A groundbreaking study, carried out over five years, has left the standing and operating methods of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in tatters. Especially, the report’s writers heap criticism on one part of the department’s operations: the benefit sanctions regime. But a standout point from the report was that the DWP should cease implementing sanctions to disabled people.
The DWP sanctions regime: under the limelight
The Welfare Conditionality project (2013-2018) was financed by the Economic and Social Research Council. Conditionality is the notion that people who get benefits should have to satisfy certain conditions, such as applying for jobs or lose their payments.
A sanction, in this context, means the removal of benefits, usually for a set time and proffers analysis on the effectiveness, consequences and principles of welfare conditionality, and the sanctions and compulsory support that underpin this strategy.
It studied 481 people who in some way were subjected to the DWP’s conditionality and sanctions regime. The researchers, from six universities, further worked with 52 policy stakeholders and 27 focus groups conducted with practitioners.
As a minimum, welfare conditionality in the social security system needs to be rebalanced. The current preoccupation with sanctions supported compliance demands to be essentially revised with more importance and resources centred on the terms of personalised employment support.
There is a call for a comprehensive evaluation of the benefit sanctions system to decrease the cruelty of sanctions, introduce fair and satisfactory warnings, better communication with recipients, and to ensure that sanctions are not used on defenceless people
The study broke its findings down into nine distinct sections. Some of them are listed here.
Disabled people
The report’s writers were possibly most brutal of the DWP’s approach to disabled people. This section looked at the impact of conditionality/sanctions on 157 people.
The report found that welfare conditionality did very little to move disabled people closer to the labour market. It stated the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) was seen as uncaring and insensitive, pointing to inappropriate outcomes for disabled people.
The report noted sanctions usually triggered profoundly adverse outcomes, worsening physical and mental ill health and mandatory work training (workfare) was of poor quality and limited use.
But the report further found a disturbing trend. It remarked that disabled respondents were usually in support of welfare conditionality. One person noted:
If you’re asking for something you’ve got to do something back in return. That’s simply normal life and you don’t get owt for nowt.
It’s worrying that some disabled people are now viewing the welfare state as something that gives out only when people have paid in, which was never the plan for those incapable to work due to sickness or impairments.
Welfare conditionality is mostly inefficient in moving disabled people closer to, or into, paid employment; with benefit sanctions in particular expected to drive disabled people further away from the paid labour market and it’s time to basically revisit the role of compulsion in working-aged incapacity benefits.
Welfare conditionality inside the UK incapacity benefits system should stop.
The report’s conclusions about the impact of conditionality on homeless people and rough sleepers were diverse. While it noted that enforcement does sometimes alter a person’s questionable behaviour, usually it can remove the problem, cause those affected to disentangle from support, and/or increase their resolve to continue engaging in street culture.
Cutting of sanctions does little to improve homeless people’s motivation to re-enter the workforce. Support providers and homeless people alike usually agree current implementation uses are very questionable and hard to support ethically. Sanctions create substantial fiscal and emotional suffering and drive some extremely defenceless people out of the social security safety net altogether.
The report studied 141 people who claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance at some time throughout the research period. Much like its conclusions about conditionality and disabled people, the report found that the threat of sanction wasn’t necessary to try and get people back into work.
It concluded that there was a shortage of proof for the effectiveness of welfare conditionality in promoting behaviour modification and improve issues in terms of returning to paid work. Conditionality, particularly through the focus put on sanctions, implanted terror into participants due to the difficult material hardship resulting from non-compliance.
Once again, the report found sanctions had little tangible influence on getting lone parents into work. It noted the system was heavily weighted towards sanctions, not help, and that the former created extreme psychological distress and extreme anxiety even if the sanction never occurred.
Of particular note were the report’s conclusions that sometimes lone parents were sanctioned for failures of comprehension rather than deliberate non-compliance. One person stated that the advisor said, ‘You agreed on this and you agreed that, but to be frank with you when your benefits change, you’re ignorant to what’s required of you.
That person kept saying, ‘So what is it you want me to do? Because I’m working my hardest to reach where I want to go’.
‘Well, you signed, you signed, you signed, and you really don’t know what you’re signing for.”
Sanction regimes are compromised efforts to stop child poverty. At best, current practice fails to help lone parents in the way intended; at worst, it increases the difficulty they already face. The moral legitimacy of the existing conformity is extremely ambiguous as a result.
The report was extremely critical of Universal Credit and the conditionality related to it. It talked to 144 people claiming the benefit.
It found that employment issues due to Universal Credit conditionality were usually neutral. The report stated tangible support to help obtain employment was largely absent from Universal Credit. It noted that when claimants engaged with DWP workers the principal focus was on ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Claimant Commitment and chastising recipients through the intimidation or use of benefit sanctions.
The report said that sanctions under Universal Credit worsened people’s situations, resulting in financial difficulty, debt, alcohol abuse, feelings of guilt, and declining mental health, and they created needless obstacles to moving into paid employment.
But in an opposing finding to that of disabled people, Universal Credit claimants generally thought the use of conditionality/sanctions for low-paid workers claiming the benefit was extremely unfair.
The report concluded that welfare conditionality was not practical nor humane. The current sanctions regime is unfit for purpose and the application and threat of sanctions impacted negatively on in-work and out-of-work… recipients and did more harm than good…”
Disabled People Against Cuts
Co-founder of campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) Linda Burnip gave her response to the report. She told The Canary:
“While this is a very important piece of research, it is only confirming what anyone with a working brain has always known – punishing people by imposing starvation and degradation on them is not going to help anyone to work either short or long term.
Sanctions have always been a particularly cruel tool of a political party with no heart or soul and the proportion of disabled people sanctioned has risen steadily over the years while the barriers they face getting and keeping jobs have increased.”
Burnip is correct. While this research is appreciated, it’s only telling us what groups like Disabled People against Cuts (DPAC) have been stating for years: that sanctions and welfare reforms are ideologically motivated, to marginalise people onto the fringes of society.
Rampant neoliberalism?
As researcher Kitty Jones penned in 2015:
“Conservative anti-welfare discourse excludes the structural context of unemployment and poverty from public conversation by transforming these social problems into individual… [ones] of ‘welfare dependency’ and ‘worklessness.’ The consequence is an escalating illogic of authoritarian policy measures which have at their core the intensification of punitive conditionality…
Such policies and interventions are then rationalised as innovative…. ultimately the presented political aim is to mend Britain’s supposedly ‘broken society’ and to restore a country that ‘lives within its means’… bringing about a neoliberal utopia built on ‘economic competitiveness’ in a ‘global race.’
The disadvantage has become an individualised, private matter… rather than… an inevitable feature of… competitive individualism. This allows the state to depoliticise it… whilst at the same time, justifying… changing citizens’ behaviours to fit with neoliberal outcomes.”
Sanctions are the thin end of a political wedge; one where anyone who isn’t viewed as economically productive to society is either required to work or should be marginalised for their omission to comply. While the report is true that the sanctions regime requires improving, the whole governmental and societal strategy to the welfare state is in demand of systemic improvement.
We do need to change the welfare policy, we need to make it more accessible and less costly to deliver, we need to clarify the whole scheme. Universal Credit should have been a great way to do this, but the implementation has been a total failure that has cost the taxpayer a fortune.
Universal Credit was always going to be a challenge because a huge balance of the country is, in some way or another, on some kind of state support and the people who rely on it the most are the ones living at the very edge of society. The severely handicapped, those coping with mental health problems that separate them from an ordinary life, and those who live in areas of long-term deprivation where there are no jobs, no transportation, and no true purpose.
Any modifications to the system should have been tackled like keyhole surgery, especially by a man who is a self-proclaimed Christian, and it should have been much more exposed to parliamentary scrutiny. It should have further been lead by a completely different person.
Thus, the plan was excellent. Enormous, but the implementation has been a complete hodge-podge and if Labour has any sense they’ll have an inquiry into what went so horribly awry when the DWP is subject to scrutiny again.
Like any large group of comparable methods which are comparable, but not identical, there are always extensive complexities in attempting to draw them into a one-size-fits-all system and you’ll have years of different record keeping methods, calculations, eligibility guidelines, process flows, et cetera to consider, and coordinating them all together is a bummer.
The notion of single policies seems excellent to CEOs and Senior Politicians because they don’t get the fundamental point: similar =/= identical. We have decades of cock-ups, half-done and cumbersome methods, and manual workarounds in both public and private enterprise to prove this.
The soundest way to dispense with it is to manage each central segment individually but to draw the summary data into a prime repository for MI and aggregation. That way you don’t have to change the world to do the same thing.
The design is excellent, but the performance is La La Land inadequate. Not the programmer’s mistake. The Civil Servants never designated the system even remotely correctly. Only when the programmers showed them what they had asked for, working, did they begin to understand what it was they had actually wished to be created but forgot to mention.
Nothing is wrong with the system. Nevertheless, their motive is to support and empower the promotion of individual greed and it’s not about making work pay but punishing the unemployed and raising boundaries for employers.
Plus they want the taxpayer to pay for their pants and breakfast. It’s all a bit much really.
There’s nothing wrong with the practicalities of executing it but the UK’s tax and benefits policy is a huge crumbling structure where any effort to bring about lasting change is so complicated, it’s disturbing and it’s usually easier to paper over the holes and then pass the parcel on to the next generation.
The consequences are of course horrible but so are the consequences of attempting reform. If it really was a building then the easiest thing to do would be to move out and crush it but that’s not plausible and the sheer expense and waste with a department in total turmoil that is making people suffer and not only the disabled, who many like to bash, but also the employed population as well.
This has all the signs of a government scheme with ministers failing to determine the range of the scheme before it starts, so that it effectively gets made up as it goes along, and changes on impulse, while the initial absence of direction quickly bogs down into a quagmire of probably really skilled people mooching around attempting too do their best with no clear sense of direction.
Bad programmers are simple to detect. Bad systems designers are slightly more difficult to detect, but bad managers can allow a project to go violently off-course, especially if they are working inside a culture where it is just not on to say it’s all gone horribly wrong.
The DWP attempted to cheat and get around the monolithic-government-project problem by using the Agile approach. Sadly, that approach requires stakeholders who know enough about the business to be able to offer something and are permitted to communicate to the people at the development coalface.
All reports show that the DWP have asked for this or that feature/function/et cetera to be included or allowed for a later time, leaving them striving to achieve what they were formerly tasked with building, a sound and organised system and having to run on the spot to include additional, earlier unconsidered add-ons while achieving the system, constantly resulting in setbacks or integration mistakes.
An IT specialist defined it as being similar to saying, “Build me a motor-operated go-kart and make it rear-wheel steering and make it 4 gears rather than 3 and combine power steering and combine interlocking brakes midway through the building stage instead of at the development and design stage.”
Every claimant now gets targeted and the DWP are clever and callous to the attitudes of others. I get that they have a job to do but I’m sure malice towards another person is not what’s in the job description.
These people that work for the DWP are thought to be experienced but instead, they end up being naive because they are easily taken in by the Gestapo police, the Government.
It’s a little like when Hitler came to power and he had his soldiers, his little servants working for him, many of those SS Officers ended up becoming more dangerous than Hitler himself and even though Hitler gave the orders, some officers believed they were better and took things into their own hands.
I’m not stating that everybody that works for the DWP enjoys giving out sanctions, of course not, but there are many that do and get vast entertainment out of it. This is not humane and those that are found to be doing this should be dismissed instantly, but of course, you’ll never actually find out who the Hitler’s are in the DWP’s string of command.
People are put on sanctions for ridiculous reasons and it’s disgraceful but the government enjoys seeing people poverty-stricken, plus it’s sickening that another human being can do that to another human being.
These sanctions need to be evaluated because if you’re a grown adult with a family of your own and you’re giving out sanctions, clearly it’s not because you want to, maybe it’s because you’re being made to.
The government are of course indifferent to anybody’s feelings, and what’s more, it’s calculated – what do they want, a gold star for being so pitiless when taking people’s money away from them, especially those who have kids.
By taking money from people that are suffering, they themselves simply become second-class. These people in government might have the richness of living in huge homes and they might have loads of money, but you know, they’re destitute of feeling!
They’re the rabble of society, they might be clothed in sheep’s clothing but underneath they’re not the crème de la crème, they’re like everybody else, human with blood coursing through their veins and they will die like anybody else, they can’t take it with them.
What they would like is to reduce population and if a couple of elderly people die because there is a shortage of funding, who gives a damn, they don’t. One less person to support or give money to. They might have worked hard all of their lives and paid into their pension, but screw it, if they’re dead, the government can collect on the state pension and keep it for themselves and pick off it like vultures.
When you’re motivated by an ideological idea all reasoning means nothing, despite the suffering and the problems and deformation it creates.
Of course, it’s more of a Messiah Complex than an ideological vision but if they think that they’re fated to become our saviour, if that’s the cause they might be resembling a diagnosable dysfunction, one with egotistic illusions, it’s also called narcissism.
The government are driven by power, prestige, supremacy, arrogance, self-absorption, self-admiration, exploitativeness and entitlement. They have this apparent self-focus in interpersonal trade-offs and difficulties in maintaining satisfying relationships.
And they have problems with understanding and compassion and hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults, why do you think they spend so much time in the House of Commons, it’s the place where narcissists flourish with their wrath, although they do have a vulnerability to shame but not to blame.
With their arrogant body language and praise towards people who appreciate and affirm them, so long as it’s in narcissistic accumulation and they detest those who do not like them and using other people without examining the price of doing so.
They profess to be more influential than they really are, boasting subtly but persistently, amplifying their accomplishments. Professing to be an authority on many things and they have this inability to see the world from the perspective of other people.
THIS MY FRIEND IS THE HITLER REGIME.
It’s a deliberate act to suppress people and it’s a crime against mankind and it’s intentional. It’s not a crime without a name, the name is called Agenda 21, another name they term it as is Sustainable Development.
Usually, genocide doesn’t necessarily suggest the direct killing of people, except if it’s performed by the mass slaughter of all people, but this is thought to rather signify an organised plan of different actions aiming at the removal of the fundamental pillars of life.
It’s the intention of destroying people, loss of personal security, freedom, health and dignity.
25 years ago when my boys were still quite small and green to the world around them, even though I brought them up with austere hardness because it was necessary that they had some breeding, to be respectful to people around them, to be able to prepare a meal for themselves and attire themselves well and be able to use an iron and not to make a joke out of another persons colour because our ancestors were immigrants who came to England with nothing and out of nothing made a life for themselves.
People who come from overseas come here because they require money and it’s more productive to work here. It’s not a modern thing, people have been relocating for employment for centuries, but then they work laboriously and for longer hours and for less money because anything they make here in England would be much more than they would get in their own homeland.
Yet we slate off people coming here from overseas because many of us don’t think that they should be here, however, some bring good things to this country. Corner shops, for example, are a great idea and if they disappeared we would be buggered – we rely on those corner shops because they start early and finish late and are nearly always accessible when we require them to be because they are occupied by immigrant families that have established themselves here to make a better life for themselves, and in doing so have made it an easier life for us Britains.
When the Second World War ended in 1945, it was immediately understood that the reconstruction of the British market demanded a huge introduction of immigrant labour. The Royal Commission on Population announced in 1949 that immigrants of good stock would be welcomed without reserve, and possible immigrants from the Caribbean and elsewhere soon became aware of the urgent demands of the labour market in the United Kingdom.
Postwar migration further attracted, for the first time, great amounts of workers and their families from outside Europe, largely from the Caribbean and from India and Pakistan, the two separate states created by partition after Britain surrendered its Indian empire in 1947.
Throughout the 1950s, in particular, Britain’s non-white immigrant population grew quickly in size.
From the Indian subcontinent, the preponderance of immigrants arrived in Britain throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Although frequently lumped collectively as one group by white Britons, these immigrants, in fact, came from a diversity of frameworks.
They included Hindus from the Gujarat quarter of western India, Sikhs from the eastern Punjab region, and Muslims both from the west part of Pakistan and from East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh in 1971.
This view has expressed itself in racist brutality often – the flashpoints in Britain throughout the preceding 50 years have mainly been restricted to impoverished neighbourhoods where local white and black communities fight for limited employment and housing.
But it has frequently been represented by more unexpected and treacherous forms of bias. Anti-immigrant feelings have also been inflamed, both directly and indirectly, by agitation for tighter immigration controls – usually proposed when there is not an acute labour shortage.
Since the 1960s Britain has developed a large body of race relations enactment. Multiple Race Relations Acts (1965, 1968, 1976 and 2000) have given a legal foundation for stamping out racial prejudice in employment and other spheres.
To bolster this legislation, groups such as the Commission for Racial Equality, formed as part of the 1976 Race Relations Act have sought to ensure that the principle of racial equality is put into use.
Jobcentre Plus is a government-funded employment agency, as well as a social security office. Employment agencies find people work, you don’t go into an employment agency and sit down and find your own job, they find one for you, yet people go to the Jobcentre and are told they have to find their own jobs, so essentially people who are on benefit are doing the Jobcentre’s job for them.
