kicking cans

If the promise to leave the EU is as strong as the promise to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050 are of the same strenght, then we can assume that this government is just a promise but no action government.

What we get are sincere, deep voices, manly promises, but nothing changes, really.

Greenpeace thought of getting the grey cells of some politicians into motion but that didn’t have any effect, other than being pushed out of the event.

Action speaks louder than words but words are all what some people can come up with. The dinners, the speeches, the outfits, the glamour.

I am not certain that our politicians these days have the mental capacity or even flexibility to actually change anything that moves them out of their current comfort zones.

I don’t care whether we get Brexit or not, but what I care about is that our quality of life increases.

And I don’t believe those who say they are so totally Green because they all use medications and modern technology that was borne out of dirty production methods and using fossil fuels. They all have cars and use flights.

We need to start somewhere and how about changing the way we fund and perceive our schools?

Why not make sure that all schools are enabling our pupils and future generations to breathe in clean air? That all our pupils get plenty of palying fields and green spaces?

If we really want to change our lives, we need to change the way we calculate profits, taxes and distribution of wealth, ownership. In fact we need to redefine the meaning of wealth to include

  • health
  • environment

You cannot sell a walk in the forest for profit, you cannot sell the rainforest because it needs to be wild and just as it is. You cannot sell the ocean because it needs to stay and we cannot sell the north or south pole because we need it just as it is.

Yet there are two things, which are wars and space exploration, which create more carbon emission than a lot of other items. Also the production of white goods and anything that uses metals is highly contageous. Calculate your carbon footprint here.

Lets think about that for a while.

Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using machines is simply not creating the bio diversity we need to keep the environment healthy and evacuating from earth to another planet is nothing but wishful dreaming.

I must admit, I just love living in our civilisation, the freedom that women can have would be not even half as good in a primitive low carbon society.

Yet there is still the possibility of an educated low carbon society, something we probably all dream about. Articles 25 and 26 of the Universal Human Rights deal with health and education whilst the vast majority of paragraphs deal with legal definitions of personal freedoms.

Perhaps that declaration of Human Rights, should include taking care of our planet as an obligation and right for all of us.

Advertisements

Chemical weapons supplied by Saudis in CIA conspiracy?

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

Question is can this story be true. As of today, the day after this post above appeared on Facebook, so far, none of the mayor news publishers, e.g. BBC or Al Jazeera have repeated this.

That just shows that in Freedom of speech everybody can spread any type of stories, may that be true or false. What are we to belief?

Penned out

How can anybody be charged with an offence if the remarks made make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It seems completely outlandish to even think that residing Muslims could be compared to Nazis in any capacity whatsoever. The remarks are so off the mark that nobody could possibly belief them.

If Le Pen actually believes what she said, and if anybody admires her for it, then they are all completely and totally crackers. Perhaps the only thing Le Pen could be guilty of is admiration of Hitler. Both seem equally mad.

 

Not Muslim

Muslims distance themselves from the atrocities that were carried out against a British soldier near the Woolwich barracks. Indeed when I first watched the gruesome scene, I thought that seems to be the action of some blood thirsty, depraved individual that perhaps belongs to some weird African sect rather than a Muslim.

Father Alan does some great work here in East London, where we had no reprisals against the Muslim community because of some idiot who wants to disguise witch doctor killings with Islam.

I think the men who did this bloody killing also tried to appeal to woman to understand them and have sympathy by apologising to woman that they had to watch this. Those men just looked for an excuse to be cannibalistic.  I think their behaviour was very tribal and completely out of context of modern thinking.

I think it is really good that Muslims distance themselves from this terror act, Muslim from the big Mosque in Whitechapel East London. Also the Woolwich Mosque condemns the attack.

But what some reactions show from further afield. is that there are elements in society that do not shy to attack religious groups because some deprived individuals pretend to act on their behalf. We must give the Muslims a chance to first publicly declare their reaction before we charge like Elephants in a porcelain shop as reaction to mad men. We cannot allow society to disintegrate into anarchy because it would not benefit us at all.

 

Where were the good guys?

In the meantime, the National Rifle Association of the USA better known as NRA, held a press conference about the Newtown shooting, with Wayne LaPierre, NRA saying: “Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns”.

That statement followed the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school, that saw 20, 6-year old’s killed by a lone gunman who suffered from a personality disorder.

