or 3 decades of Muslim abuse: "it appears that racially motivated grooming of girls stems from 1990s onwards and is being underplayed by the media and politicians fearing political correctness.") by Police, social workers, council employees etc. Rotherham is the most infamous but there's Derby, Rochdale, Telford, Keighley and more; or further south Peterborough, Banbury, Bristol, Oxford, Aylesbury...and more; you'd think they would have noticed.

Apologies if this offends anyone: unfortunately the caption underneath is 100% true. 

The press ignored it too, similar to Cologne where the press was told not to report on the Cologne attacks. Sinister. So, it isn't outrageous for Farage to say this: it is stating the bloody obvious. This and dozens (probably hundreds) of cases are happening every day, across Europe: the common denominator - apart from Islam - is the attempts to hide it, to cover it up. Sweden in particular for well over a decade: when they realised their crime figures pointed to the clear and obvious over-representation (by miles) of Muslim (yes, it has to be said) immigrants they did what? Clamp down? No. Mass arrest? No...they stopped publishing the crime stats!

You might think the UK problem was mainly Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Somali and those that are coming are predominantly Syrian, Afghan and Iraqi but unfortunately I doubt it's entirely the rural/izzat thing: they are already fighting each other over child abuse! "Afghan and Pakistani migrants have fought each other, rioted and burnt down brand new accommodation on the Greek Island of Lesbos after the two ethnic groups accused each other of molesting children and stealing."

Jesus Wept. 

Oath of office...

---

Sign the petition HERE

If (and when, I hope) Leave wins, we could still be kept in the EU (as many of us suspect anyway). Here's how, text, partly edited, is borrowed from eforce on this Zero Hedge article: Brits "Appalled, Disgusted" At Brexit Postal Ballot 'Fraud' re, obviously, a probable Postal Vote stitch up in the coming EU Referendum. This info can also be confirmed HERE ("Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?" on Vernon Coleman's interesting and informative website. I am also inclined to recall the Treason.



"The machinery to keep the UK as part of the EU was decided long before the referendum was announced.

The referendum is just a safety valve to placate those citizens upset by the way they have little say in how their affairs are decided.



[Previously] one could go to the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand and lay a complaint at common law that someone had caused you harm or loss. There would be no charge to lay such a complaint, neither would there be any court costs because as Magna Carta dictates - justice should be free and available to all.

About that time Lord Levenson introduced his Guide to the Queens Bench (The Queen's Bench Guide - PDF)

In this he describes the three different catagories of Queens Bench but omits the fourth, the common law court of record. Who knows precisely why he did that; but a fair guess is that any one UK resident could make a complaint at common law that his prime minister had caused him harm by giving away his sovereignty.



The judge in a common law court goes on his oath of office. If he does not follow precedent he can be sued. In all other courts although the man [...] is called a judge in law he is not a judge. He is just a clerk working for the company known as the ministry of justice. This is why they are called administrative courts which conduct the business of the court. These pretend judges cannot be sued because the rules of the business, a statute also called an act with exactly the same meaning as a stage act, created by parliament, has given these clerks a protected status. This means that they do not have to follow the rules of law that the rest of the population have to do. You might now understand why some very strange decisions are made by these pretend judges.

One persistent man was able to get past the Clerks at Royal Courts of Justice but when he tried to present his case at common law, the judge said he had no jurisdiction because he refused to go on his oath of office.



You might now be wondering what this has to do with the referendum. It's because Cameron has already stated that he will use the Lisbon treaty to leave the EU if the vote is to leave. Bear in mind that when in opposition, Cameron rubbished the Lisbon treaty. He knows that it was designed by unelected bureaucrats to make it difficult for any country to leave and anyway is subject to qualified majority voting.

After June the 23rd and we vote to exit the EU, the population will breathe a sigh of relief that it's all over and leave it to the politicians to get on with it; after all isn't that what we pay them for.?.

This is where Cameron and Osborne are correct. All parties agree that it will take at least two years of negotiations during which time the uncertainty will cause the predicted depression in the economy. This will reverse most of the opinions of the leave group who will change their mind and agree to stay in.

