David Cameron

Syria

Spread the love

 

UK planned war on Syria before unrest began: French ex-foreign minister

A former French foreign minister says Britain had been planning a war against Syria some two years before to the unrest broke out in the Arab country.

The statement by Roland Dumas came during a recent interview with French Parliamentary TV network, LCP.

“I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria,” said Dumas.

He continued by saying, “This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.”

“US Backed Plan to Launch Chemical Weapon Attack on Syria and Blame it on Assad Government”

 

‘Chemical Weapons’ media propaganda in US, UK is designed to hide the truth in Syria.

Revised and Updated

The Mail quickly pulled the story down within 24 hours, offering no formal retraction, but simply wiped it clean from their website, but we have a screen shot (below).

US Backed Plan to Launch Chemical Weapon Attack on Syria and Blame it on Assad Government
US Backed Plan to Launch Chemical Weapon Attack on Syria and Blame it on Assad Government

 

 

The Mail was later sued by Britam Defense, and forced to publish a retraction. The Guardian reported on June 26th:

“The Daily Mail has apologised and paid £110,000 in libel damages to a London defence firm it wrongly linked with an alleged chemical weapons plot in Syria.

Britam Defence Limited complained that an article on the Daily Mail’s website Mail Online falsely accused two of its executives of conspiring in a “nefarious and illegal plot” in the Middle Eastern state “for enormous financial reward”.

The article quoted one email supposedly sent between two executives at the company which claimed to show that Britam had agreed to supply chemical weapons to Homs for use in an attack. However, the emails turned out to be forged.”

One of the original leaks which led to this brief, but buried story, was contained in the Britam Leaks, which detailed the alleged plan to be carried out which was said to have received a green light from Washington and was to be financed by Qatar.

Although a libel settlement was reached regarding naming the two Britam executives mentioned in the Mail article, it’s hard to prove that the plot itself did not happen – and herein lies the problem with the secretive shadow state and its array of private contractors in both the US and UK.

Britamgate: Staging False Flag Attacks in Syria

Let’s brief the files. The key finding is a mail dated December 24, 2012 sent by Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding to Dynamic Director of the firm Phillip Doughty, who is a former SAS officer:

Britamgate email: Let's deal banned Chemical Weapons
Britamgate email: Let’s deal banned Chemical Weapons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil

We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.

They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

Kind regards David

To clarify the things, CW is a standard abbreviation for Chemical Weapons; ‘g-shell’ is a bomb consisting of an explosive projectile filled with toxic gas.

…

Turkish Police find Chemical Weapons in the Possession of Al Nusra Terrorists heading for Syria

According to a report in Turkey’s state media agency Zaman, agents from the Turkish General Directorate of Security (Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü) ceased 2 kg of sarin gas in the city of Adana in the early hours of yesterday morning. The chemical weapons were in the possession of Al Nusra terrorists believed to have been heading for Syria.

Sarin gas is a colourless, odorless substance which is extremely difficult to detect. The gas is banned under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.

The EGM identified 12 members of the AL Nusra terrorist cell and also ceased fire arms and digital equipment. This is the second major official confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria after UN inspector Carla Del Ponte’s recent statement confirming the use of chemical weapons by the Western-backed terrorists in Syria.

…

Thanks to intelligence analyst Martin Summers for background.

Continue ReadingSyria

ATOS DWP appeal :: How it works

Spread the love

This article describes how the Atos Work Capabilities Assessment (WCA) and associated appeal system works and how the system is unfair and biased. A further article will look at how to appeal against a decision and use the appeal that I am doing soon as an example. A final article describes the appeal hearing.

Firstly, you have to realise that there is nothing fair, balanced or just about Atos assessments and appeals. They are about attacking the most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves people in society – the sick and disabled. They are not about ensuring that only ‘real’ disabled people who deserve it get benefit – they are all about denying benefit to those that deserve those benefits and are very seriously ill.

