UK Election... 12 Dec 2019: Corbyn, Boris, or Libs

[Eric J (Viking)]

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
Viking: What amazing information you have about the horrid EU government. As an American I had no idea it was this bad. I did however, visit England twice in the past two years and couldn't believe how rarely I heard English spoken when traveling on the tube in London! The English natives seem to have fled London for rural areas, and former Londoners must be super mad that they have lost their capital to foreigners.

Thanks for your input Arcturian. Personally I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I love the multi cultural people of all types... We are all one. Humans. Regardless.

Viking

[araucaria]

I want to come back to my suggestion that the election was stolen on a massive scale by conducting exit polls using ballot papers. Given that for four years the tories have not missed a single dirty trick, the probability of their allowing a clean election was vanishingly small, and yet when the huge turnaround was announced, all the suspicions miraculously ceased. This would be the biggest lie of all by some margin, and yet it goes unnoticed. The gullibility of one section of the population has spread to the least gullible. Even today, people are still saying that the Nazis came to power through an election: maybe so, but there was surely more to it than simply kissing babies.

I only have suspicions – this election stinks to high heaven – but no investigation will take place until others share them. If I am right, what this means is that all the truth uncovered over this last period has been swept back under the carpet. In addition to entitled tories impersonating other parties in parliament in order to push through whatever they like (until the dissidents begin to find a voice, that is), we are already seeing the opposition looking in the wrong place to discover what went wrong. Nothing went wrong: they put in a decent campaign and won over enough voters; it ain’t broke, but they’re going to fix it. Meanwhile conspiracy sites like Avalon continue to churn out garbage (eg. the content of post #34 on this thread) while Americans lap it all up.

Here is an egregious example of what I mean, from that post:

UK Government corruption has exploded in the 43 years we’ve been inside the EU.

This brilliant non-sequitur suggests that UK Government was never corrupt before that – it’s all the EU’s doing – and of course the present UK Government is restoring some honesty. Even Johnson’s closest allies have never claimed he was remotely honest. But let’s take the absurdity a little further. Two generations of Brits have been born in the 43 years we’ve been inside the EU – mostly fathered by bureaucrats in Brussels I take it. Also millions of Brits have died in that time, now we know why. When the UK joined the EEC, Nasa stopped sending men to the Moon. This had nothing to do with the official reasons or even with aliens on the Moon; it was those bureaucrats in Brussels.

This is the simple process of demonization that gets us nowhere and is part of the distraction caused by the real criminals. The only way forward is independent, forensic policing and justice. It may not be too late for that, but time is running out very fast, and the usual investigators are just not interested.

[Longjohn]

Sorry, Baby Steps. I should have thanked for your reply in post 32. Please forgive me for any discourtesy.

Best regards,

John

[snoman]

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
Viking: What amazing information you have about the horrid EU government. As an American I had no idea it was this bad. I did however, visit England twice in the past two years and couldn't believe how rarely I heard English spoken when traveling on the tube in London! The English natives seem to have fled London for rural areas, and former Londoners must be super mad that they have lost their capital to foreigners.

Love it when 'Americans' talk about 'foreigners' lol.

Just cranking up the gramophone and dropping the needle into the middle of Buffy Sainte Marie's song

"My country 'tis of thy people you're dying
Now that the long houses breed superstition
You force us to send our toddlers away
To your schools where they're taught
To despise their traditions
You forbid them their languages, then further say
That American history really began
When Columbus set sail out of Europe"

skip a few grooves as the dog jumps off the sofa

"choke on your blue white and scarlet hypocrisy"

great song.

[Longjohn]

Dear Viking,

Thank you for your contribution, which I read with interest.

When a guy produces an article containing a long set of statements denigrating the EU, along with how much ministers were bribed to consign their nations to a supposed EU oblivion, you would presumably expect that he had thoroughly researched it and could support all his claims with verifiable facts and figures.