Of course in principle it is correct, that good guys stop bad guys, that’s why we have armed police and the army. But where were the good guys with guns?

Even I have called for more armed police officers in Britain to stop rogue shooters after a lone taxi driver went on a killing spree and for lack of armed officers he could not be stopped for a considerable amount of time. Here in the UK we already have strict gun laws, which practically forbid gun ownership for most of us.

Lets be practical to have good guys stop the bad guys, we would need a good guy with a gun, meaning an army soldier stationed at every street corner. Only army soldiers have he mentality to even recognise danger when it comes and are ready to respond in good time to stop those bad guys.

Even if you put armed guards in every school, then the bad guys are likely to just pick on some other soft target that hasn’t gotten an armed guard. But to properly protect all equally well we would need armed guards everywhere.

We would need an army run country without democracy and end up with a Military state. We are using our own army to dismantle other military states by stating that they are not democratic enough but in our own quarters the NRA practically calls for the setting up of one. At least that is my very own interpretation of their words.

Indeed in this very particular case Adam Lanza’s mother was the good guy with the guns that would have stopped the bad guy if the bad guy would not have taken her weapons to shoot her with them first. Showing that only specially trained good guys are able to prevent being killed with their own guns, leading further into the discussion of widespread military deployment to stop those bad guys everywhere.

Can a court order the military to take down missiles?

It is of quite significant importance that today an application will be heard before the High Court that challenges the right of the Army to deploy missiles within a residential area when they deem it necessary. The reasons given are Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act, reports the BBC.

If the application for Judicial Review is successful, then the army will have to take the missiles down until the review has been made, which is never going to happen prior to the Olympics.

Campaigners argue it stops a person’s right to a private and family life if missiles are on top of the roof, which is quite illogical as the army does not come into your flat at all. Also I cannot see the point on consultation as military decisions often have to me made in the spur of the moment and developments come along rather rapidly and situations are not always the same.

If campaigners win that application than theoretically the army would have to conduct public consultation  before engaging in any war or military action. That would be a great victory for the Anti-war coalition who would of course not want any military deployment from our side.

10 July 2012, the court rules that the residents are not entitled to a Judicial Review.

Are we being duped?

I think there is a real dangerous tendency happening in the UK to scrap policing and military in favour of banking and civil law enquiries and changes. It must be hugely expensive to carry out all the enquiries into banking, publishing and now also social care for youngsters among others numerous enquiries going on.

It is quite serious how policing is dismantled, army being reduced quite considerably and that all over the UK loses a lot of internal and external power to defend against foreign powers and internally against crime.

Amazingly though Labour and Conservatives and especially Liberal Democrats work hand in hand to reduce those law enforcement agencies.

It is remarkable how our external armies are slowly eroded, our internal police force gets constantly reduced and that defences are now placed on our buildings instead  of producing an overall better international defence through a well developed army.

We are getting the Syria effect in our own towns. I think our town would look like a Syrian one, should one of those missiles need to be fired in defence of attack. But it is good to know that the army has sorted out the defence problem against attack and found the best places to put those rockets. Our towns would look even worst if we would not have the missiles and allowed others just to drop bombs on us.

It is a stark fact of life that terrorists show little sympathy for their victims, they just want to cause carnage and I have not heard any criticism of terrorist attacks when I watched one anti-missile meeting on Youtube but only criticism of the army for putting defensive weapons for our protection.It’s nice to know that a protective cocoon has been put around us and the stadium so that our visiting athletes also can feel safe performing here.

I was disturbed when our vicar encouraged church goers to join the missile protest but was assured that the church does not have a common policy, but what individuals do within it is not binding on the whole congregation. Even the BBC remarked that the protest was relatively small and only few people marched at the most recent protest. But as the BBC also reports on 7 July 2012, there is now a legal challenge before the High Court to allow a Judicial Review into the matter.

Time is not on their side

The longer this Abu Qatada problem goes on, the worst for us because the public discussion and time delays in deporting him will only help to give the terrorists momentum and strengthens their movement but does not help to improve anything for us at all.

Threats have already been made by radical Islamists who have offered a hostage deal for Qatada’s release. Khalil Dale, a British Muslim convert, who was found murdered, was taken hostage in January in Pakistan, he was a British Aid worker.