Larry, was found fit for work after an Atos assessment. After a long career in work, he had developed a serious lung condition, his weight had dropped from 10 to seven stone and he had trouble walking and breathing. In order to qualify for employment and support allowance (ESA), the new sickness benefit worth £95 a week, he needed 15 points in the test; he was given zero. He was dismayed to note a number of significant inaccuracies in the Atos report, and decided to appeal, but died from lung problems, before the appeal was heard. One of the last things he said to his wife before doctors put him on a ventilator was: “It’s a good job I’m fit for work.”

Last year the Guardian reported on the case of Ruth Anim, who was told after an Atos assessment that she was capable of finding work in the near future, despite the fact she needed constant one-to-one care, had no concept of danger and attended life skills classes to learn practical things like how to make a sandwich or a cup of tea. She was also described in the Atos report as a “male client”. Atos apologised for “any discrepancy in our report and any distress this may have caused”.

source

How it works

Disability benefits claimants are regularly reviewed and are therefore repeatedly subjected to Atos assessments and subsequent appeals – even in cases where their medical condition is very unlikely to improve. Vast sums of money are wasted on this unnecessary harassment of vulnerable and disabled people. Clearly, people with serious conditions which are not going to improve do not need to be repeatedly assessed every year or so.

The procedure starts with a questionnaire about medical conditions and activities of ‘daily living’. The claimant has a month to return the completed questionnaire.

The questionnaire is mostly ignored and an appointment is made for an assessment by Atos within a further month or so.

Atos conducts the Work Capabilities Assessment. It is mostly a question and answer affair with the Health Care Professional (HCP) inputting answers into a computer. There are a few physical examinations of the stand up, lift your arm above your head, touch your toes type. The HCP is often foreign and hard to understand. Foreign doctors and nurses who are not qualified to practice in UK are acceptable as HCPs.

The Work Capabilities Assessment consists of categories of activities for which points are awarded. For example there is not being able to stand or sit still for so long because of pain or discomfort. Less than 30 minutes is 9 points, less than 60 minutes is 6 points. Another example is walking within a reasonable time with the assistance of aids or a manual wheelchair. Less than 50 metres is 15 points, less than a hundred metres is 9 points, less than 200 metres is 6 points. 15 points are needed to be awarded – or continue to receive – a disbility benefit.

How can the Atos HCP decide that you’re able to walk over 200 metres without stopping due to pain or discomfort within a reasonable time? They ask you ridiculous, ‘opaque’ questions and draw ridiculous conclusions. How did you get to the test centre? You drove? Then you can walk over 200 metres without stopping due to pain or discomfort within a reasonable time. What’s your favourite television programme? Eastenders, eh? Watching Eastenders means that you can sit for 30 minutes and can even concentrate! or focus your attention! for 30 minutes. How many people just have the television on in the background?

The Decision Maker is advised of Atos’s conclusions and usually stops or refuses benefit.

The claimant has within a month to appeal. Asking for a statement of reasons for the decision extends the time to appeal to a month from receiving the statement of reasons. [28/07/13 1.40pm Looks like this has changed & you have to appeal within a month of the decision. Check for yourself.]

The claimant must appeal within a month. The claimant can ask for a paper appeal or an appeal in person.

The appeal is delayed for many months. A month or two before the appeal date the appeal ‘bundle’ of papers will be sent to the appellant. This is the Decision Maker’s legal argument and all relevant papers on which the decision was based.

The appeal is heard. Appeals are nowadays heard by a tribunal which is part of the Court Service. The tribunal is supposed to be independent and impartial and follow the rules of natural justice (procedural fairness). The Decision Maker’s position is argued by a practising solicitor or lawyer. [30/07/13 10.10pm This appears to have changed now. Often there is no Presenting Officer present. The Presenting Officer nowadays seems to be a different Decision Maker to the one that made the decision.] The claimant has the opportunity to argue against the Decision Maker’s case.

I haven’t been to an appeal for over a decade and the system has changed since. The Appeal Tribunal may tell you their decision on the day or make you wait. I have been to one appeal with such good legal argument that it was unchallenged. You need to argue law and on the basis of previous decisions.