If one or more of these claims were found to be false, then you would be forced to conclude that the article was nothing more than a piece of propaganda, written for readers whom the author presumed would be sufficiently in accord (and gullible) not to question his sources too closely.

Let's look at one of the major statements he makes about the Lisbon Treaty, which, if true, is certainly one of the most alarming:

The EU is a military union. The Lisbon Treaty orders us to hand over our Army, Navy, Airforce and nuclear weapons to the EU.

That's complete and utter balderdash. No British Government would ever accept that. Read the following statement from here.

"14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent

This is false. The EU doesn’t have its own army, although some key players are supportive of the idea. The Lisbon Treaty sets out that the EU’s “common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy.”

But unlike in other areas of EU decision-making, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security and defence. And it can’t implement common defence policies unless the European Council unanimously approves. This effectively gives the UK a veto on any EU defence policies.

UK law also states that no such common EU defence powers can be handed from the UK to the EU without the approval of parliament and a referendum on the decision.

The Lisbon Treaty does not say anything about the UK’s nuclear deterrent. The House of Commons Library says: “Decision making on the use of British nuclear weapons is a sovereign matter for the UK. There is no requirement to gain the approval of the United States or other NATO allies for their use and only the Prime Minister can authorise an instruction to fire.”


So, Viking, I'm far from being drawn into the abyss. I'm on the outside looking in at all the mess others have created.

Cheers, LJ

[Longjohn]

Dear Araucaria,

This is the simple process of demonization that gets us nowhere and is part of the distraction caused by the real criminals. The only way forward is independent, forensic policing and justice. It may not be too late for that, but time is running out very fast, and the usual investigators are just not interested.

Your post #42 was excellent, and a most fitting response to that article quoted in #34!

Best regards,

John

[Eric J (Viking)]

Hi LJ

I see your sitting there waiting patiently for me to respond to your post.

I'm not really interested in dabating who the bad guys are, been there done that. I know where I am. We have steered slightly more than off topic which wasn't my plan for the thread. I commend you on your well written and thought out posts but will leave it there.

Be well.

Viking

[Longjohn]

Thanks, Viking. The debate was interesting and I didn't intend any offence to you.

BTW, I wasn't actually sitting by my PC waiting like a vulture for you! It's been turned off for a couple of hours while I went out for my Sunday constitutional. I daresay the webpage must have been left open.

My respects to you, John

[Eric J (Viking)]

Posted by Longjohn (here)
Thanks, Viking. The debate was interesting and I didn't intend any offence to you.

BTW, I wasn't actually sitting by my PC waiting like a vulture for you! It's been turned off for a couple of hours while I went out for my Sunday constitutional. I daresay the webpage must have been left open.

My respects to you, John

HI John

Seriously no offence taken, and no need to tell what your up to on a Sunday in order to excuse yourself. My Web page normally times out. 🙂.

Anyway hardly a debate, I look forward to discussing further issues with you.

Blessings

Viking

[Tintin]

"....plutocrats and government agencies indisputably interfered in the British election, [...]. Yet according to British law it was perfectly legal, and according to British society it was perfectly acceptable. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable for powerful individuals to have a vastly greater influence on a purportedly democratic election than any of the ordinary individuals voting in it."

Caitlin Johnstone writing for Consortium News, December 13th 2019

-----------------------------------------------------

There are some very legitimate concerns raised about the validity of the election result as there have been previous incidences, of a dubious nature, that would give pause to thought as to its most likely possibility. (Remember Cambridge Analytica?)

(See also idox - https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Idox_Elections
and https://companycheck.co.uk/company/0...ies-house-data )

Scottish Herald: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...on-count-firm/

--------------------------------------------------

BBC’S LAURA KUENSSBERG ACCUSED OF BREAKING ELECTORAL LAW AFTER REVEALING CONFIDENTIAL POSTAL VOTE INFORMATION

Source: https://evolvepolitics.com/bbcs-laur...e-information/

December 11th, 2019

The BBC’s Chief Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg, has become embroiled in yet another General Election reporting scandal after appearing to break Electoral Law by revealing confidential information about how Postal Voters had cast their vote prior to the results being revealed tomorrow.