During which time Parliament will vote through the bill which is waiting in the wings, having already been debated and just waiting to be signed into law.



THIS ACT, not reported in the media, removes from the Queen the duty to veto a bill that is against her subject's sovereignty.

You might be puzzling and wonder what this has to do with Parliament's duty to act in the public's interest. Wonder no more.

Before 1972 when Prime Minister Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome for us to join the common market, now the EU. he asked the top law officer at the time the legal implications of signing the treaty. This man, the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir described our constitution evolving from Magna Carta and even before, and wrote that giving away our sovereignty to another state would be illegal. Heath still signed it and misled parliament by stating that there was no loss of sovereignty. Before he died he admitted his conduct in his memoirs.

Here an understanding of the international law of treaties will help you see what the government's problem is and what is really is motivating them. Any treaty where fraud or deception is used is immediately null and void. So since 1972 when more illegal treaties have been signed the government has kept this fact from you.



The letter was hidden under the thirty year rule but was prized from the archives by an activist. Then the government machine was cranked up to block any move to expose the subject to the public. The media know of the letter but dare not discuss it. The eurosceptic politicians know of the letter but will not admit in public to it's existence. So you have the British public in a state of confusion with all the lying statistics from both sides of the Brexit argument. Don't you think that their minds would be clarified if they knew that we had joined the EU by power mad controllers who lied to them?"



[See the letter and sign the petition HERE]



"If this petition gets to 10,000 before 23rd June, the government has to comment on it...



[...] Sign the petition. Get this letter's contents into the public domain and you can then demand that the treaties be declared null and void so that the laws that gave away our sovereignty back to 1972 would revert back to the position pertaining in 1972.

Follow the thought through and you will realise that our exclusive 12 mile fishing boundary would be returned over night. Alright there might be some stock market jitters but the jitters felt by the other EU countries would cause them to consider what best suits them is for our trading arrangements to remain the same. The European army and other evils we could just walk away without too much trouble. So please do not let these politicians confuse you by their convoluted rhetoric. The matter is clear and simple. The EU treaties are against our laws. We the people need to get this fact out to one and all."

Oath of office...

---

Sign the petition HERE

If (and when, I hope) Leave wins, we could still be kept in the EU (as many of us suspect anyway). Here's how, text, partly edited, is borrowed from eforce on this Zero Hedge article: Brits "Appalled, Disgusted" At Brexit Postal Ballot 'Fraud' re, obviously, a probable Postal Vote stitch up in the coming EU Referendum. This info can also be confirmed HERE ("Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?" on Vernon Coleman's interesting and informative website. I am also inclined to recall the Treason.

"The machinery to keep the UK as part of the EU was decided long before the referendum was announced. The referendum is just a safety valve to placate those citizens upset by the way they have little say in how their affairs are decided.

[Previously] one could go to the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand and lay a complaint at common law that someone had caused you harm or loss. There would be no charge to lay such a complaint, neither would there be any court costs because as Magna Carta dictates - justice should be free and available to all. About that time Lord Levenson introduced his Guide to the Queens Bench (The Queen's Bench Guide - PDF) In this he describes the three different catagories of Queens Bench but omits the fourth, the common law court of record. Who knows precisely why he did that; but a fair guess is that any one UK resident could make a complaint at common law that his prime minister had caused him harm by giving away his sovereignty.

The judge in a common law court goes on his oath of office. If he does not follow precedent he can be sued. In all other courts although the man [...] is called a judge in law he is not a judge. He is just a clerk working for the company known as the ministry of justice. This is why they are called administrative courts which conduct the business of the court. These pretend judges cannot be sued because the rules of the business, a statute also called an act with exactly the same meaning as a stage act, created by parliament, has given these clerks a protected status. This means that they do not have to follow the rules of law that the rest of the population have to do. You might now understand why some very strange decisions are made by these pretend judges. One persistent man was able to get past the Clerks at Royal Courts of Justice but when he tried to present his case at common law, the judge said he had no jurisdiction because he refused to go on his oath of office.