The ECHR is not helping by halting the deportation of Qatada. This matter should be kept as quiet as possible and not allow the press to built the public imagine of that man up and not give terrorist a reason to group up around him. I think there should be a press restriction on reports about the matter. Unfortunately Labour only uses the debacle to try and gain public support by blaming Theresa May for the problems that appeared around the appeal date.

I think such problems show the weakness of the political system in that parties cannot overcome their zealous fight to protect the interests of the nation. No pictures of Abu Qatada should be shown in the press at all. He is already a living shrine to many radical elements and pictures make it worst. Crime prevention should take prevalence, we do not want to learn from mistakes after they were made, we should want to prevent other attacks on innocent people.

Breivik a warning to all lone wolves out there

I think in a way it is good that Breivik at least agrees to talk freely about his experiences and explaines what goes on in his mind because it helps us to understand the psychology that is behind his behaviour. It would also have helped tremendously if at the time the Germans would have captured Baader-Meinhof’s sstate of mind, which was stopped by untimely deaths.

What seems clear from what I can read from the distance is that he had a lot of remote contact over a long period of time with people who groomed him into these attacks. He had very few direct meetings with actual people. But what is clear that if you now go and meet someone over a few days in a strange location you really do not know who you are dealing with. Anybody can pretend to be somebody or dress up an appear in a certain manner to dupe you into thinking that you are on the same wavelength.

Lets face it a lot of extremist ideologies have a lot  in common. It is not impossible for an al-Qaede operative to get a Christian radical thinker into carrying out a terrorist act against his own race by twisting his mind long enough.

Breivik was even given uniforms with lapels on and medals. Anybody from any group could have dressed up to pretend to him that they are the Knights Templar. I would urge anybody not to belief others they only meet occasionally, who they are. Unless you know somebody from a real live situation do not belief them please.

A lot of grooming goes on over the Internet, where for example sexual predators pretend to be children and coax kids to meet them but in that instance it would be hard to pretend to be a child when they meet but in the situation around ideological things, that go on in the mind of a person,it would be very hard to distinguish one person from another.

Many ideologies can be carried by any person and often enough today not all blonde and blue eyed persons are Arians any longer, not all who have brown eyes an black hair are Muslims.

If Breivik really wanted to do himself and the people he loves so much a favour, he would describe in detail who the people he met are and what they look like to the littlest detail he can remember. But the fact that he refuses to do that leaves it open to the interpretation that he is not really interested in protecting the Christian culture as he says but that he is merely interested in killing as many as possible with any excuse. That makes him a mere mass murderer who dresses up his actions under some far fetched ideology.

He is very cold and calculating and understands perfectly well what he was doing and even how he manipulated his own emotions to be fit for the task he set himself or allowed others to set for himself. But if he really wanted to protect Christian culture he would have asked each and every person he shot or killed whether they are a Christian or not and he did not do so. That fact alone leads me to belief that he is merely pretending and lying.

Don’t do to others ….

Unfortunately I have to use this very sad occasion, where an enemy of this state might get positively discriminated against by another, higher force, to show that this very old saying still is true and always will be true and it goes: “You should not do to others what you don’t want done to yourself” or another commonly understood one is “What goes around comes around”. I cannot even feel Schadenfreude or glee that this happened to the government because I am not on the side of the bad guy.

But in this instance the government fell victim to the very same rule that was used against me in my own cases before the High Court in that procedural rules are allowed to be broken if the court favours a particular legal outcome.

In my own case against Der Spiegel, dates were obviously falsified, appeals made on the wrong forms, but still the court allowed it all to help the defendant,  win the case. In other cases all types of evidence was allowed against me that by established case law would be forbidden normally.

There we have it if there is a desired legal outcome then courts can break all rules they want because they are the highest authority and what the highest judge says that is the law.

It is particularly upsetting that the UK has to learn that point in the case against Abu Qatada, who is an enemy of the state. It remains to be seen why the EU wants to protect him so much, what does he do for them?

One can now ask the question is there any justice at all if outcomes can be set from the start to reach a desired goal and ignoring all rules along the way to get it.

Looking at the principle of this, our whole education system is set up to teach children to be fast and accurate and correct, but in the legal world, fast and accurate method is not required,all that is required is acting for the pre-determined, winning side and all other principles are forgotten. Is that corrupt or is it freedom?

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,705 hits