If you win at appeal you look forward to doing it all again soon.

How it’s unfair

I’ve got a few ideas about how it’s unfair and biased against the claimant. No doubt I am also missing many.

It’s unfair because it’s intended to be unfair. The Decision Maker and the Atos Health Care Professional are not about being fair. Their whole purpose is to refuse benefits. They might pretend to be fair but they’re not.

Everybody involved except the claimant is trained, professional and experienced. There is nobody to assist or represent the claimant while he or she may be very ill and unable to prepare his or her own case.

The case is decided on the basis of law while this is not even made clear to the claimant. While claimants are advised to seek assistance from Citizens Advice Bureaus, Law Centres or Welfare Rights Advisors there is actually no help available. A claimant will be very lucky to even have the near useless help of a law student.

The Decision Maker can prefer Atos’s Health Care Professional’s opinion over that of the claimant’s GP. How on earth can that be fair?

[28/07/13 3am

The strange conclusions drawn from ‘opaque’ questions seem very unfair.

[28/07/13 12.30pm

There is a problem with the ‘opaque’ questions since they are taken to mean something other than what they actually mean i.e. they are interpreted in a certain way like a topic-specific discourse, a subset of language, a mini-language if you like (I’ll probably return to improve this when I have the correct term or phrase). Tribunal participants other than the claimant will be familiar with these alternate meaning while e.g. “can sow and knit” may be taken by the claimant only to mean that he or she can sow and knit.]

In the appeal I’m looking at both the Decision Maker and Atos’s HCP have avoided assessment of one descriptor completely. This is because my client didn’t complete the questionnaire very well. It is quite clear that this descriptor applies but it’s raised as an answer to a different question. It’s also blatantly clear in the request for appeal.]

If you have an appeal

Essential resources are the Welfare Benefit Handbook, the Decision Makers Guide and previous decisions. Use the web.

May be revised

 

I can do that. Gizza. Gizza.

Continue ReadingATOS DWP appeal :: How it works

Cameron’s war on the internet

Spread the love

UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced steps to further censor the web – amoung other things – in a speech on Monday 22nd, July. The speech confuses and conflates many issues and appears intended to appeal to sexual prudes and religious bigots. Cameron’s proposals are half-baked and show a fundamental ignorance of internet technology. It’s all a bit disappointing and surprising because you’d expect his speech writers and researchers to do a better job – he is UK Prime Minister after all. It’s almost as if these researchers and writers don’t have any experience of porn but that can’t be right.

Many issues are confused and conflated: pornography, pornography depicting rape, child pornography, child abuse, childhood ‘innocence’. The speech even starts confused intended to appeal to prudes and bigots that believe any expression of sexuality is as bad as biting apples: “I want to talk about the internet the impact it is having on the innocence of our children how online pornography is corroding childhood and how, in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out.”

It’s confused, isn’t it? By innocence he means ignorance as if ignorance should be encouraged and lauded. How is online pornography corroding childhood more than any other pornography? Children do not have access to online pornography. Adolescents probably doo but not children. And so what? Is it that much worse than war films or everyday violent television, television where people are getting shot, murdered and maimed?

“… in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out.” If they’re in the darkest corners of the internet they’re not any danger to your children. Cameron is trying his hardest to scare you. Is this taking over now that terrorism BS is discredited and wearing thin?

“I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scare-monger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come.

This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence.”

I think that’s exactly why Cameron is making this speech: to moralise and scare-monger. Protect our children and their ignorance innocence. Oh please stop it.

“The internet is not just where we buy, sell and socialise it is where crimes happen and where people can get hurt and it is where children and young people learn about the world, each other, and themselves.”

It is where SOME crimes happen. People can get hurt? Well not physically. Where children and young people learn about the world, each other, and themselves? Oh don’t be so stupid. The internet is only a small part of childrens’ world. They go to school because they’re children. They interact with other children. They watch telly. They are members of families. The internet is only one part of their lives.

“The fact is that the growth of the internet as an unregulated space has thrown up two major challenges when it comes to protecting our children.”