You might now be wondering what this has to do with the referendum. It's because Cameron has already stated that he will use the Lisbon treaty to leave the EU if the vote is to leave. Bear in mind that when in opposition, Cameron rubbished the Lisbon treaty. He knows that it was designed by unelected bureaucrats to make it difficult for any country to leave and anyway is subject to qualified majority voting. After June the 23rd and we vote to exit the EU, the population will breathe a sigh of relief that it's all over and leave it to the politicians to get on with it; after all isn't that what we pay them for.?. This is where Cameron and Osborne are correct. All parties agree that it will take at least two years of negotiations during which time the uncertainty will cause the predicted depression in the economy. This will reverse most of the opinions of the leave group who will change their mind and agree to stay in. During which time Parliament will vote through the bill which is waiting in the wings, having already been debated and just waiting to be signed into law.

THIS ACT, not reported in the media, removes from the Queen the duty to veto a bill that is against her subject's sovereignty. You might be puzzling and wonder what this has to do with Parliament's duty to act in the public's interest. Wonder no more. Before 1972 when Prime Minister Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome for us to join the common market, now the EU. he asked the top law officer at the time the legal implications of signing the treaty. This man, the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir described our constitution evolving from Magna Carta and even before, and wrote that giving away our sovereignty to another state would be illegal. Heath still signed it and misled parliament by stating that there was no loss of sovereignty. Before he died he admitted his conduct in his memoirs. Here an understanding of the international law of treaties will help you see what the government's problem is and what is really is motivating them. Any treaty where fraud or deception is used is immediately null and void. So since 1972 when more illegal treaties have been signed the government has kept this fact from you.

The letter was hidden under the thirty year rule but was prized from the archives by an activist. Then the government machine was cranked up to block any move to expose the subject to the public. The media know of the letter but dare not discuss it. The eurosceptic politicians know of the letter but will not admit in public to it's existence. So you have the British public in a state of confusion with all the lying statistics from both sides of the Brexit argument. Don't you think that their minds would be clarified if they knew that we had joined the EU by power mad controllers who lied to them?"

[See the letter and sign the petition HERE]

"If this petition gets to 10,000 before 23rd June, the government has to comment on it...

[...] Sign the petition. Get this letter's contents into the public domain and you can then demand that the treaties be declared null and void so that the laws that gave away our sovereignty back to 1972 would revert back to the position pertaining in 1972. Follow the thought through and you will realise that our exclusive 12 mile fishing boundary would be returned over night. Alright there might be some stock market jitters but the jitters felt by the other EU countries would cause them to consider what best suits them is for our trading arrangements to remain the same. The European army and other evils we could just walk away without too much trouble. So please do not let these politicians confuse you by their convoluted rhetoric. The matter is clear and simple. The EU treaties are against our laws. We the people need to get this fact out to one and all."

Openly obtuse obvious opposite...

---

Amazingly obtuse [title edited 30/05/16]: Which side is this? "[ONE SIDE] had resorted to 'irresponsible and provocative oratory' on immigration and 'phantom fears with puffed-up false statistics and downright untruths'"... "...but added that he was 'dismayed by the way they have conducted this campaign, which I believe to have been a fraud on the British people. The very least the British public should expect from our politicians is that they be accurate and truthful. [ONE SIDE] offer a mixture of confused or distorted facts."

"'Their tactics are to ignore the arguments and abuse their critics. The British people deserve better. Voters are contemptuous of such evasion and political trickery.'"

John Major in the Mail on Sunday about the Leave campaign. [face-palm] John, you do see the irony, yes? Has he been listening to anything in the last couple of weeks? Even more ironic, he made it worse by hyperbole and lies of his own.



Update: Wow, it's all kicked off today: I agree with Nadine, not about BoJo, but that Cameron is toast.



Update 5th June: he's done it again: senility or stupidity? John Major has accused Remain of deceit etc and yet spouts complete crap: his massive well rehearsed point that was so deceitful? That Remain were claiming that all 88 million Turks would arrive! I mean FFS! For FUCK's sake! And Marr just left him unchallenged: he could have said "Don't be so fucking stupid John, nobody believes they mean that". He could have; he should have. 