Why would somebody on benefit want to go into the Jobcentre Plus and have to find their own job, when the people that are working there are paid to do that for you, but then they tell you if you don’t look for yourself you’ll be sanctioned.
So, now there’s a punishment for not finding your own job because apparently, the hands of workers in the jobcentre have fallen off and now they’re vetoing money from disabled people when they go to these medical evaluations because apparently, their doctor has no idea what he/she is chatting about.
A disabled person might walk with a walking stick but even though their doctor has deemed that person unfit for employment or disabled enough not to work, but now the doctor is a liar because disabled people are being made to attend these ridiculous evaluations. Perhaps a pole should be put up the backside of someone from the government who believes that it’s okay for a disabled person to be subjected to these absurd assessments, then they will see how much it pains to walk with a pole up their backside.
It’s like being whipped thousands of times and being penalised for being disabled is acceptable and this should clearly be called into question.
Of course, there is always debate on things like this and some people will agree and some will disagree, but the deal here is that people whoever they are and from walk whatever of life they come from do get sick and the government are taking from sick and handicapped people.
The Atos disaster is a complete farce and the whole system is in chaos but the government are indifferent to the worries that disabled people have. It actually doesn’t matter how disabled you are, you could be paralysed, immobilised, incapacitated, a paraplegic, quadriplegic, or in a wheelchair, it appears to be that it’s that persons duty to suddenly grow a leg that they had to have removed or to suddenly replace the eyesight that they either never had at birth or lost because of an illness.
They appear to believe that a person can make themselves better because disabled people are the dregs of society and actually shouldn’t be here weakening the economy, which is complete nonsense. People just don’t fake their illnesses to get benefits, it’s not a financial scam to get money.
Their leg didn’t drop off because they thought one day, oh I fancy some extra cash, I guess I’ll just go and hack my leg off.
There will be people out there saying, “Well, they have to make sure they’re not screwing the system.” Really? So, a person who had to have his/her leg removed done this to get money from the state, no I don’t think so and the woman walking around with her blind stick just does because she fancies playing Space Invaders with it. Before long they’ll be putting blind Morris dancers on the football pitch saying, “Oh they can work.”
There’s a stench out there and it’s called government policies and those policies reek of shit and you can see that haze around nearly every MP in Parliament, and honestly, you don’t have to smoke to smoulder. They’re contaminated with contagions and they’re infecting every one of us.
The report noted sanctions usually triggered extremely adverse outcomes, worsening physical and mental ill health. The report stated mandatory work training, workfare was of poor quality and limited use.
Stephen Hawking went to the US in August 2009 to accept the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his distinguished participation to science from Barack Obama and during his stay, Stephen Hawking discovered that a newspaper, Investor’s Business Daily, had written an article criticising public healthcare policies, insisting:
“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” Stephen’s great sense of humour was amused by the stupidity of this but he further understood that there was an opportunity to speak out in support of the NHS.
So he did, acknowledging the press that he would not have survived without the high-quality treatment he got from the NHS. This story encapsulates what was unique about Stephen’s support for the NHS and Stephen’s unique personal history encompassed excellent scientific creativity, his motor neurone disease and disability and his life experience of being an NHS patient.
And it is this that defines why Stephen’s backing for the NHS was intense and powerful as well as logical and scientific and why his campaigning was so important because Stephen Hawking saw the NHS as a supreme good, binding people to each other, and resulting in social benefits without a price.
His life was an illustration of that. In a very real sense, and we owe Stephen’s science and acumens into the nature of our universe to the NHS. Stephen Hawking also had an individual knowledge of the trauma of dealing with a health system in which private corporations boost their profits by withholding care or refusing to meet costs.
The health insurance of the university he was working at declined to fund his care costs when he fell ill and this reinforced his loyalty to the NHS and as the NHS came under greater and greater threat in recent years, Stephen stepped up his support. In August 2017, he gave the keynote speech at a Talk NHS audience at the Royal Society of Medicine to a conference of doctors, nurses and students. It was one of the most remarkable events.
He explained the story of his life, family, science and his knowledge of the NHS, giving these as tied indistinguishably together. There was laughter, applauding and an spontaneous standing applause and in his speech, Stephen didn’t dismiss the difficulties involved in implementing health care for an entire nation.
But his analysis was that a publicly-provided NHS that is actually comprehensive and ensures the best imaginable care to everyone, everywhere, based only on their need, is the justest and the most economically productive system.
He rebuked the two-tier policy that is happening, in which the free, openly accessible part of NHS care is not comprehensive but is becoming poorer and more limited, while those who can afford it pay for better care privately. Stephen’s analysis was that this is occurring because the universal healthcare and insurance groups have the ability to push through their privatising agenda and his diagnosis was that the NHS requires public recognition because people overwhelmingly dislike privatisation and if they knew what was occurring, they would take action against it.
Stephen Hawking himself took action by becoming a complainant in a major legal challenge to Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt and NHS England. Stephen Hawking and his co-complainants, Professor Allyson Pollock, Dr Graham Winyard, Prof Sue Richards and Dr Colin Hutchinson, acquired a judicial review of proposals for a major restructuring of the NHS into 44 so-called Accountable Care Organisations, bite-sized insurance-style systems that can be run for profit by private companies.
The suit against Jeremy Hunt and NHS England is that they have no powers under any current legislation on healthcare to make such sweeping adjustments and the challenge started at the High Court. Stephen Hawking was doing black holes with colleagues in Cambridge and Harvard, but he was still as open as ever about the significance of the case and the news of Stephen’s passing in March was a tremendous shock.
Stephen Hawking did an amazing talk at the Royal Society of Medicine (RSM), and he moved people to tears with his resolve never ever to give up striving for an irreplaceable NHS. He is no longer with us and it is up to us all now to fight, in his memory, for ourselves, for each other, for our NHS.
The Cambridge University scientist, who openly supported Labour in the polls, attacked Mr Hunt of cherry-picking evidence to back his policies and the 75-year-old further stated he was concerned about the involvement of the private sector in the NHS in England.
However, Mr Hunt declared some of Mr Hawking’s remarks were pernicious. A statement issued by the Department of Health following the text of the address was given to the BBC in advance announced more money was being invested in the NHS and it had recently been ranked as a top-performing health system.
Prof Hawking, who had motor neurone disease for most of his adult life that diminished his mobility and capacity to speak, presented the speech at a gathering at the Royal Society of Medicine in London, organised to air concerns about the fate of the NHS.
The author of A Brief History of Time, who is a Labour advocate, announced he had been motivated to speak because of the role the health service has played in his life, stating if it was not for the NHS he wouldn’t be here today and in the address, Prof Hawking listed a number of occasions on which the NHS was there for him.
This covered an incident in 1985 when he got pneumonia in Switzerland. Doctors there recommended his ventilator be turned off to terminate his life, but his wife refused and he was rushed back to Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge where he got treatment and improved.
Fourteen years after that, he had pioneering throat reconstruction surgery in London after his health worsened and he was struggling to eat and breathe. He had a lot of involvement with the NHS and the care that he got allowed him to continue his life as he wanted and contributed to important advances in understanding the world, like his theories on black holes and the creation of the Universe.
His address then listed some of the developments in the NHS that troubled him, including the move toward what he called a US-style insurance system. He stated he thought there had been an increase in the private provision of care, including the use of agency workers, and that profit was being removed from the health service.
The more profit is removed from the system, the more private monopolies become and the more costly health care becomes. The NHS must be protected from commercial interests and shielded from those who want to privatise it. He stated that a publicly provided, publicly run system was the most efficient and so those who say we can’t afford the NHS are mistaken.
We can’t afford to not have the NHS and in his address, he also named Mr Hunt. In a segment about the move towards a seven-day NHS, Prof Hawking stated that while he would like there to be more services available at weekends, the government has declined to carry out proper due diligence, especially with regard to whether there would be enough staff.
The health secretary originally stated on Twitter that Mr Hawking was a brilliant physicist but wrong on the lack of a weekend effect in the NHS. He further stated the study into mortality rates associated with weekend NHS services was the most comprehensive ever.
But hours later he posted two more tweets, in which he stated Mr Hawking’s concerns, about the development in the UK of the kind of insurance system seen in the United States, were a pernicious falsehood.
He also stated the Conservatives had given the NHS with more cash and medical personnel than ever before and The Department of Health replied to Mr Hawking’s remarks by pointing out that the amount of personnel serving in the NHS was improving and it makes no apology for tackling the weekend effect.
It further stated that despite being busy, the NHS had been ranked as the best, safest and most affordable healthcare system out of 11 wealthy nations in a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund and that the government is fully committed to a world-class NHS, free at the point of use now and in the future, that’s why they’re backing it with an additional £8 billion of investment over the next five years.
Recently published papers show European oil and gas company Shell has known about Global Warming for at least three decades but perpetuated to drill oil and fuel climate change skepticism, even when reports said that by the time the Global Warming becomes detectable it could be too tardy to take efficacious countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilise the situation.
The fact that an immensely colossal multinational corporation obnubilated inconvenient research to avail their own self-interest while perpetuating to bootleg their merchandise at the cost of the environment and, ultimately, their customers might not be the most shocking news.
After all, in 2015, leaked documents verified US energy giant Exxon has been climate-change conscious for nearly 40 years while squandering a fortune distributing bogus information and throwing uncertainty on accepted climate science.
However, these latest documents implicatively insinuate an industry-wide collusion to conceal or, at the very least, play down the wrong being done to the environment from the burning of fossil fuels.
The first of the Shell reports, called “The Greenhouse Effect”, chronicles back to 1988. Not only does it show the energy company kenned about climate change and that fossil fuel burning was to incriminate, it attests they were actively investigating the happenings. Shell set up an internal climate science program afore the UN established the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988.
Even though CO2 is discharged to the environment through numerous natural methods, the central cause of incrementing CO2 concentrations is thought to be fossil fuel burning.
It recommended visually examining policy options as expeditiously as possible, recognising that uncontrolled climate change could make sea levels grow, oceans to acidify, and mass migration to take place as people endeavour to eschew the worst forces of global warming.
With astronomically lengthy timescales involved, it would be tempting for society to wait until then to commence doing anything. The possible implicative insinuations for the world are, nevertheless, so great, that policy options must be viewed much more expeditiously. Furthermore, the energy industry must examine how it should play its part.
Later reports further attest that climate change could have major business implicative insinuations for the fossil fuel industry and trigger inclement weather effects as expeditious as 2010.
It’s reported what the scene may look like. In 2010, a string of severe perturbations creates great harm to the eastern coast of the US. Even though it’s not apparent whether the perturbations are created by climate change, people are not prepared to take further risks.
Following the storms, a coalition of environmental NGOs brings a class-action lawsuit upon the US regime and fossil-fuel corporations on the grounds of ignoring what scientists, including their own, have been asserting for years, that something must be done.
Young consumers, especially, demand action and the power, auto, and oil industries see billions wiped off their market value overnight.
This is something we’re seeing today.
They should have just been honest with the world and even while the global warming would not have been resolved, it would be well on the way.
Instead, they seem to have taken a path to hedging, minimising, and redirecting and given the gamble, this was both terrible and corrupt and Shell knew this and now we do too.
The reality of climate change is here, and the science behind our warming planet is clear. July and August 2016 were the warmest months in reported history and last year was the warmest on record. Wildfires have scorched California and thousand-year floods have destroyed Louisiana.
Temperatures are rising. Sea levels are growing. The climate is more intense. Greenhouse gases have been unwaveringly increasing for decades.
However, the trove of study and emerging data for human-caused climate change still leaves us with enigmas and many of us don’t know how climate change will affect us, collectively and individually.
We aren’t sure how we are responsible or what can we do about it and with nothing less than the fate of our planet at risk, the education of data and development of knowledge must be the order of the day.
That is why they launched the Climate Change Education Act in the US House and the Senate. The enactment would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) to produce a Climate Change Education Program geared towards educating schoolchildren and others about climate change.
In much the same way we educate our kids the ABCs as a basis for a lifetime of knowledge, we need to foster a national discussion, particularly with our children, about how we can decrease our carbon footprint and work as agents of our environment.
This Climate Change Education Program would investigate climate change solutions, the risks we encounter in a warming world, and the little variations in daily habits that can have an intense global influence.
It would promote education about national strategies for resilience to the effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and rising sea levels. It would look at how to make sure our infrastructure is safe and reliable. The program would also incorporate the latest scientific and technological discoveries and provide formal and informal learning opportunities to people of all ages.
It’s called Sustainable development – Sustainable development is the organising policy for meeting human development goals while at the same time maintaining the ability of natural methods to produce the natural resources and ecosystem services upon which the economy and society depend.
The desired result is a state of society where living conditions and resource use continue to meet human needs without undermining the integrity and stability of the natural system. Sustainable development can be classified as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations.
Sustainable development, or sustainability, has been defined in articles of three spheres, dimensions, domains or pillars, for instance, the environment, the economy and society. The three-sphere structure was originally introduced by the economist René Passet in 1979.
It has further been worded as economic, environmental and social or ecology, economy and equity. This has been extended by some writers to include the fourth pillar of culture, institutions or governance, or alternatively reconfigured as four fields of the social – ecology, economics, politics and culture, therefore bringing economics back inside the social, and managing ecology as the crossing of the social and the natural.
The ecological stability of human settlements is part of the relationship between humans and their natural, social and built environments. Further termed human ecology, this widens the focus of sustainable development to include the field of human health.
Basic human necessities such as the availability and quality of air, water, food and shelter are further the ecological frameworks for sustainable development. Discussing public health risk by investments in ecosystem services can be a compelling and transformative force for sustainable development which, in this sense, stretches to all species.
It’s a really unique foundation to the furtive strategy, cooked up by authoritarian elitists in the last century, to take complete authority over your fate in this one. Once disparaged as too outlandish to be true, presently it’s tortuously obvious how earnest they are.
Agenda 21 is the absolute Orwellian system for your life cooked up by enthusiastic minions at the United Nations. Where you live, how you travel, what you may do for a job, what class of dwelling you call home, everything about your fate will be determined.
Is this science fiction, no, Agenda 21 is likely being executed in and about your neighbourhood, right now.
Question your local or environmental planning department, which most people pay no regard to, whether they centre their planning on sustainable development. They almost certainly do. However what does this vague term sustainable really mean, and who stated they have to plan around someone’s notion of sustainable.
Who ends up determining what is sustainable, and what is not?
Are you and your family sustainable?
What is Agenda 21? It’s a program for every phase of your life in the 21st century. Where you work, what job you’re allotted to do, and how you get there, it’s all been designed in advance. Small towns will be eliminated and returned to nature, where the common man will not be permitted.
Everyone besides the cream of the crop will be herded into colony like municipalities, isolated from nature, this will be the sustainable community of the future and it’s hardly science fiction, this is the face of the very real Agenda 21, deliberately concealed from view until it’s too late to oppose it.
Yet the United Nations has written it in official handbooks, and it’s being executed in areas all across the United States and it’s probably being addressed and achieved to some extent where you are, right now.
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt was Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education and in the 1980s she exposed government actions kept from the people and her bounded knowledge is a unique insight into treacherous schemes of globalist elitists and their strategies for your futurity.
It seems like science fiction, but it’s not. It’s an offensive scheme which the UN and associated agencies are executing inside the United States, under the innocent fronts of sustainable development, environmental protection and endangered species protection.
Under the plan, you and your family will ultimately be herded into beehive-like sustainable apartments in big towns with huge interconnected swaths of the presently occupied and cultivated countryside which will be depopulated and made into human-free zones.
What is characterised as sustainable will be decided by unelected and unaccountable United Nations officials serving at the direction of pirate lords and global organisations.
Where you may live, where and how you will work, where you may travel, that has now been thoroughly designed by anti-human Malthusian would-be tyrants and mandarins. They will pursue their vocation by infiltrating government at a local level, where their positions will be usually unelected and unobserved by most of the public.
ICLEI is the International Council for Local Environment Initiatives. ICLEI is a United Nations-affiliated group tasked with subordinating your home, life, farming, and transportation rights to the global government.
Members of your local board of directors may semi-secretly belong to this treasonous institution and ICLEI endeavours to achieve Agenda 21, a program devised by the United Nations to dominate almost every phase of your life in the not too far away future.
It may be called sustainable development in your neighbourhood. But to Marxists, it’s the new and active way to slowly execute Marxist dictatorship in your family life and it’s all decked in green, neo-environmentalist green.
The Marxist/Communist essence of sustainability and neo-environmentalism describes how the real thoughts and lexicon of neo-environmentalism, such as biosphere and sustainability et cetera all reap from Communist and Marxist scholars and opinion.
Without naming it, however, we go on to define the final proposed blossoming of neo-environmentalism and UN Agenda 21 into a global tyrannical superstate. A neo-environmental utopia where the immorality of laissez-faire and free opportunity are washed out.