Speaking during a seemingly impromptu piece to camera on the BBC’s Politics Live programme, Kuenssberg claimed that the postal votes were “looking pretty grim for Labour in lots of parts of the country“.

Kuenssberg claimed:

“The Postal Votes, of course, have already arrived. The parties – they’re not meant to look at it – but they do kind of get a hint. And on both sides people are telling me that the postal votes that are in are looking pretty grim for Labour in a lot of parts of the country.”

Revealing how people may have voted based on informaton from opened Postal Votes before the 10pm polling day cutoff is illegal because it could influence the way others choose to vote.

The Representation of the People Act 1983 clearly defines the law, stating:

“No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed […] any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted, or b) any forecast as to the result of the election which is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information so given. “

It is understood that the information would have been uncovered at what are known as postal vote “opening sessions“.

The Electoral Commission stated just 6 days ago on Twitter that “Anyone attending a postal vote opening session has a duty to maintain secrecy.“

Politics Live usually receives around 800,000 viewers each day, and Kuenssberg’s influential and potentially criminal comments will have been widely heard across the country.

You can watch Laura Kuenssberg’s comments in full below:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y6VOMkpWuwU

Responding to Kuenssberg’s apparent unlawful admission, LBC Producer, Ava Santina, slammed the BBC’s Chief Political Editor, tweeting:

“The reason broadcasters are not allowed to reveal postal votes before 10PM polling day is it influences the vote. I really have no explanation of how this is allowed under broadcasting code”

Kuenssberg’s latest “error” comes just days after she tweeted an outright lie about a Labour activist supposedly “punching” a Tory Minister’s aide to her more than one million followers.

A video later revealed that the Tory aide had actually walked into the Labour activist’s arm whilst they were pointing to their right and looking in the opposite direction.

The BBC has already been roundly criticised for their coverage of the 2019 General Election after encountering numerous gaffes which all just happen to benefit the Conservative Party.

Ms Kuennsberg’s latest gaffe maintains the BBC’s 100% pro-Tory error rate for this General Election.

Evolve Politics contacted both the BBC and the Electoral Commission for comment.

The Electoral Commission advised us to report the incident to the police.

Subsequently, Evolve Politics reported the BBC’s Chief Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg, to the police regarding the incident.

Whilst, in a brief statement, a BBC spokesperson told Evolve Politics:

“The BBC does not believe it, or its political editor, has breached electoral law.”

However, Evolve also understands that the police are now dealing with multiple reports about the incident from members of the public.

The BBC have since removed today’s episode of Politics Live from their online iPlayer website.
-----------------------------------------------------

Related:

https://evolvepolitics.com/bbcs-laur...-tory-advisor/ - Laura Kuenssberg has been caught out spreading an outright lie about a Labour activist supposedly ‘punching’ an advisor to Tory Health Secretary Matt Hancock

Representation of the People Act 1983 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...9830002_en.pdf

Caitlin Johnstone https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/1...-wasnt-russia/ -

[Tintin]

Queen's Speech 2019
22 new Bills to be introduced in Parliament


As is customary, ahead of a new Parliamentary session following a General Election, the incumbent monarch presents the government's policy proposals, some of which have already begun their journey through parliament. These speeches are nearly always presented in an agreeable way but in my experience are usually riddled with IEDs as they are often, of course, worded very deliberately vaguely.

And, the future looks ever more bleak for Julian Assange as - his Case Management Hearing is also scheduled for today - this Conservative government, arguably even more extremist than the Thatcher administrations of the 1970s-1980s were perceived to be, is unlikely to apply any clemency; that should concern any individual who values freedom of expression and institutional accountability - holding truth to power - as it may relate to any anti-terror legislation.