Here it comes …

“The first challenge is criminal: and that is the proliferation and accessibility of child abuse images on the internet.
The second challenge is cultural: the fact that many children are viewing online pornography and other damaging material at a very young age and that the nature of that pornography is so extreme, it is distorting their view of sex and relationships.

Let me be clear.

These challenges are very distinct and very different.

In one we’re talking about illegal material the other legal material that is being viewed by those who are underage.

But both these challenges have something in common.

They are about how our collective lack of action on the internet has led to harmful – and in some cases truly dreadful – consequences for children.

Of course, a free and open internet is vital.

But in no other market – and with no other industry – do we have such an extraordinarily light touch when it comes to protecting our children.”

Cameron says that these two issues are distinct and different … but I’ll conflate them anyway.

The ‘proliferation and accessibility of child abuse images on the internet’ is a myth. Cameron is quite simply making it up. The Internet Watch Foundation collates sites containing child abuse, tells ISP and the ISPs block them. That’s happening now. It’s difficult to find child abuse imagery, you have to make deliberate efforts.

Are many children viewing online pornography and other damaging material at a very young age? Is that pornography so extreme, that it is distorting their view of sex and relationships?

They’re unlikely to be that young. I would expect that they would certainly be in their teens and post-puberty to have an interest in it. Is pornography that extreme? It is certainly posed and acted but then the BS they see on telly will also distort their view of sex and relationships. It’s dead easy to distort childrens’ view of sex and relationships come to think of it. They will have one main, overwhelming model for a start: their very own parents.

Cameron’s on a roll now, there’s no stopping him. “My argument is that the internet is not a side-line to ‘real life’ or an escape from ‘real life’; it is real life.

It has an impact: on the children who view things that harm them on the vile images of abuse that pollute minds and cause crime on the very values that underpin our society.”

The very values that underpin our society. That will be page 3 then, that’s no problem. Somehow objectifying women is not distorting childrens’ view of sex and relationship? Oh that will be because it’s owned by Murdoch.

I’m getting tired of this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying sex and the sooner young people become aware of their own complex being, the better it is all round. To Cameron there is only one type of porn: evil, and I’m surprised he’s such a prude but then he’s probably not. [26/07/13 On reflection, I think that he probably is. He’s certainly no John Major, eh? Gizza. Gizza.)

25/07/13 Addendum

There is child pornography on the net but you have to look for it and will not stumble across it accidentally. There is some confusion amoung commentators on Cameron’s speech who should know better. Paedophile imagery is on hidden services, part of encrypted, anonymity networks. I would be surprised to find any on peer-to-peer (p2p) networks.

I would much prefer that Cameron and the government pursued real paedophiles abusing real children. I have stumbled across a real paedophile and have a pretty good idea who they are and why they are not pursued.

Cameron’s speech supports the why we must all be spied on agenda of covert spying agencies. If we are spied on as much as has recently become apparent, shouldn’t far more paedophiles be in  prison?

25/07/13 Addendum 2

“And today I can announce that from next year, we will also link up existing fragmented databases across all the police forces to produce a single secure database of illegal images of children which will help police in different parts of the country work together more effectively to close the net on paedophiles.

It will also enable the industry to use the digital hash tags from the database to
pro-actively scan for, block and take down these images wherever they occur.”

That will be incredibly easy – trivial – to avoid.

Cameron continues his speech talking about default-on ‘filters’ and outlawing extreme pornography. Filters are going to further censor the internet. The internet is already hugely censored in e.g. libraries and workplaces, through Microsoft produced censorship software. Some forms of extreme pornography is already illegal.

“Once CEOP becomes a part of the National Crime Agency, that will further increase their ability to investigate behind pay walls to shine a light on the hidden internet and to drive prosecutions of those who are found to use it.”

This is a clear mistake. There is nothing illegal about using the so-called “hidden internet” and no possible prosecutions per se. I’m running a hidden internet server FFS. This speech is a mess. I’m looking for work.