In this future, you would have no alternative but to exist in a beehive-like designed community, where what you eat, how you work, and where you’re entitled to live in is all arranged for you by the global government.
Nature and man are to be separated into zones, where only the vested are permitted to cross. The common man would only observe nature from the horizon. Your life would be designed to the tiniest detail to make you, in their view, sustainable.
You might have assumed that Communism and Marxism expired with the apparent renunciation of communist beliefs by China and the fall of Marxism/Stalinism with the former Soviet Socialist nation but the most outrageous and immense violation of the planet in the antiquity of humanity transpired under the auspices of Communism and Marxism.
I need only mention Chernobyl, and deforestation by acid rain to bring back those nightmarish visions of Communist environmental disaster and how about the enduringly radioactive shipyard city of Severodvinsk and the Zvezda shipyard?
The Communists are back and this time they’re clothed in green.
This is a warning and real environmentalists have had their movement, which originally sought to have humanity and nature live in a peaceful union, commandeered by a dictatorial cream of the crop.
Charlotte Iserbyt is the child of a Skull and Bones member. She has long had access to Skull and Bones secretive literature and materials, as well as a first-hand understanding of what members really do. Charlotte’s honesty forced her to examine and then to disclose what this obscure organisation is doing to our government and the country.
She has served beside scholars like Antony Sutton to disclose the hidden betrayal of the group’s activities and Charlotte introduces the viewer to some significant but rarely seen examples of documentation to back her declaration.
Charlotte was elected to the National Education Association (NEA) and there learned the exact extent to which our kids are being indoctrinated in public schools and the ghastly reasons for which this is being done.
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt was Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education. In the 1980s she exposed government activities kept from the public. Her inside information will assist you to protect your kids from questionable programs of Marxist Socialist and globalist elite brainwashing and mind control.
This addresses workforce training (school-to-work) as an essential component of an overall strategy for a global economy, and how this program will cut short your child’s eventual career plans and possibilities and how the global, national, regional, state and local agendas for education reformation are all interconnected and have been for decades.
Charlotte Iserbyt interview with John McGowan and Todd Klemm, covering the use of US public schools for political indoctrination, psychological profiling, and emotional manipulation for a Marxist collectivist agenda.
Charlotte Iserbyt is an authority on this matter, having been elected to a top position in the NEA with access to the entire documented chronicle of that institution. She reveals the true intentions of NEA, OBE, WYCAT, and even the ACE curriculum.
In state schools, kids are being exposed to emotional manipulation and reprogramming methods developed by B. F. Skinner and Dr Bloom, who fully acknowledges that the idea is to modify the thoughts, actions, and feelings of students, to change their fixed beliefs.
They further include the treacherous use of Community Oriented Policing System and DARE, the real goal of which is to condition pupils to be dependent upon police and to cooperate with them for the ultimate implementation of a police state.
It will be the end to National Sovereignty, an end of the Western democratic rule and the end to Common Law. Then there will be the eradication of private property, the eradication of private transport and the removal of the Western industrialisation.
There will be the end of free enterprise and the harmonisation of salaries and re-distribution of wealth across the globe and the control of resource use, energy, water and minerals.
Populations will be gathered in cities near to their place of employment and there will be the restructuring of the family unit and raised constraints on mobility and personal opportunity.
There will be a constant monitoring and monitoring of the people and the end of freedom of choice.
Now, examine some of the strategies coming out of our own British Government:
And there will be an end to national sovereignty European and UN laws implemented at the local level, the Big Society. With Private property and assets tore away through financial hardship and crippling taxes and the methodical dismantling of our industry.
The spiralling burden of ever-increasing overseas assistance programmes, with children seized by the state and thrust into a privatised multi-billion pound care scheme. With a 0-19 education curriculum, schools opening longer, with no familial control.
Crippling public transport charges and soon to be taxed road charging and the largest gathering of CCTV cameras in the world and raised behaviour alteration, nudge programmes.
The Big Society is the UK’s version of the UNs Agenda 21. It is a Marxist influenced design which will have a destructive influence on, not only your own life but also in the lives of your children and grandchildren.
The Big Society was a political concept started in the early 21st century. The purpose proposed combining the free market with a foundation of social solidarity based on authority and voluntarism. Conceptually it brings on a mix of conservative communitarianism and libertarian totalitarianism.
Its origins can be traced back to the 1990s, and to early attempts to develop a non-Thatcherite, or post-Thatcherite, the brand of UK conservatism such as David Willetts’ Civic Conservatism and the restoration of Red Toryism.
Some observers have viewed the Big Society as invoking Edmund Burke’s notion of civil society, putting it into the field of one-nation conservatism.
Agenda 21 is a 350-page report split into 40 sections that have been arranged into 4 segments. Section I is about Social and Economic Dimensions which is focused toward fighting poverty, particularly in developing nations, shifting consumption patterns, promoting well-being, producing a more sustainable society, and sustainable establishment in judgment making.
Section II is about Conservation and Management of Resources for Development, which includes atmospheric stability, combating deforestation, preserving delicate environments, protection of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive garbage.
Section III is about Strengthening the Role of Major Groups, which includes the functions of children and youth, women, NGOs, local officials, industry and business, and workers, and establishing the position of native peoples, their communities, and farmers.
Section IV is about the Means of Implementation which includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.
The enactment would authorise a grant program to promote public outreach programs, improve quality and access to education for green-collar jobs, and build capacity so local communities can discuss climate mitigation and adaptation concerns.
Agenda 21 has created interest globally and Agenda 21 is further known as sustainable development and it’s actually that evil that it has been labelled as a future in which people would be forced to live with five others in 20-by-20 living spaces with push-button furniture in high-rises across larger municipalities.
The complexes would serve three vegetarian meals a day, feature mosques and have a 24-7 on-call doctor to discuss taking one’s own life.
The purpose of Sustainable Development is to combine economic, social and environmental policies in order to obtain controlled consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
Sustainablists maintain that every societal decision is based on environmental influence, concentrating on three elements, global land use, global education, and global population restraint and reduction.
Green space, clean energy, improved urban density and global totalitarianism. It’s difficult to see how all of these things could combine, but according to a popular right-wing conspiracy theory, a UN resolution directed at sustainable development could flag the way.
Theorists claim that Agenda 21, a 23-year-old non-binding UN resolution that proposes ways for governments and NGOs to encourage sustainable development, is the key to a conspiracy to suppress mankind under an eco-totalitarian government.
It’s a new brand of oppression that, if not stopped, will inevitably drive us to new Dark Ages of depression and anxiety yet unknown to humanity.
Where did all this sustainable development and green companies come from and what is the root cause of this change and what is the purpose?. It’s another deception by the globalists to steal our lands and freedoms.
One of the architects of this green agenda is veiled as a global control with a small gathering of world leaders reasoning that the wealthy nations were the principal risk to the Earth. This group then designed a plan to get the wealthy nations to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment.
When the wealthy nations declined, the group determined that the only hope for the planet was for the industrialised civilisations to collapse. Perhaps you’ve heard of Agenda 21, but if you’re like most Americans, you’ll have no idea what this means for the fate of America.
Did you know that a number of extremely influential and important people have specific ideas for you and your future and the future of your family? These people include organisations like the United Nations, Club of Rome, the Bilderberg group, the World Health Organisation, and thousands of NGO’s, of which you’ve never heard of and probably never will.
But they know you and have you and your loved ones in their sights. These plans they have for you go under many names but there generally referred to as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, and more recently Agenda 2030.
These Institutions, the Bilderberg group Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and hidden organisations like Skull and Bones, they control the corporations and the governments throughout the world and they’re not after money, it’s control they seek and the sport is international politics towards a war.
Money mechanics, specifically the debt based fractional reserve of a system – fear, the media included, the music industry, news media and mainstream press. This plot is so huge in scale that most people will refuse its existence.
It’s the extent of this collusion that makes it concurrently adhesive but the most challenging to understand. Once you choose to look, the more you will find. This a truly disturbing and unsettling method and you will be questioning the life of faith and conviction.
One of the things we can all fight and do something about is Agenda 21, or as it was renamed Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntary executed action, planned in the United Nations with regards to Sustainable Development.
This is difficult to understand, so do your own investigation. Population Reduction and soft kill technology. Food and medicine and Electro-Magnetic fields (EMF). Smart metres, mobile phones. Dirty electricity, fracking, fracking is so important to the cause because it will destroy our drinking water.
It will destroy our air, it will destroy our land and the agenda is to decrease the population and keep the surviving citizens on earth in tiny stockades, like cities and we will go willingly to flee the devastated countryside.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an inter-governmental organisation to implement the Joint Food Standards programme which was established by the Food and Agricultural Organisation in 1961. They have made natural herbal remedies illegal and only GMO alternatives are allowed.
Pesticide, Monsanto and the deterioration of bees and corporations are beginning to patent the worlds gene pool and they will end up controlling nature.
Herbicide ready crops that resist weedkiller and have built-in pesticides, so what impact does this have on our bodies and immune system?
Flouride is a toxic waste product of aluminium smelting and it’s deliberately put into our drinking water and toothpaste, all in the name of healthy teeth.
Aspartame the sugar alternative that decomposes and puts holes in rats brains. The smart grid is marketed to us as a means to use the world’s resources in a more sustainable way, but this a conspiracy at work again.
They the Illuminati are using the love we have for our home against us, but we must realise that there is another agenda and that is to first depopulate and then to dominate, the tools are microchips.
What we are seeing should bring all of us together because it’s not simply that some bad guy is making this happen, and you’re going to notice some rather colossal things that are going to take place and people are going to want to criticise somebody for what is going on.
Furthermore, pretty often the people that are involved in what is going on have no idea that they’re even involved, they’re simply doing it in the name of doing a great job.
So, this is how it works out. It’s called false choices and how Agenda 21 is changing your community.
Betty Perry was detained in 2007 in Orem, Utah and she ended up getting wounded when the handcuffs that the police put on her hit her nose when they took her away in a police car and put her in a holding tank.
The reason she was arrested was that her front yard (quote) was dying. She didn’t realise that it was an offence that would result in her going off to jail. In the earlier part of 2011, Julie Bass was establishing an organic garden in her front lawn, it’s a simple thing to do, Julie preferred organic foods for her family and it became pretty pricey to purchase, so she decided she wanted to start a small bed of organic food for herself, appears harmless enough.
However, she checked with the Mayor first to be certain that it was okay in their town and the Mayor stated, that’s fine, you can go ahead and do that and start a garden, there are no problems at all. She went to the town council and they stated, that’s fine, we don’t mind at all.
The next thing she knew the Floristman Code Officer pulls up and dragged her away and she then faced 93 days in jail. What happened, the Technology Officer from the town came in and stated, that’s not permitted under these new zoning ordinances that we established through our new master plan and consequently, she then faced charges.
She challenged those unlawful charges.
In Dade County, Florida, 15,000 people were losing their dwellings and 17,000 people in King County, Washington petitioned the County Court House to gain back their Land Rights because they lost 65 percent of their land.
So, how can these crazy things happen? It’s America and this stuff just doesn’t happen there, right?
In order to get into this entire system of understanding on why this is going on you have to know about the importance of property rights. Without property rights, you don’t have liberty and you don’t have freedom.
They’re unalienable, they’re not lienable, you can’t place liens upon those, that was the definition of the term, that further means they can’t be severed, so property rights can’t be taken away from us, and America’s founding father’s made a particular point of that.
They even went to the constitution and the 5th Amendment of the constitution states, “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” – US Constitution, Amendment V.
So, why all this emphasis on property? It’s easy, we speak about rights all the time but after a while, we tend to take those rights for granted and we overlook what they really mean to us. So, let’s put property rights into perspective, everybody in the world is an organic living being and we require specific things in order to survive.
We require food, we require land and we require a roof over our heads and we at least require to have the ability to have that totally within our control and nobody the ability to take that away from you. If you don’t have that ability, then you’re either a serf or your on your way there.
You have to at least have the opportunity living in a country, where you know what, I can own this and it’s mine and nobody can ever take it away from me. That’s why in America their founding father’s found property so significant because it’s something you’re given the power, through the constitution to own and no one can ever take it away from you.
Now, that’s the way they work in the United States of America but not all nations work that way, therefore I’m going to introduce you to is the United Nation’s Agenda 21, it likewise goes by another name Sustainable Development and you’ll find that these two terms are used correspondently.
Therefore, we’re going to track the history of it, and to understand the documents, you have to understand the people who put those documents together. Two people were fundamentally accountable for this and in 1986 the United Nations asked for a report to be done, the report was done in 1982 but it was approved and executed in 1987.
They requested a report that stated, “What can we do to protect our planet against things like global warming, against the misuse of our natural resources and also eliminate poverty”. So, they asked Gro Brundtland if she would head up a commission and write this report.
Gro Brundtland was the former Prime Minister of Norway, three times in a row, she was a popular character. She is further the Vice President of the Socialist Party and as much of the world is Socialist anyhow, that’s not so difficult to understand, that makes sense, but what we might want to know is what Gro Brundtland thinks and if you go onto the website World Socialist Party in the United States, here’s what it states:
“The Worlds Socialist Party of the United States is part of a global socialist movement that believes capitalism cannot meet the needs of the majority of the people in the world, however, ‘progressive’ it may become. To meet these needs, capitalism must be replaced by socialism.”
Now there’s nothing wrong with this if that’s what you believe in but you must understand where Agenda 21 came from and how this entire article came together, you must understand the people who wrote the documents and designed it.
This woman believes we need to get rid of capitalism, so that’s one of her main goals.
There’s also another gentleman, his name is Maurice Strong. He’s kind of an interesting person, he’s the former director of the UN Environmental Programme, he’s also the chairman of the World Wildlife Foundation.
Maurice Strong is a great guy, by the time he was 25 years old he was the president of Dome Petroleum in Canada, so he was already doing pretty well for himself. He further acquired two hundred thousand acres of land over the biggest freshwater aquifer in the United States along with Adnan Khashoggi, he was the arms dealer that got into trouble years back.
So, these two got together and purchased the land and the plan was to simply block the water and then release it to the South Western United States and make a fortune for themselves, so it was a very great way to make money and then they would control all the water flow, but all the environmental groups, came in and said, you can’t do this.
So, they stopped them and the plan was abandoned because it wasn’t very environmentally friendly. Maurice Strong ended up with a $1.2 million settlement from the water company, a yearly award of $100,000 from Laurance Rockefeller, and held the rights to the water.
For some odd design, this guy who got ousted by environmentalists quickly got called on in 1979 to become the Director of the UN Environmental Programme – How? Well, sometimes it’s who you know and not what you do.
As the Director of the Environmental Programme, he had a mission. Where back in 1979 now and the mission was, to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.
It seems like all great stuff, I want to take care of today, have a good quality of life and I don’t want to compromise the future generations. Appears good doesn’t it, it seems good to me, I’m all on board for that.
So, we have two players here, one is a socialist who says I want to abolish the capitalist system, the other who was an avowed socialist but then went on and later concluded that the Environmental Programme was a better way.
Not always legitimate all the time, doing underhanded transactions with land and so on and further the head of an oil company, but these are the two guys who were mostly responsible for this, a book called “Our Common Future”, and by 1987 the book was finished and it described precisely what Sustainable Development would look like.
In fact, there’s the report in this book, but you don’t, in fact, have to take my word for it, go purchase the book and see for yourself but if you go to chapter two in the book, it will explain what Sustainable Development is:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Seems familiar? I know you thought, I heard that only a while ago, okay, that was Maurice Strong back in 1979 at the United Nations, so that sort of worked its way right back in the book in chapter two called Towards a Sustainable Development.
What the book does, it defines humanity throughout the universe, this isn’t merely the United States, it’s all nations on the planet. What humanity has to do in order to preserve the planet from this latest thing that’s started being described as global warming which has started to win notoriety is to preserve the planet from climate change and to preserve the planet being destroyed by humanity.
And this all appears great until you examine the report because inside the report it states that poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. That’s sort of interesting because what we see is an environmental problem compared to a poverty problem but now connect the two.
The report goes on to state that some nations are destroying this planet more so than others, so what we must to do, we must take the resources from those lands that are destroying the planet and we must assign those to other sectors of the world.
So, the developing nations need to take the money from the wealthier nations and in doing so that’s going to protect the environment.
When you begin taking wealth and redistributing it. Do you recollect when the President stated, “We need to take the wealth and start spreading it around a bit”, you probably assumed what he was pointing to was, a person that’s made three hundred thousand or another person who’s made thirty thousand a year but that wasn’t precisely what the entire story was.
There’s a more comprehensive plan here and the plan states that we need to transfer wealth out of the United States of America and into less wealthy countries, if, in fact, we expect the planet to survive.
Thank god these were just two guys, convening in their room writing this report out because how many people are going to read the United Nations report?