An example of the (deliberately) vague language used is encapsulated particularly starkly in the following paragraph:

"My Government is committed to a fair justice system that keeps people
safe. My ministers will establish a Royal Commission to review and
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process.
New sentencing laws will ensure the most serious violent offenders,
including terrorists, serve longer in custody [Counter Terrorism
(Sentencing and Release) Bill, Sentencing Bill]. New laws will
require schools, police, councils and health authorities to work together
to prevent serious crime [Serious Violence Bill]"

What exactly constitutes the definition of 'terrorist', or what a 'serious crime' may soon be defined as?

Which measures, as encompassed in for example this sentence, will be introduced?

"Measures will be developed to
tackle hostile activity conducted by foreign states."

Are we to suppose that journaiists and what remains of the free press will be considered 'foreign states'?

We've also already witnessed the exposure of the state propaganda machine parading itself as the Integrity Initiative neatly summarised in this tweet by Jonathan Cook.

Plans to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which, as James Morrison of the Oxford University Press writes: "...was also enacted in order to stop opportunist prime ministers ever again calling snap elections to capitalise on hefty poll leads”, and he adds, “it has proved itself wholly incapable of doing any such thing.”

And amongst others outlined in the speech, this most peculiar commitment:

"working to ensure that all girls have access to twelve years of
quality education."

Aside from the clear gender distinction ie why shouldn't that apply to all children, what may this education comprise?

My view is that we should remain extraordinarily vigilant with respect to this Boris Johnson government. Without any effective opposition now in Parliament many of the more extreme proposals outlined here are likely to become law with very little obstruction. That's a major concern.

[Eric J (Viking)]

Posted by Tintin (here)
Queen's Speech 2019
22 new Bills to be introduced in Parliament


As is customary, ahead of a new Parliamentary session following a General Election, the incumbent monarch presents the government's policy proposals, some of which have already begun their journey through parliament. These speeches are nearly always presented in an agreeable way but in my experience are usually riddled with IEDs as they are often, of course, worded very deliberately vaguely.

And, the future looks ever more bleak for Julian Assange as - his Case Management Hearing is also scheduled for today - this Conservative government, arguably even more extremist than the Thatcher administrations of the 1970s-1980s were perceived to be, is unlikely to apply any clemency; that should concern any individual who values freedom of expression and institutional accountability - holding truth to power - as it may relate to any anti-terror legislation.

An example of the (deliberately) vague language used is encapsulated particularly starkly in the following paragraph:

"My Government is committed to a fair justice system that keeps people
safe. My ministers will establish a Royal Commission to review and
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process.
New sentencing laws will ensure the most serious violent offenders,
including terrorists, serve longer in custody [Counter Terrorism
(Sentencing and Release) Bill, Sentencing Bill]. New laws will
require schools, police, councils and health authorities to work together
to prevent serious crime [Serious Violence Bill]"

What exactly constitutes the definition of 'terrorist', or what a 'serious crime' may soon be defined as?

Which measures, as encompassed in for example this sentence, will be introduced?

"Measures will be developed to
tackle hostile activity conducted by foreign states."

Are we to suppose that journaiists and what remains of the free press will be considered 'foreign states'?

We've also already witnessed the exposure of the state propaganda machine parading itself as the Integrity Initiative neatly summarised in this tweet by Jonathan Cook.

Plans to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which, as James Morrison of the Oxford University Press writes: "...was also enacted in order to stop opportunist prime ministers ever again calling snap elections to capitalise on hefty poll leads”, and he adds, “it has proved itself wholly incapable of doing any such thing.”

And amongst others outlined in the speech, this most peculiar commitment:

"working to ensure that all girls have access to twelve years of
quality education."

Aside from the clear gender distinction ie why shouldn't that apply to all children, what may this education comprise?

My view is that we should remain extraordinarily vigilant with respect to this Boris Johnson government. Without any effective opposition now in Parliament many of the more extreme proposals outlined here are likely to become law with very little obstruction. That's a major concern.

Yes I do agree Tintin... Also she was quite specific as to My Government... My Minsters.. Ect...My My My and not The... If you get what I mean. Almost as if she's trying to underline its all hers. Just a thought.

Viking