Continue ReadingCameron’s war on the internet

I don’t want to do this any more

Spread the love

First revision 13 july 2013

I don’t want to do this any more. I would much prefer to be sailing. I’d like to buy a small boat but then I’d need to be working and earning. I’d like a regular boyfriend. I’d like to drink less and make fewer rather embarrassing remarks.

I don’t want to do this any more. I want to be working and earning so that I can buy a small boat and go sailing. The trouble is that I can’t be working and earning because these bastards get in the way all the time.

I could be working and earning or just working on earning to start with if it wasn’t for these bastards. I’ve got some skill and knowledge with puters – it’s just problem-solving, analysis, understanding systems. I think that I’ve demonstrated that I’m able and bright enough to do that. I am. I have the ability to be a sys admin, network admin, programmer, etc. These bastards will never let me do that.

I know a good crowd who run a social enterprise. Basically it means that they make very little money but at least they are doing some good and improving themselves. I could hang round with them and do some work if it wasn’t for those bastards. Those bastards that interfere all the time spying and prying and breaking networks and things. I’ve tried, I can’t work at the social enterprise that I know.

Looks like I can’t have a boat because of the bastards. [24/07/13 edit: Then earn money doing some different work.]

I don’t want to do this any more. It started years ago around 98 or 99. I was one of the early bloggers. Reality cracking, rejecting the bullshit that they feed us every day, they take us for fools. That’s asking for it.

Ian Blair is quite a pathetic figure really. He’s achieved very little apart from covering up for murder and a big pension. Corrupt and promoted far above his intellect and abilities for political reasons. New Labour to the last he even blamed Boris when he cut the deal with Jacquie. He’s just a useless bastard really, a parasitic tic with the sadim touch.

It is worth looking at Ian Blair’s tenure as boss of the Metropolitan police. You’ll see that he did a lot of politicking and very little policing. There’s a lot of very thinly disguised bullshit going on, a definite agenda other than policing being followed. He was Tony Blair’s butler. I’ve lately been having this image of the two Blairs being cheeks of the same arse sharing a mouth. Ugh.

I don’t really want to do this any more because – contrary to some speculation in the past – I have achieved what I set out to achieve. I have cracked reality. I have reached an understanding of what it’s all about. It’s about a lot of things and about the interactions of a lot of things. I’m not likely to be able to explain even if you were accepting and attentive which is unlikely but perhaps I should try explaining some main points.

The concept of parallax. [Thanks Parallax:)

Things look different according to where you’re looking from.

So, being a suspected terrorist of the self-exploding type I can reason that there are no real terrorists. Since I know for a fact that I am not a terrorist but instead labelled as a terrorist I can reasonably conclude that there are many more similar to me. I am in fact aware that there are many others similar to me. For example, in UK whole political groups of non-terrorists have been labelled terrorists.

What’s going on here then? Are there terrorists or not?

There are certainly terrorists.

There is the odd one or two obviously insane terrorists like the failed shoe bomber. This is interesting because labelling people as terrorists as the authorities do is likely to lead to self-fulfilling prophesies in some cases. It is also likely that that is the intention since there is a definite dearth of terrorist terrorists.

Then there are people who hack people to death on crowded streets in daylight. They’re not terrorists. They’re racially-motivated murderers. Incidentally, it’s interesting to see how the press and media were manipulated in such cases.

Then there are the real terrorists. The SAS got caught with bombs in Basra. Terrorists. We know that they’re terrorists because they had bombs, were disguised, didn’t have a reasonable explanation and were broken out of jail by the UK army.

Then there is the modus operandi of the terrorists. They arrange a security drill to make sure they’re all in place to control the act and the press and media. Then they blame Islam and Muslims, even sometimes making false claims on websites. Sometimes they even sneakily change laws just to make sure they will never be held to account for their terrorism. The timing is also often very convenient or accords to some higher (Non-Muslim) reason.

Then there are terrorist acts which are known as military operations like killing hundreds of thousands on innocent Iraqis or war crimes using banned chemical weapons like white phosphorous. Oh FM don’t mention that, that was the Israelis. Somehow these incidents are not recognised as terrorism.