Because hardly anybody reads these things. So, right now we’re going to take this dumb idea, we’re going to take this money out of America and assign it somewhere else and somehow that’s going to save the planet.
So, now we can take a sigh of release and exhale, except for one tiny thing. They stated, that what we need is an Earth Summit, so they did. Five years later in 1992 in Rio De Janeiro, they had the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, that was called Agenda 21, that’s where the name comes from, it’s an agenda from the 21st century.
Furthermore, it was no longer two people, all of a sudden it was 18,000 people who showed up and at this conference, and they cutified what Agenda 21 was going to look like.
So, this book “Our Common Future” talked about Sustainable Development, but a different report called Earth Summit Agenda 21 cutified the other book named “Our Common Future” and it now had an action plan.
So, for those that have heard of Agenda 21, this book is it. This is Agenda 21, it’s not a fantasy, and if you want to go out and purchase it, you can go on the website – You go to google and type in United Nations, Agenda 21 and you can buy it and sometimes download it for free on some websites.
However, this now states what the world must look like and how we can roll it out and make it happen. In brief, this is a high-level action program because we have action plans to make things work, so that’s what this is, an action program.
So, Maurice Strong is back and it’s 1992 and he’s at the Earth Summit Rio De Janeiro and he walks out on stage and this is what he said:
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Do you recollect earlier on he stated it was towards a sustainable community, well now it’s choosing what is no longer sustainable, and if it’s not sustainable then we must start to eliminate.
He also said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
That was Maurice Strong in his position as the Founder of the United Nations Environmental Programme. Again, get to know the people you’re dealing with, then you can know the consequences.
There are no outcomes, there are only people that push to make them happen.
Convention on Biological Diversity and what they wanted was a useful tool for interpreting the principles of Agenda 21 into reality. So, they wanted to make all this material at conferences into a reality that was going to go somewhere.
Photos are excellent but we must do something with it. When you’re going to take over the entire world, I suppose you require something a little bigger. Therefore, they produced “The Global Biodiversity Assessment” and this “Global Biodiversity Assessment” chunks down the action plan, the forty chapters in the United Nations, Agenda 21 and breaks into a global memoranda that states what each country is going to have to look like if we’re really going to preserve the planet.
So, in this book, which you can buy, they not only describe what the planet is going to look like but it explains what America’s going to look like, however, let’s take a peek inside this book because in there it shows you on what’s sustainable.
It’s got to go or it’s got to be restricted or eliminated. Well, let’s understand what’s in this book, do you like to ski? Skiing is deemed non-sustainable. Do you like small fish ponds in your garden? Well, you’re not going to be able to do that if the folks that wrote the book get their way.
But they’re not going to get their way because it’s America.
Meadows where you can feed your horses, do you like golf? Well, golf courses are going to be viewed as unstainable. Asphalt for our roadways and concrete are going to be viewed as unsustainable.
Therefore, all they have to do is obtain ways to get rid of them. So, put cycle paths, rather than having five or six lanes, just bring it back to four so we can have some open spaces and not so much macadam out there, and that way they don’t have to use asphalt or concrete.
Unsustainable human pursuits or dams, you’re going to begin noticing that dams are going to start disappearing. Just monitor the headlines and see what’s going on, but for one reason or another, they’re going to begin going down because they’re unsustainable.
They’re man-made and consequently not sustainable, it’s not essential.
The scales of justice in the United States of America are unsustainable, all of this comes from “The Global Biodiversity Assessment”. Why are the scales of justice unsustainable?
Seems like we’ve got one of the best legal systems going. Because animals and plants and the earth have rights, they require representation and they’re not able to do that as easily as some people might like to see.
The way it works, if you say, you were a boy and you had a girlfriend and you and your girlfriend carved your names into that tree, you’ve then degraded the tree, and then somebody comes along and says, “Hey, you’ve ruined my tree.”
Suddenly they sue you and you end up with a suit, and that’s unsustainable.
Private property is unsustainable and America’s got too much private property and the preponderance of wealth is tied up in private property, consequently, one thing they want to do is restore the planet to its original state, and start to decrease the volume of private property throughout the United States, and throughout the world.
Consumerism is unsustainable, why in the world is consumerism unsustainable? Well, if you purchase stuff, somebody has to make that stuff. Therefore, if they make that stuff, they’re operating machines and taking up natural resources to make it. Therefore, the less you purchase, the safer the planets going to be.
Furthermore, the family unit is unsustainable because we’re experiencing overpopulation. You’re going to notice that when people come into your neighbourhood, especially planners, they come up with these ambitious plans of what they’re going to do, and pretty often one of the reasons they come in is because of overpopulation, “Oh, overpopulation is exploding.”
Sometimes the population is exploding and sometimes we must do something about that and we must understand that, but here’s the dilemma, you truly need to make distinctions, when is it appropriate and when is it wrong, so we must look at that clearly.
However, according to the book, we can only sustain approximately 1 billion people on the planet. Right now there’s 7 billion and we’re headed for 15 billion, how you’re going to narrow that down, I don’t even want to speculate.
But anyway, there are simply too many people out there, so, consequently, we can’t really have these family units, we must take precautions to make certain the family unit remains small.
And most of all, we have the Wildlands Programme. The Wildlands Programme is what the United States will look like if the book is executed and the intention of the Wildlands Programme is to remove human beings from 50 percent of the United States.
The red zones, no human occupancy will be permitted in those zones. The yellow zones, encompassing those zones, are buffer zones, they will use those zones as protectionary, precautionary to make sure nothing takes place in these zones.
The only people permitted in the buffer zones will be members of the federal government and officers. So, where do you imagine we’re going to live? Well, there it is, we’re over here in these tiny black dots and that’s what they call High-Density Habitats.
Therefore, this book and in association with various other meetings in the United Nations, all over a five year stretch from Johannesburg, Germany right up to present day has determined what it’s going to take globally to get us to get us to look like that.
Now, the map is sort of unusual because you tell yourself, this is America, nothing like that can ever occur and thankfully it’s still only a United Nations book, therefore we’re okay, we’re safe, we’re sound, we’ll never have to agonise over it, let’s go back and live life the way we’re living it because it can’t happen, well it can.
In 1992 George H W Bush signed the treaty in Rio De Janeiro to implement Agenda 21/Sustainable Development in the United States. He agreed, he became a signatory which they call the Rio Declaration.
He signed onto that and agreed to bring it to the United States. We’re still safe because a soft agreement has no teeth, so he can’t enforce it, he can’t do anything with it, but for one thing, in June of 1993 Bill Clinton came along and signs EO 12852, formulating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to start implementation in federal agencies and that’s called Towards a Sustainable America and there are seven of them and you can download them or you can obtain them from the US printing office.
In here he describes the Council on Sustainable Development, he explains exactly what Sustainable Development is going to look like in the United States of America.
So, let’s follow the breadcrumbs. We had Maurice Strong and other people put together a report for the UN, stating “How are we going to save the United States?.”
Furthermore, this came about in 1987 and it stated that we want to build a sustainable world, not only a sustainable America.
This report was classified in the UN Agenda 21 in 1992. George Bush signed onto it and consented to everything that’s in The Global Biodiversity Assessment.
It didn’t mean anything because it was a soft agreement and had no teeth until Bill Clinton signed it into an executive order and set the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, and is now in the United States.
Furthermore, it didn’t end there because once Bill Clinton signed the order everybody else got on board and in 1997, the US Conference of Mayors creates the Joint Centre for Sustainable Communities and why wouldn’t they?
If you say Sustainable Development, we don’t think bad things, we think good things. We think I want to recycle my rubbish, I want to retain a nice looking lawn, I want to construct a home that’s been made responsibly.
What could possibly be wrong with Sustainable Development? And the answer is, there’s nothing wrong with Sustainable Development. What’s crazy is, when you take a great scheme and you put it together with a political agenda, that’s what’s wrong, therefore, we must make those distinctions. When do I actually have Sustainable Development or do I actually have a political agenda that’s called Sustainable Development?
By 2002 The National Governor’s Association approved Smart Growth advancing statewide Sustainable Development and in 2011, Barack Obama endorses EO 13575, forming the WH Rural Communities Act allowing implementation of Sustainable Development in 16 percent of the United States.
Well, it’s still a collection of executive rules, so how can you turn an executive order into something that’s going to bother you in your own backyard? That’s actually laughable, and is this really Agenda 21?
Well, if you go into the book Towards Sustainable Development in America. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) is explicitly loaded with supporting a national action plan on how to realise Sustainable Development in the United States.
GLOBAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT. President’s Council on Sustainable Development.
The PCSD was formulated to form proposals for the implementation of Agenda 21. Therefore, when somebody looks at you and says “Oh no, we’re not part of Agenda 21.” You can go directly to this website: State Department submission to the 5th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, 1997.
Furthermore, you will discover that the only reason the President’s Council was established was to execute Agenda 21. There was no other reason.
So how did this get to your own backyard? Because Presidents control regulatory agencies and regulatory agencies write what? Regulations. That’s what they do for a living, they sit there and they write regulations.
So, we simply detour Congress, there’s nothing to vote on anymore there’s nothing that your Congress or Senator has anything to do with anymore because we bypass the entire process.
When the President created an executive order, he set down 11 of those federal agencies at that time, but he also partnered up with non-governmental agencies.
However, organisations like (American Planning Association) APA, the Institute for Sustainable Communities, The Trust for Public Land and so forth, all of these principals that were put together through these books made their way down into these agencies. So, while regulations are being made up by The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while their being followed up by the forest services, they’re in agreement with the President Council on Sustainable Development because that’s what agencies do, they’re supposed to be in agreement with what the President says, he’s the chief, he gets to tell them what they can do and what they can’t do.
So, the motto of this whole Agenda 21 programme is Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Where did we hear that one before? Maurice Strong, he came out with that and now it’s worked its way up into the Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 consists of the three E’s, these three E’s are illustrated in the book “Our Common Future.”
The first one is Social Equity. Social Equity is when a person gives up his individual wants for the needs of the community. Economic Prosperity, it’s part of the three E’s, the free market is replaced by public/private partnerships and international assignment of wealth.
Ecological Integrity where individual rights are subordinated to environmental needs. So, what does all this indicate to you, well, laws under Social Equity, laws coerce individuals to give up personal wants for the needs of the community.
Or, as Harvey Rubin stated, “Individual rights will have to take a backseat to the collective in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.” Harvey Rubin is a member of ICLEI.
So, what kind of talk is this? This is not America talking, this is not what we think of when speaking about the United States of America and we purchase a small piece of property and put a small swing in the yard and raise your children.
But all of a sudden we’ve got an all-new language that’s happening and it’s all in the name of this Sustainable Development.
Economic Prosperity, there are two components to Economic Prosperity according to the Agenda 21 book and according to the 7 pamphlets they’ve put out by The Presidents Council for Sustainable Development, and a shift of wealth really indicates this, the developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries.
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Article 8. Equity will be achieved through implementation of the international economic order, and through transfers of resources to developing countries.
We’re going to protect the planet. We’re not going to protect the planet by living responsibly, we’re not going to protect the planet by recycling, we’re going to protect the planet by bringing an entirely new social structure among the people who live there.
Now, this would be wacky if it was nothing but a report and based on the United Nations in 1987 but that’s not what it is anymore, now it’s in the United States of America.
So, when we speak about this Agenda 21, you’re going to see that here in the leading pages of this Agenda 21 book, that’s where it came from, and we should know where every piece of this comes from because we don’t want to ever not be able to hold our heads up in any company and say that’s what this is, because you’re going to engage with people who have no concept they’re up to their eyeballs in Agenda 21 and they don’t know it.
These are the policies that drive this entire operation, that’s called the Rio Declaration, which George Bush signed off on.
Public-Private Partnerships are sort of nice because if you’re a benefit corporation or if you’re a corporation that operates in association with the government you get some tax breaks, and you get some limited liabilities.
For example, in California, there are housing blocks that are going up and most people are responsible and they like to build it well because at the end of the day they’re responsible and it’s going to come back to them and besides they want to be good businessmen and they want people to come back to them.
Therefore, they do a great job and they take responsibility for their clients. However, some of these agreements, not all of them, maintain the builder has no responsibility.
So, if the roofs collapsed, they have absolutely no responsibility and that’s starting to occur in various sustainable communities across the United States.
And again we use the word distinction, it’s not happening everywhere and there are developers out there that want to do the work well and responsibly and we have to divide the two.
The difficulty with Public Private Partnership is this, the chaps on the outside have a rough time of it. If you’re not a member of the Public Private Partnership, then you’re a member of the Free Enterprise System.
All of a sudden you’re confronted with funding the high taxes, you have a normal liability, you have normal taxes, you have restricted access to those federal dollars, and you have high competition.
Ultimately, Public Private Partnership’s, if they become large enough they start to drive out that middle-class businessman that’s so crucial to the United States of America.
Then we have Ecological Integrity, this is where personal freedoms are subordinated to nature, it’s nature over man.
In the Rio Declaration, human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They’re entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
Now, this is principle number 1, so we should look at this from several perspectives because we’re going to tear that sentence apart so that you realise what that sentence says and the meaning of that sentence.
This came from this book Agenda 21, this book is the guide of this entire movement described.
If you view principle number 1 again, human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. So, all of a sudden sustainable development is a human problem, it’s no longer a climatic problem, it’s no longer a planetary thing, it’s no longer the planet comes and goes, it’s longer the species comes and goes, that’s not even in the equation anymore, we’re at the heart of this dilemma.
So, the fact that the planets are not sustained where it needs to be, according to some peoples equations, it’s our fault, but number 2, they, meaning us, are entitled to a healthy productive life.
Who the hell gets to tell us what sort of life we’re entitled to? No one, because we’re entitled to the kind of life we want, we do the best that we can and as long as we don’t impede on the people around us, and seek to be good and kind human beings and live a lifestyle that’s a moral one.
But all of a sudden we have someone telling us what we’re entitled to and what we’re not.
And the last portion of the sentence states, in harmony with nature. So, in other words, we don’t get a healthy and productive life if we’re not in harmony with nature.
Now, this seems totally strange to most of us because you have what’s called the Declaration of Independence, where you don’t get your rights from any singular person, they come from a higher being, if that’s what you believe in, or whatever power source is yours, but we don’t get that from someone else.
Nevertheless, remember this was all started from a brief to the United Nations and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is a listing of what you can and can’t do, that’s how it operates and it only makes sense if you put together a global document, which is what this is, it’s not only for the United States.
If you’re going to put together a global report, why not use the Declaration of Human Rights because it’s already a global organisation, so that’s why you see the jargon that you do.
The difficulty with it is that it’s a direct contradiction to what American’s see, think and exist, all that you’re brought up to understand.
It goes on to state, that to realise sustainable development, states should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.
Now, we already know what the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption are because they’re all outlined in the report.
Now, a lot of people have never heard of Agenda 21 and the people that have heard of Agenda 21 have responded, “Well I’m not sure about that.” Well, it’s not an accident.
One of Clinton’s advisors was a gentleman called J Gary Lawrence, he was the Advisor to President Clinton’s Presidents Council on Sustainable Development.
Now he’s the Urban Strategies leader with Arup Consulting, they’re seemingly one of the biggest in the world, they’re enormous, they built the Sydney Opera House, they built the Tappan Zee Bridge, these people are extreme professionals, but they’re also into this stuff called Agenda 21 and Smart Growth.
So, here’s what J Gary Lawrence wrote in a document “The future of Agenda 21 in the New Millennium.” If you google it, you can download this document.
Here’s what he said, “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many who would actively work to defeat any elected official undertaking Local Agenda 21.”
“So, we will call our process something else, such as ‘comprehensive planning’, ‘growth management’ or ‘smart growth.’ Why? Because these are phrases we’re all accustomed to, these we all feel secure with, we feel comfortable with, it’s stuff that builders, contractors and homeowners that have been used on a day to day basis for 20 years or longer, and they’re fine, they’re safe, so why not hide behind that? And that’s what they did.
All of a sudden they came out with groups and terms like Smart Growth, Smart Streets, Visioning Projects, Consensus, Urbanist Communities, Public-Private Partnerships, Historic Prevention, Sustainable Communities, Open Spaces, Walkable Communities, Sustainable (our state or community), Environmental Justice, Multi-use Dwellings, Greenways, High Density Urban Development Units and Buffer Zones.
The fact is, the people have co-opted this stuff and here’s why. Because we want to utilise this stuff which use to be urban sprawl, remember it used to be called suburbia?
We all wanted our tiny slice of the pie that we could call our own because that’s our little kingdom, our refuge and they want to convert it into this.
Which are High-Density Urban Dwellings or Mixed Use Dwellings. Now, there’s nothing in the world wrong with it, they’re nice, they’re gorgeous, utterly beautiful, and there’s nothing wrong with it if you want it.
There’s everything wrong with it if it ends up being part of the Agenda 21.
So, in order to make all this function, in order to make this a reality we required two systems.