Openly obtuse obvious opposite...

---

Amazingly obtuse [title edited 30/05/16]: Which side is this? "[ONE SIDE] had resorted to 'irresponsible and provocative oratory' on immigration and 'phantom fears with puffed-up false statistics and downright untruths'"... "...but added that he was 'dismayed by the way they have conducted this campaign, which I believe to have been a fraud on the British people. The very least the British public should expect from our politicians is that they be accurate and truthful. [ONE SIDE] offer a mixture of confused or distorted facts."

"'Their tactics are to ignore the arguments and abuse their critics. The British people deserve better. Voters are contemptuous of such evasion and political trickery.'"

John Major in the Mail on Sunday about the Leave campaign. [face-palm] John, you do see the irony, yes? Has he been listening to anything in the last couple of weeks? Even more ironic, he made it worse by hyperbole and lies of his own.

Update: Wow, it's all kicked off today: I agree with Nadine, not about BoJo, but that Cameron is toast.

Update 5th June: he's done it again: senility or stupidity? John Major has accused Remain of deceit etc and yet spouts complete crap: his massive well rehearsed point that was so deceitful? That Remain were claiming that all 88 million Turks would arrive! I mean FFS! For FUCK's sake! And Marr just left him unchallenged: he could have said "Don't be so fucking stupid John, nobody believes they mean that". He could have; he should have. 

Out, out, out! III...

---

No comment from Ows, just a great speech by David Davis [edited], posted in full on The Conservative Woman: "This week, the former Shadow Home Secretary and Europe Minister David Davis made a major intervention in the EU referendum debate. In a powerful speech, Davis set out exactly why a brighter future lies ahead for a Britain freed from the shackles of a supranational corpse that hasn’t created any jobs in the UK. Below is the speech in its entirety.":

"It is now exactly four weeks until the British people make the most momentous decision of modern times.



I rather wish that the standard of argument from the other side had lived up to the occasion.



In the past few weeks, the British people have been accused not only by the EU but by their own leaders here, shockingly, of being small-minded, ignorant, economically illiterate, and even ‘horrible racists’ for wanting to leave the EU.



They, we, have been bombarded with a plethora of scare tactics, and with myth after myth about the many miracles the European Union brings about and the disasters that will allegedly rain down on us if we leave.



Many of those supposed disasters have in fact been extraordinarily unsubtle threats, in which European countries threaten to act against their own interest to take revenge on us for the terrible sin of resigning from their club"

....one more snippet:

"To parody Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to be a member of any club who threatened to ruin me if I left it.

Particularly when those threats have been so petulant and implausible."

Read it all HERE.

Out, out, out! III...

---

No comment from Ows, just a great speech by David Davis [edited], posted in full on The Conservative Woman: "This week, the former Shadow Home Secretary and Europe Minister David Davis made a major intervention in the EU referendum debate. In a powerful speech, Davis set out exactly why a brighter future lies ahead for a Britain freed from the shackles of a supranational corpse that hasn’t created any jobs in the UK. Below is the speech in its entirety.":

"It is now exactly four weeks until the British people make the most momentous decision of modern times.

I rather wish that the standard of argument from the other side had lived up to the occasion.

In the past few weeks, the British people have been accused not only by the EU but by their own leaders here, shockingly, of being small-minded, ignorant, economically illiterate, and even ‘horrible racists’ for wanting to leave the EU.

They, we, have been bombarded with a plethora of scare tactics, and with myth after myth about the many miracles the European Union brings about and the disasters that will allegedly rain down on us if we leave.

Many of those supposed disasters have in fact been extraordinarily unsubtle threats, in which European countries threaten to act against their own interest to take revenge on us for the terrible sin of resigning from their club"

....one more snippet:

"To parody Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to be a member of any club who threatened to ruin me if I left it. Particularly when those threats have been so petulant and implausible."

Read it all HERE.