I’ve got it. Terrorists are the people that the Fascist scum criminals in power are opposed to. So political activists and opponents to scum politicians are terrorists except of course that they’re not: they’re political activists and opponents of scum politicians. You get people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden labelled as terrorists except of course that they’re not. They’re not even traitors – they’re serving their people and opposing scum politicians / real terrorists.

So why does Islam and Muslims get blamed so much?

Islam and Muslims are a hindrance to Capitalism. Capitalism needs to make more profit and expand into Muslim countries. How can Capitalism do that if these people look after each other and indulge in charitable giving and the like? Capitalism needs to burn that oil.

Is that about it?

That’s about it except about scum politicians. Tony Blair and his bunch of shits weren’t socialists. Nick Clegg and his bunch of shits are not liberals. They’re all Neo-Liberal Neo-Conservatives who have hijacked their respective parties. The UK ‘Liberal Democrats’ are doing some awfully illiberal things because Clegg and his crew are huge Tory bastards pretending to be liberals.

I feel a bit better now. I suppose that I have to do it. Nobody else will.

 

13/07/13 7.50am typos corrected

19/07/13 11am added links

 

Continue ReadingI don’t want to do this any more

TAXES

Spread the love

Yes TAXES,

It’s spun that Devoid Cameron, UK Prime Minister proposes – at the gate (and spun much before too (hu knows what goes on at the gate?)) is pursuing tax evaders and tax avoiders. Sorry DC, I have been very restrained (I think that I even like you after what I’m used to). [edit: I have so far been restrained. I’m uncertain how much longer I will be restrained – it is politics after all and it is said that all’s fair in love and politics – and I will be very involved then.}

The trouble is – of course – is that [edit: you} represent the tax [edit: avoiding] evading and tax evading filthy rich scum – and I stress that I consider that you represent them. Take for example Philip Green. Didn’t you give the tax evading shit a job in your cabinet? OK I can’t check it now, it’s late. My question is how can you now be promoting the idea that tax evasion is so bad when you have [edit: had] such close associations with such accomplished tax evaders in the past?

edit: 18 June 2013 00:32 am It really pissed me off that the last lot and all the shits that they represented and actually who they were repeater[edit: d not r]  a[n]d shitness [sorry, that was inteded as a latin ad ;)] that they didn’t have any warning from me … what cnuts they were

01.00 am Anyway DC The trouble is that I [am] opposed to your policies and your actions and also to your boy Clegg. I can assure you that I have no intention of action other than what is regarded as within the democratic process. No doubt you will be aware that I campaigned against your predecessor Tony Bliar. I am very concerned that I am regarded as a  suspected terrorist by UK legal authorities through my totally democratic actions.

later clarification: I am very concerned that I am regarded as a suspected or potential terrorist by UK legal authorities. I am a political activist. A political activist is not a terrorist UNLESS THIS IS A FASCIST STATE.

01.20 It doesn’t matter that I USE CAPITAL LETTERS. The issue is that I am regarded and harassed by police as a suspected terrorist. It follows that I can be subjected to over the top state extermination. Isn’t that one point that needs to be recognised here? That the state sat that’s a suspected terrorist and kill them without any recourse?

Isn’t that Gibraltar and the MURDER of Jean Charles de Menezes?  I am the media as much as the corporate media. The difference is that I care for others and justice.

01:30 am Well the point is that I am a political activist and I have been a politicalactivist for many years. While I have reported events in many ways far better than normal channels I don’t think that makes me a reporter. That’s because a reporter is amployed and gets paid to report things …

Anyway, I have been a political activist and it appears that I am on my own with very little support. I know that I am regarded bu UK authorities – or at least I was until very recently – as a potential terrorist. I do think that people should support me in this respect because they can also be labelled – I don’t know the appropriate phrase you journalists and politician would use here. The police have got me and are behaving towards me as a suspected terrorist. I know this through their behaviour. You will be aware that UK cops kill suspected terrorists with far too many bullets according to a certian patternm.

Continue ReadingTAXES