The Wildlands Project and Smart Growth are really 2 sides of the same coin. The Wildlands Project is intended to clear people off 50 percent of the American landscape, essentially by making the land worthless through the ban of using the land’s resources by protecting wildlife.
When the land becomes worthless through water shortages to farms, et cetera, people move into the cities in order to make money.
Smart Growth is the concentration of people into cities and is intended so that they don’t have to travel outside of the city because the necessities are nearby, like a mixed-use building with the storefronts on the ground floor with residences above in high rise buildings.
The overall plan is to depreciate farmland so that people move into Smart Growth cities, and that area becomes extremely valuable. Of course, several people will not be able to afford to move into a Smart Growth high rise so the government will subsidise it, therefore generating more dependency on the government.
Collectivists use Orwellian doublespeak to deceive the people, with the term ‘smart’. So-called Smart Growth is the strategy used to gather people into cities and to remove them off of the land, under the pennant of ‘protecting’ the environment.
Remember, only 5-6 percent of land in America is developed, buildings, roads, et cetera.
Smart Growth is a conspiracy to depreciate property outside of Smart Growth boundaries, this is achieved by restricting development which affects economic growth.
Heavy environmental regulations and land re-zoning on land outside the boundaries renders the land practically worthless.
Inside the Smart Growth boundaries, property values rise, and housing becomes inadequate and costly.
Land with minimal Smart Growth regulations markets for $10 thousand to $40 thousand per lot. Land with heavy Smart Growth regulations markets for $200 thousand to $600 thousand per lot.
Are you aware that America’s cumulative land mass is just 6 percent developed? Plus barely 3 percent of the land mass is deemed urban. Yet 77 percent of the population lives in urban areas.
The federal government owns over 29 percent of America’s land mass and most of it is in the Western States.
The reason for this is because the Eastern banking and industry interests did not want the wealthy and resource-rich West to control their affairs in the East.
As a consequence, extensive land use regulations were built around water rights, timber, mining, grazing rights, et cetera.
The overall goal of Smart Growth is controlled. Smart Growth communities consist of building up, not out. Stores are positioned at the bottom of high rise buildings where people live in the apartments above.
The idea of this is to keep people contained, so they never have to leave their Smart Growth enclosures.
Urban sprawl, or spread out development, is demonised despite the fact that most people would prefer to live in a single-family home, occupying the land.
There is far more freedom given to landowners than to apartment tenants.
Another element of Smart Growth planning is the light rail system. The goal is more power over people by restricting travel, some Smart Growth developments don’t even have garages.
Despite the financial impracticability of the rail system, billions have been wasted on it nationwide.
Smart Growth planning has extended into the energy field. Smart Growth buildings have a centralised control tool for heaters, air conditioners, water heaters and appliances and energy usage is remotely regulated.
Currently, Smart Meters are being installed in homes and apartments to observe, up to the minute, energy and appliance usage. This has been financed by taxpayer money.
Initially, the electricity companies are providing data on residents power usage, with the ultimate aim of controlling power remotely.
So, how did this now get to my own backyard?
Sustainable development is not a boring catch-phrase for miserable gits with nothing better to do with their lives. If you want to keep your home, your kids and your god, then sustainable development is your opponent.
Now, there was a movie that came out called ‘Hunger Games’ and this encapsulated itself in several ways to a society where Global Warming nonsense is deemed to take us through salvation.
Of course, if you look at the representation of the movie, it’s the Phoenix. For those who haven’t seen it, it was a world sometime in the future of complete control where various areas were enclosed off and people were not permitted to go in most of the land in the country and they were controlled from something called the CAPITOLE which was an elite that was obeyed by all the poor and starving people around the land.
They had a competition every year where two young people were selected from each area, who had to fight on live television and the one that won was the one to stay alive after all the others were eliminated, the purpose was to eliminate all the others and win the competition.
As Dr Richard Day stated in 1969, violence, pornography and obscenity in the media and movies will be increased to desensitise people to violence and porn and make them feel that life is short, precarious and brutish.
And Hunger Games was a masterpiece, but it was more than that, it was a representation of the society that we’re heading towards so fast, and we have a version of the Hunger Games and it’s called Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and it’s being organised through the United Nations and it’s a Trojan horse for world dictatorship.
Agenda 21 was agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil, which was overseen by Maurice Strong, a friend of Al Gore and Maurice stated, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn’t this our responsibility to bring that about?.”
What they’re attempting to do and intending to do is use saving the environment, which these people are killing, to support the industrialisation and the demise of democracy.
This is the wish list in documents for Agenda 21, operating through the United Nations.
An end to National Sovereignty, all justified by saving the world, by the way. State management of all land resources, ecosystems, deserts, forests, mountains, oceans and fresh water.
Agriculture, rural development, biotechnology and ensuring equity, equal slavery.
The state is to determine the role of business and financial resources. Eradication of private property because it’s not sustainable they say and how frequently does this seem to crop up, restructuring the family unit and children to be raised by the state and people will be told what their jobs will be.
Creation of human settlement zones and mass resettlement as people are made to relinquish the land where they live. Dumbing down education, which was done a long time ago and mass global depopulation in pursuance of all the above.
And what they’re doing to hide it, is they’re setting Agenda 21 groups up in all local areas, all over the globe, America, Great Britain, all over the place and they’re giving you the idea that each of these is essentially a self-governing, local community initiative, when it’s all being organised by the United Nations called Local Government for Sustainability.
The Isle of Wight had joined Agenda 21 in November 2000, and it states on the Isle of Wight Agenda 21 website. It was developed and written in conjunction with the people in the Isle of Wight and reveals their vision for the future of the island.
However, if you go to the Isle of Wight and ask people what they think about Agenda 21, they have no idea what you’re talking about and this is going on all over the world, and they openly talk in some of these organisations connected to it about the Post Democratic, Post industrial world.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, huge mentor of Barack Obama, one of the demo cons, he was the National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter and he wrote in another one of his pitiful books, because he knows what’s coming, called ‘America’s Role in the Technotronic Era 1970.
The Technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.
Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen.
These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities, and in 1970 he wrote that.
We now have a technocracy which is defined as government by technicians, specifically management by society by technical experts, including bankers.
Furthermore, look at what we’ve now got in Italy, we have one of the largest economies and principal countries of Europe. We have a government with not one chosen official in it.
Headed by this guy called Mario Monty, and we had a situation in Greece where we had this guy called Lucas Papademos as a banker, leader of the country that’s never seen a ballot box in his life.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, and then there is David Rockefeller, they co-founded the Trilateral Commission, one of those groups in the Bilderberg Council on Foreign Relations Network and it just so happens that Mario Monty before he became the unelected head of Italy was the European leader of the Trilateral Commission and Lucas Papademos was a part of that.
This is the first move to justifying difficulties, to take away even the freedom of people, to elect their own government, but at least we have a power in speculation to choose it, but no option at all, bringing the technocrats in, this is certainly in line with Agenda 21.
And these vile bureaucrats in Westminster and all around the globe, Capitol Hill, particularly Capitol Hill, bought and paid for, they’ve got to understand that they’re in these sites of the entire plan too because they’re due to no longer exist and to be replaced by technocrats eventually.
And they want a world of regions, because if you’re going to have complete control of people in an Orwellian police state, like the way that they want, this is like the Hunger Games, they have areas which are fenced off from the other sectors, and that you need to do it right into the local levels if you want complete power.
And this is why you’re noticing this shift of the police state going into communities at a lower and lower level.
So, one section of this structure that they want is breaking nations up into sections and what they have planned in areas of one country is connected to areas in another, consequently ending national sovereignty and national unity because they want an end to sovereignty, they want an end to all of it.
They simply want Technocrats and bureaucrats and uniform impostures of the decision made by those people and no democratic things at all.
Now, this is termed America 2050 and this is all related to the agenda for Agenda 21 and they have divided up America into a series of mega-regions with which they will have megacities, what they describe as human settlement zones.
And part of this Agenda 21 is for a huge cull of the global population and I’m not fooling when I say CULL, we’re talking about coming down to a billion or half a billion, in a world now of more than 7 billion.
In 1979, these stones surfaced in Georgia, they’re named America’s Stone Henge. Georgia Guidestones they call them. No one can put their finger on where they came from and who was behind them.
They’re astrologically arranged and there’s lettering on them, in various new languages and some ancient writing, I believe it includes Babylonian, and they call for the population of mankind to be maintained under five hundred million in perpetual balance with nature.
A draft copy of the United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment calls for the world population to be subdued to some one billion and Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo when that discussion took place that the population was going to be decreased by half.
Whichever it is, there are huge reductions in population.
And Gates and his missus, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are excessively possessed by population reduction.
This is the picture, the eye of this International Hygiene meeting or event in Germany, and people don’t realise that Hitler’s race purity programme was organised from America and Great Britain, not least from the Rockefeller family who paid for an entire floor of a German University to be occupied by Ernst Rüdin and his team.
Ernst Rüdin was Hitler’s race purity expert and the Rockefeller’s who were big time into Eugenics, they assigned Eugenics experts to Germany to help them promote and give them information, support and expertise in the programme.
The way that they planned to cull society is collectively and in some ways directly. The collective is by means of vaccinations, through genetically modified food from genetically modified corn, and the impact on American health is catastrophic.
Flouride in the water, hunger, also a manufactured disease and radiation, and also what did Dr Richard Day say in 1969, “Euthanasia and the demise pill, limiting access to affordable medical care, making eliminating the elderly easier.”
Then we had the Liverpool Care Pathway, where doctors were deciding often, without even discussing it with the family who is going to have their removal of food, of fluids and of drugs so that they die really fast.
It’s not the care pathway, it’s the death pathway.
We further have this situation in America with the death panels determining who gets treatment and who doesn’t amongst the elderly. It’s Euthanasia, that’s what it is.
And here in decreasing the population, first of all, sperm counts in various sectors of the globe are falling. Why do they want to reduce the population? And here’s one, the third generation of rats fed genetically modified food becomes sterile and there’s a biotech company, a small one in California called Epicyte and they came out with something called the Epicyte gene.
What they did was isolate the gene that makes people sterile, it’s a gene which if it becomes part of your genetic structure, attacks sperm. It attacks sperm if you’re male and destroys them so you’re sterile, and any sperm penetrating the female, the female that has that genetic part of its structure, then attacks the sperm and kills it, so their sterile.
Why would you create that? But then what did Epicyte do? They genetically masterminded that gene into corn, and then we go to the next level, Monsanto and Dupont set up a joint enterprise to take over the Epicyte gene and commercialised it.
And if anyone believes that this an exaggeration involving the decline in population, look at the map of America under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Wildlands Project and it’s America that they want to see under Agenda 21.
The red spots are little to no human use. The yellow dots are for highly regulated use. The only spots for normal use are these bits here and there in green, and they have to, therefore, clear the land to bring this about, and that’s what they’re doing.
That explains so much that’s going on, and people are saying, “Why are they doing this?.”
Agenda 21, get them off the land.
There’s presently a rural White House Council which has all the government agencies including the Department of Defense to support rural communities, no, it’s to discard rural communities of people under Agenda 21.
And under eco-fascism. One of the things they’re doing is creating more and more environmental regulations to make it difficult for small farmers, small growers and small landowners to survive in the rural communities, and therefore they’re killing the rural communities to get them off the land.
They’re sending in these SWAT units to handle honest people, seeking to grow organic or produce raw milk, they’re treating them appallingly, and they’re intended to get people off the land.
Monsanto, no food shall be grown that we don’t own, and more and more regulations to get people in a position where it’s difficult to maintain, and who moves in the corporations to take over the land.
More and more people are having their community gardens destroyed because they’re told it’s not in the zone regulations, even though people are starving and they’re getting their food for nothing.
They’re being banned from growing food in their front gardens, at a time of great economic challenge and this is what Dr Richard Day said in 1969, “Growing food will be banned by saying it isn’t safe and the state and corporations will control all food production. The supply and distribution of food will be monitored so that no one can give food to a fugitive of the system.”
And they’re further modifying the regulations to prevent people growing food at home.
So, all these things are coming together so that only the food inc, big food will control the food chain, and who gets food, those who conform to the system.
And they’re doing it in other ways when in 2011 they had those floods in the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. The US and Army Corp Engineers declared that they had to blow the dams to protect people further down the river.
So, they blew the levees and this is what happened to the land of small farmers all around that area, it was destroyed. Three weeks later letters came from the government trying to purchase the land through the US and Army Corp Engineers.
And the other thing that they’re doing is taking out freeway exists to rural communities, which used to be really effective economically, and what they’re doing is putting these corporations, kind of food centres in the middle of nowhere which serves no one and these rural communities are disappearing and people are leaving and they’re taking the land over.
They’re taking out dams so that people can’t farm anymore, they’re destroying or closing rural roads, or they’re on a huge scale taking the tarmac from roads and leaving them as gravel, making it more and more difficult for people to live in rural communities, and it’s all being done on purpose.
And this bloke, you know when he came in, David Cameron, he never mentioned it at the election and then quickly states he wants to sell off all the forests of Britain, all the state forests, that’s Agenda 21.
Now because the people responded, he had to take a step back but he would have gone on striving to do it. And this society, it’s just Agenda 21.
And what’s occurring in this country, humble farmers are going out of business on a ridiculous scale. Getting them off the land, that’s the plan, and where do they want to put them in? Human Settlement Zones.
They sort of want this in by 2050 -2060, and it’s the world of the Hunger Games. They want, and this is in their documents, they want to gather people together in a high rise, essentially, prison cell size living space, so all the people, those that they don’t want to cull, are in one area and they’ve cleared the land of everything else.
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, he’s a huge insider in all of this and frontman, and he announced, the first phase of Agenda 21, only he doesn’t call it that, of course, and they’re building 165,000 units in New York.
The spec and the way that they’re going to be constructed and designed, it’s classic Agenda 21, and the space that these apartments will cover for each person or family is between these two yellow lines, which is 10 feet by 30 feet, classic Agenda 21.
Building laws have been modified in areas like California to decrease the quantity of land that is used to build homes, and by 2020 this directive of the European Union states that all new buildings must use nearly zero energy by 2020.
And that means huge variations in the composition and nature of human society and living space. And then there’s the Archon World of these Archon bloodlines, no creativity, humans have creativity, and they have to use human creativity, they don’t have it.
And here are some of the houses that they’re speaking about for people under Agenda 21, talk about uninspiring, and then one of the things that were highlighted in the Hunger Games was the high-speed train that took the competitors from the sectors to the Capitol for this kill to the death competition, and high-speed train systems are all part of Agenda 21, they want this to be the central root, because they want an end to vehicles and stuff like that, except for them of course.
But they want high-speed trains to be the prime source of transportation, and here are the areas that they want under Agenda 21 in America, and everybody else off the land in all those other places.
And you know once the plane arrived, American trains simply vanished and barely anyone used them, it was largely aircraft, and out of know where Barack Obama declared a massive phase building programme for high-speed train networks in America.
And when you see where he wants to build them, it’s like laying them over a map of the Agenda 21 sectors of America. And then of course, out of nowhere David Cameron announced the biggest railway programmes since Victorian times with high-speed stuff and these high-speed interfaces are happening all over Europe.
And at least some, seemingly many of the people supposedly working for European train companies organising this high-speed interface they’re building don’t work for the train companies, they work for NATO, and they’re doing the orchestrating.
Well, get them off the land by weather manipulation and we’re seeing this a lot. This is HAARP (The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) in Alaska, now correlated to various comparable things around the globe, and in short, it bounces radio waves of high power Ionisphere in the higher atmosphere and bounces them back down to earth and can do multiple things, including creating earthquakes and manipulate the weather.
One of the tell-tale indications of an earthquake created artificially is these coloured lights in the sky, which precede an earthquake, and a guy called Kosuki Hakki, who’s an authority in GPS signals, he said in the mainstream media, one hour before an earthquake in Japan and the one in Chile in 2002, there were more electrons coming through the Ionisphere. This is a very strange phenomenon.
Well, not if you’re dealing with technology that not only bounces Ionisphere’s but often punches holes in it while it’s doing it.
Even in the patent that was applied for by a guy called Bernard Eastlund for the original part technology who mentions this man Nikola Tesla. He was, in fact, the scientific genius of the 20th century and he would probably be the genius of the 21st century if he was still here.
What he had done is cross the line, which mainstream science will not do because of all the implications for the Agenda if it does. That line is to cross the line into understanding a bigger perception of what reality is and how you can use it to generate all the warmth and power you need, once the technology is there, without cost.
Part of that is accessing the electrical level of the world and turning it into usable warmth and power. And what did Tesla say: If you wish to understand the Universe, think of energy, frequency and vibration.
He was making weather effects, his neighbours were protesting to the police, he was creating lightning above his home in New York. He created mini earthquakes with thousands of windows shattering when the technology went more than he thought, like a demented comedy movie, he couldn’t turn the thing off, and he also knew how to create free energy, accessing the natural power and sources of power in the universe and converting it into power and warmth without cost and without carbon dioxide.
The same people that are saying that we must do all this to protect the environment from carbon dioxide, are the very people that have been crushing this technology for decade after decade.
In terms of weather manipulation, Dr Richard Day, the 1969 man, he actually worked on weather manipulation in the US Military during World War II, and the BBC done a radio documentary, in which they exposed the great flood at Lynmouth in 1952, when they had 250 times the rainfall and it produced this huge surge of water that came through the village, killing 35 people, which was done by the RAF.
They called it Operation Cumulus, also known as Operation Witch Doctor, and it was manipulated on purpose, it was an experiment on weather manipulation and it’s been going on that long and earlier.
Here is a US Air Force Document 1996. It describes the artificial creation of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes, and continues: Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally. It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes.
The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather and the production of artificial weather all are part of an integrated set of military technologies.
Of course, most people will be aware that we have become besieged with Chemtrails, not Contrails that disappeared, condensation trails. Chemtrails that don’t disappear as they come out of these aircraft, they linger around and come out and ultimately fall to the ground and have Strontium, they have Aluminium, they have Barium, it acidifying water, it’s acidifying the land and it’s a huge impact on human health, cumatively again, the cull but it’s doing something else.
In the HAARP patent and specifications et cetera, in the description of a researcher describing and summarising what it says, it said this: Disbursed metallic particles such as aluminium, barium and strontium, which is the main chemtrail ingredient, may increase the atmosphere’s conductivity and therefore enhance HAARP’s weather modification performance.
So it’s doing that as well.
So, where are we going with this? Well, we’re going here… Dr Richard Day, 1969. The weather will be used as a weapon of war to create drought or famine.
A weapon of war against who? In Agenda 21 words, a weapon of war against the small farmers, landowners and producers of the world, not least in America.
We had in America this terrible drought which destroyed small autonomous farmers and breeders, of course, the big corporations can cope with it, they’ve got endless funds when they’re part of the agenda.
Also, in 2011 and other times we had these extraordinary forests of tornadoes, there was about 300 in a period of three days and at one point, and of course, that’s devastating rural communities. Creating tornadoes with HAARP technology, child’s play.
Devastating floods and weather, which repeatedly had an impact on small farmers and breeders and there was a report for the European Parliament Committee in the 1990’s about HAARP, which was really very beneficial because it was saying, hold on a minute we don’t like this, but one of the things it was saying, is that HAARP technology had the ability to manipulate the jet stream and shift weather patterns.
When you look at the meteorological explanation for the vast deluge in Great Britain, they say amazing things occur to the jet stream, and instead of going away and dropping some and going off into Europe, it primarily began going back and forth and that’s why we got the lot.
And when the farmers and growers deflated, in come the big business people, the network, to take over the land, percents, per dollar. Also, we’re having this overwhelming impact on the bee population throughout the world. Monsanto, another word for evil and the other part of this, is to create food deficits, because it’s not there, the production of food deficits because people just can’t afford it, because it’s too costly.
And control if they eat and their hearts and minds will follow. This is all part of the control system that they’re bringing on. Get them off the land, financially, they can’t afford to stay there anymore.
Hunger Games, Agenda 21. 3.5 million homeless. 18.5 million unoccupied homes in the United States. There you go, you’re poor, what a joke, woman in 1 million hat makes a speech about austerity. Praying for starving children while sitting on a gold throne.
This is the dynamic between people, politicians and banks. These answer to the same bosses, so they reform legislation to accommodate them and screw them. Secret organisations, politics, banking and media and Satanism, this is how it works.
This is why the government’s not doing what’s best for people, economically or any other way, they’re it for that for which they serve, politics, banking and all that other stuff, one global system.
A Swiss banker reported to a Russian magazine in 2011: These people are corrupt, sick in their minds, so sick they are full of vices and those vices are kept under wraps in their orders, many are into Statism. When you go into some banks you see these Satanistic symbols, like in the Rothschild Bank of Zurich. These people are controlled by blackmail because of the weaknesses they have. They have to follow orders or they will be exposed, they will be destroyed or even killed.
And this guy said, the system wasn’t broken, it was built this way, of course, it was. “Let’s get this right, I go to a bank.”
“Yeah, Yeah.”
“And you lend me money that doesn’t exist and then I pay interest on it.” But let me get my head around that, that’s what’s happening. They built a system and because of the dynamic of the politicians representing the banks, the legislation’s been passed that enables banks to lend at least ten times what they have on deposit, fractional reserve lending.
So, every time we lend $50,000 from a bank or place $50,000 into a bank, let’s put it the other way, they can loan ten times that which doesn’t exist to other people who want to come and loan.
It’s interesting when you follow this round the banking system. One loan, you go for a loan, “Can you borrow me £50,000?.”
“Yes, I can.”
“Why were you going to lend it to me?.”
“I’m going to type £50,000 into your account.”
“Where’s it coming from?.”
“Oh, I’m just typing it in, it’s no problem.”
So, now you’ve got £50,000, which has been created out of nothing, fresh air. So, you get it, in theory, the numbers on your screen. You see a car you like and you go over and say you’ll pay for the car, you give him £10,000 for the car, he then takes that money and puts it in his bank, now that bank can loan ten times that which has come from this which was created out of nothing in the first place.
And when you follow the banking system, the amount of money that can be generated by a single loan that was built out of nowhere in the first place is utterly unbelievable.
These people, if they were charged with a criminal activity they would have to reincarnate multiple times to finish the sentence, but it’s worse than that because who generates money, well the government generates money, no they don’t, overwhelmingly private banks produce money by issuing non-existent money they call credit, therefore this is how the economic cycle goes.
Banks issue lots of credit, a boom is created, in the boom, people seem more positive because they’ve got loads of orders in their business and their jobs look secure and they borrow more money. Companies borrow more money for plant and machinery, people borrow more money to have a larger house, a larger car, a bigger holiday, but what happens in a boom, people tend to get more and more into debt, credit cards and all that stuff, and then at the optimum point the fishing line has gone out there and now they’re dragging it back in.
They create a crisis or a reason to take money out of circulation, not make as many loans, what did they call it in 2008? A credit crunch, and then suddenly, there’s not the equivalent sum of money in circulation, even non-existent stuff to create the economic activity that was created before.
So, suddenly people can’t purchase as many things, people don’t sell as many things and consequently, companies begin to go out of business. People can’t repay their mortgages so they lose their homes and the banks that have created this situation by lending money that doesn’t exist, plus interest gets all that money that does exist as they call in loans of collateral.
And this is how over centuries, fishing line out, fishing line back they have commandeered the real wealth of the world and the Rothschild’s are massively behind this, the banking system.
Nathan Rothschild, the man who’s responsible for building up the Rothschild empire in Great Britain, and he said: I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.
And if you have one single currency, whoever controls that money supply controls the world, that’s the plan, and if you control the banks and you control the central banks and you control the reporting of the financial industry you stitch the whole thing up.
In 2008 when the crash happened, three things happened, first there was the crash of 2008, and that said there was a problem. Governments launched ridiculous sums of money (credit) at the perpetrators until their financial barrels were empty and then they wanted to crash the economy again on an unprecedented scale to create a situation where there is a total transformation of the financial system in the way that they want to create it and it will be based on a world central bank which will dictate all global finance.
What are they doing in the European Union? Stepping stones, totalitarian tiptoe, saying as a consequence of the financial crisis in Europe which these have created we must have centralised banking in Europe, and then you look at the people who are coming forward to solve the dilemma.
When we had the crash in 2008, the Bush Treasury Secretary was Hank Paulson who came a few years earlier from Goldman Sachs where he was Chief Executive Officer. The new head of the European bank is Mario Draghi, and he is a former employee of Goldman Sachs and former agent of Goldman Sachs is like saying former agent of the CIA.
So, all this money was hosed into the banking system, in that way, the banking crisis became a government crisis because now the monies come from the government to the bank and the governments are then making it a people crisis… what just happened? I thought it was a banking crisis, now they’re taking everything away.
Austerity programmes, Agenda 21, that’s what it’s all about.
What they want is a single currency, that’s what they want, so the euro was never an end in itself, it was always a stepping stone to the single currency. All the euro is, is a stalking horse which has been used to remove the multi-currencies of Europe.
It’s deleted the Gilda, it’s deleted the Deutsche Mark, it’s deleted the Lira but it’s not an end in itself, it’s a way of deleting those independent currencies, and they want eventually the Euro, and it might not be tomorrow but they want the Euro to disappear so the world currency can come first.
And people like George Soros, one of the demo cons and a Rothschild frontman, he and the Vatican have called for World Central Bank and World Government and all the rest of it.
The IMF, which is simply another agency of the bloodlines, is now taking over control of countries like Ireland and others on the basis of this economic crash which has been manipulated, and again, no sympathy, no compassion. Consequences for people, consequences for family, consequences for children, they couldn’t give a damn because they have no compassion.
And what we’re noticing all over Europe, is this gathering economic situation because it’s planned for a specific end. Britain is now about 2 trillion pounds in debt, and the more and more debt people or countries get into, the more and more control they give away to others.
America is about 21 trillion dollars in debt, in fact, it’s bankrupt, and it’s been done in an orderly way. America is being used to destroy America, economically and militarily. Any nation that cared about the people in a massive economic crisis would not be wasting trillions on the military and conflicts in various parts of the world.
But it’s not the American military, it’s the Cabals military being used to organise the attack of acquisition for the Cabal, therefore they’re simply using America’s economy to pay for it, and the purpose of destroying America is if you have superpowers that have economic and military strength to say no to your world government, you don’t have a world dictatorship, therefore stopping superpowers is absolutely essential to this world dictatorship that they want to bring in and are in the process of bringing in.
Then there are these credit rating agencies, Moody’s, Standard, Poor’s and Fitch, they were the people that gave triple-A ratings to total crap, that really benefited massively to cause the crash of 2008.
Now, their credit rating countries are causing mayhem, and the media are saying, “There’s trouble afoot, there’s trouble a Milford, Portugal, the credit rating agencies are down,” they’re controlled by the same people that own the banks for goodness sake, it’s all a scam.
And this is the Hunger Games world, the Agenda 21 world is revealing itself and it’s fabulous that people are questioning this with demonstrations and stuff but they need to get streetwise because in the end, this world government structure of authoritarian power, it’s not worried about what the method of power is, it simply wants to dominate.
Therefore, it’s quite happy for independent banks and biotechs and energy businesses be brought together under so-called government control, like all Worlds Ministeries, so there’s a World Ministry of Oil and there’s a World Ministry of Biotech.
The World Health Organisation, founded by the Rothschild’s and the Rockefeller’s, would become the World Health Industry, managing all pharmaceuticals and health, and whatever else you have.
And therefore we have to be streetwise so that when we see this occurring. We don’t say yeah’ get the banks because we’d be yelling for the next stage of power which is even more than it is now. We’ve got to get streetwise.
There’s a huge problem in the background, of gold that isn’t gold, it’s really gold coated tungsten, which is calculated as gold, and when that comes home to roost, that’s a huge impact on the economy as well.
Talking about the economy and debt, this is what this is about, debt is control, so let’s get young people up to their neck in debt, massive debt, which they spend the rest of their lives paying off, just to be programmed with the system’s version of events.
The current foe of mankind is humankind and in seeking a new villain to join us they came up with a plan, pollution, the threat of global warming, water deficits, hunger, that sort of stuff would suit the bill and current lifestyles and eating patterns of the wealthy middle class, including large meat intake, consumption of large quantities of frozen and convenience foods, use of motor vehicles, golf courses, small electric appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and rural housing are not sustainable.
The three principal aims would be to decrease human population to about 100 million globally, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning everywhere in the world.
We are on the brink of a global transformation. All we need is a major crisis and it doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people think is true but the struggle appears to be floating towards a world social democracy and many people will shun this New World Order and will die protesting against it.
But the one thing man fears is the unknown and when presented with this situation, individual rights will be voluntarily waived for the guarantee of their well-being awarded to them by a World Government, a New World Order.
The drive is to form a one world government. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I am convinced there are such a plan and international in scope and we’re governed, our brains are fashioned, our tastes moulded, our thoughts suggested, mostly by men we have never heard of.
Ultimately, childbearing will be a criminal offence upon society, except if the parents hold a government permit. All possible parents will be expected to use contraceptive substances, with the government issuing antidotes to residents chosen for childbearing.
Hospitals are mothballing scores of wards, blocking them to patients despite the NHS’s continuing beds crisis and at the last tally in September 82 ghost wards were shown containing 1,429 vacant beds, the equivalent of two complete hospitals.
It draws a clear development on the 32 wards and 502 beds that were unused four years earlier.
The closures, frequently a consequence of hospitals not having enough personnel or the funds to keep wards open, have happened at a time when the health service is under unusual pressure and fighting to cope with the demand for beds.
Doctors’ managers responded with disbelief to the revelations, and this came after the NHS was facing its worst winter for numerous years and when many hospitals ran out of beds.
Given the demands on the entire system, which imply the NHS was 5,000 beds short of what is required, the situation was astounding and is virtually always caused by not having enough funds or personnel.
This winter there was a widespread alarm that the NHS’s management of continually cutting beds had gone too far, with A&E units full of patients on trolleys and people being looked after by paramedics in ambulances.
Bed occupation ran at 95 percent for much of December, January and February far beyond the 85 percent safe level as flu, cold weather and breathing difficulties led to unusual amounts of patients being admitted as medical emergencies.
Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, who received the figures, necessitated that ministers examine why so many hospitals are using a method that he called a scandal.
Doctors predicted that the winter pressure was expected to grow into the summer and now research exposes the amount to which beds that could be used to attend suffering patients have been locked away and Tory ministers have allowed 14,500 beds to be trimmed from the NHS in the past eight years.
Wards have been left vacant and available and it’s a disgrace and ministers should be ensuring beds are used at this time of emergency for the NHS.
Continuing deficiencies of nurses and doctors and the NHS funds squeeze are forcing hospitals to shut beds and these conclusions will not startle any clinical workers in the NHS.
It shows problems around staffing hospitals reliably and in any comparison the greatest expense is personnel.
In years and years of attempting to balance books and realise efficiency savings, numerous hospitals will have taken the chances to close clinical domains if they at all can.
North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust stated a shortage of doctors and nurses determined it had nine wards containing 270 beds lying vacant in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, the greatest number in England.
Overall 92.7 percent of its beds were filled last winter, well preceding the 85 percent level that health authorities and A&E doctors think is needed to decrease hospital-acquired infections and guarantee great care.
Last September one of its nine wards had been mothballed for 1,460 days, four years.
In 2013, the trust implemented its transformational strategy which involved optimising the use of space in our hospitals to better patient pathways and as a consequence, it transferred a balance of inpatient activity from University Hospital of Hartlepool to University Hospital of North Tees.
As with numerous NHS trusts, the deficit of professional medical personnel to fulfil openings and the unwillingness to negotiate on patient safety meant that it felt this was the correct judgment to make.
Severe bed deficiencies this winter pushed NHS trusts to open up an approximated 4,000 escalation, extra beds, to help them cope, but staffing them proved challenging and multiple trusts had to hire high-priced agency employees to look after patients.
At a time when patients are facing unacceptably long waits to be examined and the affront of being treated in hospital hallways, it is illogical for hospitals to have additional beds available but also unavailable because they have been taken out of use and it is essential to look at why these aren’t being used when the NHS is under such tension.
Funding and staffing restrictions mean it isn’t always feasible to keep beds open and this is far from perfect given the NHS has at times been running at full capacity, with some patients left idling longer than they should for treatment given the shortage of accessible beds.
The NHS’s beds dilemma was highlighted when the IT manager Martyn Wells reported that he was put on a trolley in a windowless hospital store cupboard in Birmingham to recover following an operation to tackle a stage four malignant melanoma cancer that had spread to his stomach.
The Department of Health and Social Care stated: “It is misleading to say hospital beds are being mothballed – trusts control the number of beds to meet demand and that’s why they were able to open 3,000 more at peak periods this winter.”
One moment we’re being told the problem is that there are no beds, then we’re being told there is not enough staff, there appears to be a deficit of organisation here, so what does the simpering Jeremy Hunt say about that? He will probably rent them out to patients.
If all these beds are available, then why are people being told that they have to remain in hallways for hours before they get to see a doctor, this doesn’t make any sense at all.
We don’t appear to have money for beds and to pay staff, but we have the funds for combat. This is feckless behaviour on the part of our government and there appears to be frugality where the NHS is concerned but when it comes to funding the war effort they’re pretty thrifty.
They would sell our souls if they could get away with it because they appear to have an infinite wealth of funds when they want it but not for the stuff that truly matters.
I’m not a romanticist but there are some things I am passionate about and that’s keeping our NHS intact. The government are corrupt and singularly occupied in making a buck or two and it’s okay wanting to line your pocket, so long as it doesn’t affect sick and deteriorating patients.
When you muck up a service with cuts and no salary increases it becomes a surprisingly unproductive service.
There are loads of locution from the government about privatising the NHS so that they can revamp the service to make it sound but it won’t make it sound. It’s like putting the service into rehab in the dream that they can make it better but like everything else, it will run well for a while and then it will sink and petrify into the service it was before.
However, if the government financed the NHS correctly so that they could pay their workers correctly and hire the relevant quantity of workers, it’s not rocket science. The government must do the right thing and not palm the NHS off, slice it up and auction it off the highest bidder so they don’t have the burden of it anymore.
The NHS is one of the greatest institutions, it’s talked about all over the globe. People rave about how great it is, all over the globe and it is a great institution if the government put enough energy into it. Sadly, the government are disconnected from anything kind-hearted and they have no unconditional regard for the people of this country.
My father used to maintain that there’s a little bit of good in everybody, even killers and you simply have to free yourself to see it, well I’m still looking with regards to our government but I’m powerless to recognise anything great about them and the only thing that has evolved from them is a culture of whimsicality, indulgence and peculiarity.
Then there are the staffing jobs in the thousands, government ineptitude in suspending salary for years, failure to recruit and hire doctors and nurses and chasing EU workers out of the NHS via the Brexit mood and we contribute less to healthcare than most of the developed world.
As a portion of GDP, the United Kingdom used less on healthcare than the USA, Japan, France and Germany and a comparable rate to Canada. The USA used the most on healthcare at a rate of GDP at 16.6 percent.
Our government seems to have no empathy and they’re indifferent to people that are not like them. They’re only understanding when they’re in their own class of people. Other than that, they’re cruel and uncaring.
They have this hardness of heart and there is no reachability and there is no decency in their heart, it’s almost as if they’re an advocator of supremacy.
Dr Luke Ong was five months away from becoming a GP when he made a single mistake with his application to remain in the United Kingdom. A year ago he had a steady job working as a trainee GP in Greater Manchester and was scheduled to pass in February this year. He was in a relationship, had his own vehicle and everything was excellent.
Yet for the last eight months, it has been a living purgatory and his problems started towards the close of last year when he applied for indefinite permission to live in the United Kingdom.
He is from Singapore and was five months away from qualifying as a GP and had studied medicine at Manchester University, starting as a doctor in the NHS in 2012.
He scheduled an appointment and paid for it before his visa ran out. He thought everything was fine but in fact, the application is made when you attend the appointment, by which time his visa had been invalid for 18 days.
He was denied residency for that reason, and since then it’s been a struggle to change the ruling and an immigration judge ruled that it would not be proportionate to remove him, but the Home Office lodged an appeal.
His lawyer told him it is reviewing his initial application.
Everything flies in the face of common sense. NHS England is paying £100 million to recruitment agencies to get GPs to work in England and here he is, five months away from becoming a GP, and he’s being kicked out.
In the meantime, demand in the NHS is rising and falling.
He hasn’t been permitted to work since the first appointment and when he was told, his first thought was about all the patients he had scheduled for the coming week and who was going to see them.
He’s not allowed benefits so he’s been living off his savings and aid from his parents.
His mental health has declined and there have been days when he’s woken at 5 am, his heart racing, and thinking about what he should do, or whether they’re going to deport him or be detained. All of this has been constantly on his mind.
It put a lot of pressure on his relationship, which has now ended, partly because of the pressure he’s under.
Everything has ground to a standstill and it takes a lot to be resilient and for him to say that he’s going to carry on regardless of what happens.
If he can’t complete his training, everything will have been for nothing and he would have to go to another country, Singapore or Australia and start over again as a trainee.
He has loved the UK since he visited as a boy and when it came to university, his mind was set on the United Kingdom.
He took general practice because he liked having the opportunity to sit with patients and build up a connection.
It’s always nice to see what happens to them.
He can remember learning about the NHS at school in Singapore. It’s this huge system that takes care of you from when you’re born to your very last days.
You always have to pay something for healthcare in Singapore and the NHS is astounding and it’s unthinkable for other nations to have a method that gives you what you need when you need it.
And he’s so happy to have worked for it.
He feels he has a personal debt to the NHS. It has invested in him and it costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to train a GP from medical school through to qualification.
Some of that he paid for, but he’s immensely thankful and he actually wants to be able to give back to the NHS.
If you’ve ever been at the receiving end of the Home Office pen pushers, you couldn’t make up this stuff that happens and the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.
Nobody knows how to use their brains and they treat people with limited regard and dignity, try reading their convoluted guidance for applications and this should be sorted so that it doesn’t have a long-term impression on his fate personally or professionally.
The home office is vile and we, as a country, are culpable for standing by and letting this authoritarian government get away with it and this man has devoted more to British society than some who were born here have.
In the meantime, Jeremy Hunt’s simple administrative error ends in a slap on the wrist and a public acknowledgement waives off everything.
This whole position is being replicated over and over again and is sick and the government should be ashamed of what they’re doing. There are some really obnoxious characters living in this country, they’re called the wealthy Tory patrons.
He has been in this country for a long time, he has paid his taxes like everybody that works and still, they can’t give him license to stay.
It’s time for the Head of the Commonwealth i.e. Queen Elizabeth II to intercede, after all, Singapore is part of the Commonwealth and he is a doctor, already giving back into the United Kingdom and deserves to stay.
Any blunder he has made was an honest one.
This should make people really cross, he has struggled so hard to get where he is and to give to a country that is not even his own, whereas there are many people from other nations who fraudulently make matrimonies to just get a visa to live in the United Kingdom.
Once they have that visa, they stay with their spouse for perhaps a year or so, they necessitate a divorce and are home and dry, immigration won’t touch them and they can stay even though the union ended.
He attempted to get a date before his visa ran out but the first possible time was after that and it shouldn’t matter what profession or occupation that person is in, anyone who has been here for that long and is making a contribution should be given proper consideration, so why can’t the Home Office use a little common sense?
Maybe he should have put his application in a little earlier to avoid all of this tension but the Home Office must take a more common sense approach as we are all inclined to neglect stuff, particularly being a doctor and working extremely long hours, after all, he was a doctor who was adding to society.
This is yet another unfortunate blunder by the Home Office. Who is dealing with this situation, whoever they are, they’re utterly inept and shouldn’t we have workers at the Home Office who can actually do their job correctly?
Makes you actually question what kind of people govern the United Kingdom and some of us are questioning what the hades are going on? Common sense and propriety went out the window in support of red tape.
This is total insanity and what a disgraceful misuse of resources to deport someone who wants to work in this country and has made a life for himself here and who has invested so much in our NHS, where is the common sense?
This is what normally occurs when the all-powerful and all-knowing single people out. These people are ruthless and it does become a living hell, but we see that in many other nations where civilians are brutally misrepresented.
The time and money it took to train this doctor are enormous and the Home Office wants to get rid of him, which is quite odd, some might believe, but it’s not, they actually don’t mind how much money it necessitated, they want him out because they have to make a stand.
The reason the Home Office has to make a stand is that they keep going on about how many immigrants are being allowed into our country, therefore if they make a big argument of this, people will then believe they’re doing something about it.
Nevertheless, removing one person does not eliminate all that should not be here, particularly those that come into the United Kingdom, sit on their backsides and do nothing, yet the government are prepared to give them houses and money for doing nothing at all.
This guy has strived really hard and they want to make him a scapegoat. One would have assumed that the nincompoops who keep shooting themselves in the foot would realise they will require a doctor.
But this is how we’re supposed to attract professionals to work in the NHS or any professional sector in the United Kingdom. Following this debacle, no one from overseas will want to come and train here again because they’ll be worried that they will be deported after.
Well done to our government and the abuse on immigration who I can see ultimately lettering their own eulogy which is weird indeed, seeing as they have simply addressed this poor man’s notice to maybe leave the country.
This is hellbound for the necropolis because the magnifications of their efforts will be the Home Office’s deterioration if they deport this man for simply doing his job. They can transport him back off to his country of origin but the stigma will still remain here in England.
Will that stigma wear off in time, I pretty much suspect not. Our relationships with other nations are already extremely tense and our government is not lily-white and virginal at all and it only takes one huge mistake by them to exhaust some of the ideas that the people of the United Kingdom have of them, which isn’t really much and this disaster will simply put them at the bottom of the league table.
This is an application of the law without any common sense, which is really damaging and corrupt.
What is wrong with the Home Office? They’re endangering peoples livelihood, have they nothing better to do with their time but to agitate peoples lives, people who are serving and giving to the United Kingdom and they still want to suck the blood from peoples body like blood-sucking zombies.
The Drug Enforcement Administration DEA has now announced that the same producer of the ill-famed fentanyl has created an artificial marijuana product they believe more medically valuable and reliable than real cannabis.
The announcement was made a few weeks ago in the Federal Register by the DEA that the drug Syndros, a liquid form of manufactured THC, will now be listed as a schedule 2 regulated substance, which implies it can be legally prescribed by doctors.
In the meantime, natural marijuana continues to be classified right beside heroin among Schedule 1 regulated substances. This classification is kept for drugs that have no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
Other drugs that have proven time and time again to hold curative benefit appear to be held in this category as well, even though some things are improving.
Because the Food and Drug Administration FDA has cleared Syndros for approval, it will be hitting the market shortly. Syndros is made by Insys Therapeutics, an Arizona-based pharmaceutical firm that has been cited of using dishonest marketing methods to market Subysys, a spray form of the very powerful artificial opioid fentynal, which has been recommended by the FDA for treatment of pain from cancer.
Some top Insys officials, such as John Kapoor, the company’s billionaire originator, have been detained and charged with bribing doctors and deceiving insurance companies. Insys and its past leaders are also facing numerous prosecutions from states and individuals for supposedly triggering America’s opioid crisis and now they are seeking to take over the good old homegrown pot.
John Kapoor has pleaded not guilty and dismissed any and all wrongdoing. After being detained, he was freed on a $1 million bail.
Evidently, the launch of Syndros is a pivotal milestone for the company. Syndros is pretty comparable to Marinol, another manufactured THC product that was previously recommended by the FDA to manage anorexia induced by aids and cancer.
THC is the chief psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It’s what creates the user to feel high and frequently enhances hunger. However, if THC has medicinal advantages, why do we need to make an artificial variant of it in order to treat people?
The explanation is obvious because you can’t patent cannabis and profit from it.
Syndros was awarded preliminary Schedule 2 standing and was placed alongside Oxycontin, Percocet, cocaine, methamphetamine and other drugs also thought to contain some medicinal advantage but have a high potential for abuse.
The DEA addressed criticisms from people who are averse to making artificial products Schedule 2 while retaining marijuana Schedule 1. The two commenters verbalized concern that pharmaceutical firms are making a profit from legalised drugs comprising marijuana components.
The DEA notes that FDA-approved products of oral suspensions comprising dronabinol [THC] have an accepted medical use, whereas marijuana does not have an accepted medical use and consequently remains in Schedule 1.
This is clearly a sell-out, as there have been numerous reports of adverse reactions coming from the use of manufactured THC products. We all know that just because something has to be medically prescribed by a doctor by no means that it is trustworthy or will be kept out of the hands of children.
With enough information, people will see through this deception and cannabis will come one step nearer to becoming legal across the whole nation, and ultimately across the globe. Cannabis is a flower and has various well-documented uses for healing.
Both THC and CBD have already helped millions suffering from a broad spectrum of infirmities. The only reason cannabis remains banned is that it cannot be licensed or controlled and consequently it cannot be capitalised on.
There are numerous reports about the marvellous healing potential of cannabis. The problem is we live in such a dishonest and money greedy nation that will authorise the use of things that are known to cause cancer and/or death sooner than approve something that has been known to heal, it’s all about the all-powerful dollar.
Sadly, gluttony is a serious sin. It will overwhelm the very essence of the human soul and there’s something dangerously wrong at the moment, although, most countries suck as well and we should take care when it comes to insane fruit loop governing and it’s like watching Rome fall apart, but with Wi-fi.
If they approved it, it would put large pharmaceutical firms out of the game and lose billions as well as the lobbyists. It’s bureaucracy at its finest and they want us to get sick so the pharmaceutical business can make more money.
Most approved medicines have loads of side effects but here they are producing artificial medications every day but if we give them enough rope, ultimately they will hang themselves because these people who are simply human beings end up making inept blunders in the end.
They manipulate the people into thinking that what they dish out is the best for us. I questioned my GP once, does this medicine have any side effects, he stated they all have side effects of one sort or another. Therefore, I’m now thinking do I take the medicine or don’t I?
Well, the response is, I have to take it if I want to get rid of what I’m taking it for but whilst taking it I’m now putting something else bad into my body that I never had before which I then have to go back to my GP and get some other medication to get rid of that and then I take that medication that gives me something else, hence we go round on this wheel of medication that does nothing, but makes us sicker.
Furthermore, unless your child has had no infancy sicknesses and did not need to be medicated for whatever reason, the pharmaceutical firms have been making our kids unhealthy from day one, beginning with the shots they give to our children during infancy.
They approved the synthetic to make people ill so we have to buy more medications from big pharma. Do you all see what is happening now? Or when people get sick from it they can maintain how dangerous marijuana is.
Welcome to the land of the enslaved and home of the sheep.
The possibility of dying from marijuana alone is remarkably remote, even though marijuana use can lead to death because of the activities people engage in when high and research conducted in California comprising 65,177 men and women aged 15-49 found following 10 years, marijuana users died no sooner than those who did not smoke it.
Another study looked at 45,450 Swedish army recruits aged 18-20 and found following 15 years, both users and nonusers had a comparable life expectancy and according to a 1988 decision from the U.S a Drug Enforcement Administration, a marijuana smoker would have consumed 20,000 to 40,000 times the quantity of THC in a joint in order to risk dying.
A 2009 study in American Scientist on the comparative toxicity of recreational drugs indicated one would have to use more than 1,000 times the effective dosage of marijuana in order for it to be possibly fatal, not even a certain death.
Marijuana may not be dangerous like other drugs, but it can affect physical and mental health. Health consequences of marijuana misuse include a chronic cough and recurrent respiratory infections.
Mental and cognitive problems, including difficulties with learning and retention, hallucinations, anxiety, panic attacks and psychosis, particularly in juvenility and a 2012 study indicated people who smoked marijuana before age 17 were 3.5 times more inclined to attempt suicide than those who began smoking marijuana later in life.
Those reliant on marijuana had a greater chance of experiencing extreme depression and self-destructive thoughts and responses and subsequent investigation published in 2014 indicated regular teenage users were 18 times more prone to become reliant on marijuana, seven times more prone to attempt suicide and eight times more prone to use other illicit drugs in the future.
A German investigation published in Forensic Science International in February 2014 is the first known documented instance of somebody dying from marijuana use alone, other than car accidents in which marijuana was involved, or polydrug usage.
Other investigation on marijuana mortality researchers discovered the drug was to blame in two separate incidents out of 15 investigated, in two apparently healthy people, aged 23 and 28.
Post-mortems showed the younger man had a severe undetected heart problem, suggesting people with cardiovascular problems should be conscious of marijuana risks, and the older man had a history of alcohol and drug use.
Supposedly, these are the first instances of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications where complete post-mortem examinations were carried out and following the elimination of other causes of mortality it was thought that the young men endured fatal cardiovascular complexities provoked by smoking cannabis.
In late January 2014, British media reported the unfortunate demise of a 31-year-old mother of three named Gemma Moss, who reportedly died as a result of cannabis poisoning but medical science was doubtful that marijuana was the reason of death.
Gemma Moss was reportedly a pot smoker for numerous years but had ceased using two years before her death, but had recently begun smoking just half a joint at night to help her fall asleep.
Even though no organ impairment was discovered throughout her post-mortem, medical examiners proposed she may have undergone cardiac arrest triggered by what they considered moderate to high levels of the drug in her system.
There’s been no history of any confirmed reports of a death from cannabis ever. Dr Alan Shackelford is a high-profile, Harvard-trained Colorado physician who assesses people for medical marijuana medicines and he challenged the medical examiner’s judgment when questioned about the incident.
Cannabis can cause an exaggerated heart rate, and there’s a likelihood that it could create a problem with someone with a pre-existing heart disease, for example, somebody with a raised heart rate but there’s no known measure of cannabis that could kill an individual.
Generally referred to as artificial marijuana, artificial cannabinoids for example spice, K2 and kush are sadly sold as reliable options to real marijuana. They include an increasing amount of manmade mind-altering substances either sprayed on dried, shredded plant matter to be smoked (herbal incense) or vaporised and inhaled in e-cigarettes and other methods (liquid incense).
More than 150 distinct kinds of artificial marijuana composites currently exist and chemical tests reveal the active, mind-altering components are cannabinoid composites made in laboratories.
They may alter the brain far more severely than marijuana and the real consequences can be variable, critical and even life-threatening.
To date, numbers of people across the United States have overdosed on artificial cannabis and 20 deaths have been associated with its use and large overdose explosions created by faulty quantities of artificial cannabis led to almost 70 people being hospitalised over a brief period in June through July 2016.
On June 23, 16 people in Houston’s Hermann Park overdosed on K2 and were hospitalised and on July 12, 33 people in a particular neighbourhood in Brooklyn, New York, were suspected of overdosing on K2.
Several weeks following the Brooklyn incident, 20 people in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were treated for Kush overdoses in a two-day stretch. Kush is unlike heroin, where people overdose and usually die quickly.
People on Kush roam into traffic, have fits or strokes not easily traced back to the drug or are left paralyzed and fighting for their lives.
Emily Bauer, a teenage girl in suburban Houston, suffered five strokes linked to her 2013 overdose. Doctors said 70 percent of her brain tissue was dead and she would never recover. Yet, as of 2016, she was gradually reacquiring some functioning.
One of the newest outlawed artificial pot substances, MDMB-CHMICA is believed to be responsible for 42 overdoses and 29 deaths in Europe.
The disastrous effects of driving intoxicated are well-documented, but investigations confirm marijuana is catching up. If a motorist is under the influence of alcohol, their chance of a fatal collision is 13 times greater than the risk of the motorist who is not under the influence of alcohol. However, if the motorist is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increases to 24 times that of a sober person.
Drugged driving caused more than 28 percent of mortality in 2010, opposed to 16 percent in 1999 and marijuana was the primary drug responsible for this rise, adding to 12 percent of 2010 collisions versus 4 percent in 1999.
Most tests look for delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive element in marijuana, and 11-OH-THC, its active metabolite and the mixed use of alcohol and marijuana dramatically doubles a driver’s chance of dying.
A report by the American Automobile Association (AAA) discovered that the portion of motorists who were high on marijuana during fatal accidents in Washington state more than doubled within 2013 and 2014, with 85 deaths involving THC in 2014.
In 2007, 8.6 percent of weekend night motorists tested positive for THC versus 12.6 percent of motorists in 2013 to 2014, a 48 percent rise and the number of fatal car pileups in the state in which motorists tested positive for marijuana increased from 11 in 2012 to 38 in 2015, an uptick from 6 percent of collisions to 15 percent.
Analysts stated the uptick in marijuana-related collisions may be bound to legalisation in nearby states. Concurrently, the rate of motorists in fatal collisions tested for drugs grew from 42 percent in 2011 to 62 percent in 2015.
Seven of nine analysed studies presented the risk of a motor vehicle crash increased when motorists had used cannabis a few hours before the collision. The same meta-analysis revealed acute cannabis consumption almost multiplied the prospect of a motorist being involved in a motor vehicle accident ending in serious damage or death.
Proponents of recreational marijuana legalisation point to its comparative safety and the reality medicinal marijuana has some curative advantages.
Nevertheless, it is said that in some nations, those that use marijuana have the most salubrious people on the planet, along with Asians because of the mere fact that cannabis was part of their everyday dietary supplement.
Cannabis was and still is a primary healing remedy in many tribes, where there has never been a reported death or overdose because our bodies adapt the same specific thing. Consequently, for those tribes, they will only stick to the one and only original cannabis.
The DEA promote that original cannabis will kill you because they’re aiming to kill thousands if not millions of people with their artificial garbage.
There’s no cure for gluttony and ignorance and the DEA and government are totally corrupted with both.
Who is Meghan Markle really? She’s an actress, philanthropist, and presently Prince Harry’s wife-to-be and her profile has skyrocketed.
Anti-Social, a 2015 crime drama starring Meghan Markle, was fated to be an insignificant blip on the cinematic panorama, a film you’d seemingly find by chance during a Sunday-afternoon Netflix journey.
However Meghan Markle’s profile has grown dramatically, and everything from her past—interviews, movie and television appearances, social-media posts is resurfacing, and inspired with a new meaning.
She is the most googled woman of 2016 and she is the star of USA’s Suits and founder of the lifestyle Web site The Tig. She has 1.4 million Instagram supporters, oh, and she’s also currently engaged to the world’s most desirable man, Prince Harry.
Unless you’re a keen spectator of Suits, her USA procedural, you have only likely become conscious of Meghan Markle when rumours of her and Harry’s courtship first surfaced, and the tabloids have recorded her every move.
Her yoga class has been staked out and her travel agenda analysed. Her mother has been doorstepped and in brief, Meghan Markle has received the treatment we’ve come to expect of royal romantic interests.
However unlike past Harry sweethearts, like Cressida Bonas and Chelsy Davy, who were essentially private subjects before the paparazzi descended, Meghan Markle was something of an identified quantity.
The 35-year-old has been acting in movie and television and making the accompanying press rounds and developing the important social media appearances for near to 15 years. While she has naturally maintained mostly radio censorship since her involvement went public including refusing to be interrogated for a story, Meghan Markle has left an atypically strong file for the people to familiarize itself with the woman who would be Duchess.
Her initial credit was in 2002 when she performed on an instalment of General Hospital. She has since performed in a variety of television shows, 90210, Without a Trace, Fringe, The League, CSI: Miami—as well as a throng of movies, including Get Him to the Greek and Horrible Bosses.
Meghan Markle is a bit of a Gwyneth Paltrow. She has a lifestyle Web site, The Tig, which, on the third week of December, offered among its pieces one on how to be a great impromptu host and another on how to hunt down holiday gifts that give back.
She wrote on the site that The Tig is a heart for the discerning palate, those with a desire for food, travel, fashion and beauty. She wanted to design a place to share all of these desires and to invite friends to share theirs as well and to be the breeding ground for concepts and enthusiasm.
On her Instagram, she has an affinity for posting inspirational quotes, well-lit food, and shots of dogs.
She’s a star, a writer and Editor-in-Chief of her cosy lifestyle brand The Tig, a rather good cook and a staunch believer in handwritten notes.
In an anecdote that almost makes you question if she always knew she would be destined for the magazine-profile treatment, one day when Meghan Markle was 11, she addressed a letter to Hillary Clinton, who was, at the time, the first lady.
Meghan Markle explained in the letter that she had noticed an ad put out by a soap company that implied women belonged in the kitchen, and it agitated her. As a consequence of the letter which she further posted to other distinguished personalities, the company ended up modifying the advertisement.
Some decades later, in 2015, Meghan Markle would, as part of her commitment with the United Nations, give a talk on International Women’s Day about gender identity that would earn her a standing applause.
She is also a global envoy for World Vision Canada and has travelled to Rwanda for the organization’s Clearwater Campaign and it was her philanthropy work that led her to Prince Harry.
Harry was in Toronto where Suits films for his Invictus Games when he met the actress at a charity event.
In her article for Elle U.K., Meghan Markle wrote about attempting to balance her duties to her work and the entertainment industry with her charity work, noting one particular time when she was in a van traveling back from a refugee camp in Rwanda and got an e-mail from her managers inquiring if she would be able to visit the BAFTAs.
At that instant, her gut answered no because while her two worlds can co-exist, she’s learnt that being able to keep a foot in both is a fragile balance and they’re not together exclusive but guiding her heart through the swaying pendulum from Hollywood fantasy to third-world reality is testing in its own way.
Gregg Sulkin a 24-year-old British actor best recognised for his performance on MTV’s sharp series Faking It was Meghan Markle’s co-star and love interest in Anti-Social and it’s questionable, when he was on scene in Hungary shooting the film, that he thought he would be delivering discussions for years about his co-star’s personal involvement with a prince, no less.
Gregg Sulkin was familiar with Suits before meeting Meghan Markle on set and was really enthusiastic about working with her. She’s a pretty unique person and such a skilled actress, poised, a well-mannered classy girl who takes her job seriously, and who is really passionate and Gregg Sulkin and Meghan Markle clearly spent a lot of time together.
They were both in a different country together where they knew nobody and the two would consume their days off travelling the city. Gregg Sulkin describes Meghan Markle a well-educated human being and that she’s the greatest out of all the stars he’s worked with inside 12 years.
Meghan Markle’s father is Caucasian and her mother is African-American, and her mixed-race history is something she has addressed and talked about on many occasions and while her mixed heritage may have built a grey zone encompassing her self-identification, keeping her with a foot on both sides of the fence, she has come to embrace that.
She is who she is and will share where she’s from and will assert her self-confidence in being a strong, confident mixed-race woman.
Once she was connected to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle became the prey of racially induced outrage and insults, so much so that the palace went to bizarre lengths to issue a statement in aid of Meghan Markle and demanded the media to respect her privacy.
Heather Cocks and Jessica Morgan, are also known as the Fug Girls and both long-time royal obsessives, and writers of a book, The Royal We, that even highlights a plot line about a prince falling in love with an American.
However, when they saw the letter from the palace, that is when they knew that the bond was genuine and pretty legit. Also, a good indication perhaps the palace has realised that they shouldn’t simply hang those girls out to dry, referencing to past girlfriends of William and Harry who had gained great media scrutiny.
When Gregg Sulkin was questioned about Meghan Markle’s involvement with Prince Harry, Sulkin reflected sedately for a second. He had learned that Meghan had got some cold press since the story broke and he was not happy about it.
Meghan Markle acts accordingly and acts well-mannered and in a classy, cultured way and we should be nothing but happy for her, especially if she partners Prince Harry and represents our country.
Meghan Markle is not similar to Harry’s former sweethearts. She’s already been partnered once and she has a thriving career based in America. There is much on paper, at least, that would symbolise Meghan Markle would not precisely be a possible future sister-in-law to Kate Middleton.
However, as her relationship with Prince Harry proceeds to progress, it appears the two may make a lot more sense as a match than people might have originally imagined.
Many have remarked that Meghan Markle’s charitable responsibilities align her with the Prince, as Harry’s public life has been mainly devoted to service, as was his late mother’s and even though Meghan Markle has been on two US Weekly covers since the relationship started, she has kept up the level of discretion expected of someone in the royal circle.
She has not talked or heightened her profile, or her association with the Prince. However, she has discovered ways to hint at and be moderately humble about the relationship.
Meghan Markle did not spend Christmas at Sandringham with the Queen and Kate did not get invited until she was married to Prince William, and Meghan Markle never wanted to be a woman who dines she’s always wanted to be a woman who works.
Furthermore it’s likely this is one of the numerous things that might have attracted Harry about Meghan and that she’s already used to the spotlight and while royal life is never going to be entirely comparable to anything else, it’s less likely that she’s going to run away frightened from that, than it is somebody who’s coming into it cold.
The engagement of Britain’s Prince Harry to actress Meghan Markle lifted eyebrows on both sides of the Atlantic for a particularly British set of reasons. She’s a mixed-race woman who will be the first American divorcée to partner with the royal family in almost 81 years.
Harry, the second son of Prince Charles and the deceased Princess Diana, unostentatiously proposed to Meghan Markle and the royal family announced that Meghan Markle will become a British citizen before she partners Harry during a May 19, 2018 service in Windsor Castle.
The young couple will reside in Nottingham Cottage, part of London’s Kensington Palace.
The famously tight-lipped royal family made the engagement known and in an interview that evening with the BBC’s Mishal Husain.
Meghan Markle met Harry in July 2016 on a blind date set up by a mutual friend, then cemented their relationship during a camping excursion to Botswana and Harry asked her to marry him during what she characterised as a cosy night at home.
It was sweet and sincere and really romantic. Harry got down on one knee, but Meghan could hardly let him finish proposing.
The engagement initiates the spotlight for the first royal wedding since Harry’s beloved brother William, the heir to the British throne, partnered Kate Middleton in 2011.
Approximately 23 million Americans viewed TV coverage of the union, surpassing the amount who had watched Charles’s wedding to Diana in 1981.
The engagement further ends months of speculation about the fate of Harry’s involvement with Meghan, who took the extraordinary measure of cooperating with a lengthy Vanity Fair profile. However, it won’t stop the broad public attention in the couple.
That’s not simply a representation of Harry’s diverse public image, a British soldier who served in Afghanistan, and Harry had years earlier sparked contention for attending a dress party in Nazi regalia.
Meghan Markle is no Kate Middleton, who retained a low public profile while dating Prince William and has seamlessly slipped into the public function demanded of the woman who will be Britain’s next queen.
That’s not simply because Meghan Markle hails from Los Angeles, she is also divorced and biracial. Her mother is African American and her father is white. It’s also because Meghan Markle had a high-profile role on the USA Network show Suits and ran the Tig, a lifestyle blog.
Coverage of this prince-meets-commoner courting in the British tabloids became so extreme that Prince Harry took the extraordinary measure of announcing an official announcement in November 2016, four months after they started dating, rebuking the wave of abuse and harassment his sweetheart had experienced.
Furthermore, it’s right that Prince Harry was concerned about Ms Markle’s safety and was genuinely saddened that he has not been able to protect her and there was a reason for that. Many of the attacks were both discriminatory and sexist in nature.
The Daily Star Online reported that Prince Harry could marry into gangster royalty and that his current affection is from a crime-ridden Los Angeles area.
Meghan Markle, for her part, wasn’t the bashful and quiet type and in the Vanity Fair profile, she stated the huge media attention she meets because of her association with Harry has its challenges, and it comes in waves and some days it can seem more challenging than others.
One reason for those challenges, Meghan Markle’s divorce means she will make history when she partners Prince Harry and it’s not the first time a British royal has married an American divorcée. Meghan Markle will in some ways be following in the steps of Wallis Simpson, a divorced American woman who married into the British royal family almost 81 years ago. Then-King Edward VIII renounced his chair rather than end the association.
The association shocked Britain, in part because Wallis Simpson was still technically married to her spouse when she began the association with Edward and they got divorced in May 1937, almost six months after Edward abdicated.
There’s no such embarrassment here. Meghan Markle was divorced before she began seeing Prince Harry and assuming the wedding goes forward as intended, the forthcoming royal wedding will be a clear test of how much British public sentiment has changed in 81 years, and of just how diverse or how alike the Britain of 2018 will be to the Britain of 1936.
Perhaps she does want to be Princess Diana 2, but she will have to earn that right but, there will always be Princess Diana, the Princess of everyone’s hearts and Meghan Markle will never step into that role. Princess Diana might be dead, but she will always remain in people’s hearts.
Meghan Markle might have always been fiercely driven, strangely shrewd and indecently aspirational but of course, she’s a starlet and she should click into the character of Prince Harry’s wife, whether it be genuine or very showgirl fake.
Either way, she should fit into all the crap of royal life.
Meghan Markle might have been a party animal who liked staying out late, it’s not the most terrible thing in the world. After all Prince Harry was regarded as the more boisterous, less conventional sibling to that of his older brother Prince William, and Prince Harry preferred to party and have a jolly good time.
Prince Harry has had his good share of small embarrassments. Many drunk post-club scuffles with the paparazzi, and who can forget when he arrived at his pal’s costume party costumed as a Nazi in 2005?.
However, the crown jewel that surpassed them all was in 2012 when he was photographed traipsing exposed in Las Vegas after a high-spirited game of strip billiards with friends and naked strangers of the opposing sex.
Needless to say, the Royal Family was extremely unamused, and the Prince apologized for his actions.
Introduced by Princess Eugenie, Prince Harry’s cousin, Burberry British model Cressida Bonas and Prince Harry became smitten with each other and started dating in 2012. Cressida Bonas, who is a descendant of King Charles II, became the expected bride-to-be of the royal wild child and despite keeping their relationship moderately private, the lovebirds fizzled out in 2014.
The report has it that Cressida Bonas, just like Chelsy Davy, was turned off by the strong media attention encompassing their coupledom.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are without doubt made for one another. They are both positive about what they want from life and there appears to be no negativity about them and Meghan Markle has been given some bad address by the media which verifies that they can both go the distance.
Consumers could face paying a security on drinks bottles and cans which is returned when they hand them in for recycling, under Government schemes to tackle plastic garbage and Environment Secretary Michael Gove confirmed ministers would introduce a deposit-return system for single use drinks containers such as plastic and glass bottles and aluminium cans in England, subject to discussion.
The move strives to increase recycling rates and curtail scattering of rubbish and comes amid rising concern over the problem of single-use plastic waste, much of which ends up as waste contaminating the countryside and oceans.
UK consumers use an expected 13 billion plastic drinks bottles a year, although more than three billion are burned, transferred to landfill or end up as litter in cities, the countryside and the ocean.
Some countries already have deposit return schemes which impose an upfront security on drinks containers, extending from 8p in Sweden to 22p in Germany, that is recovered when the empty bottle or can is rendered.
The consultation will examine how such a system could operate in England, besides other proposals to boost recycling charges, which have stalled in recent years.
Benefits of a scheme could include giving cash rewards for returning bottles and cans without an upfront security, through reverse vending machines where consumers insert the container and get money in return.
People need a reason to recycle their bottles and cans and it would increase their spirit if they could recycle their bottles and cans and get cash for doing so and you don’t need to be any Sherlock Holmes to understand that if people profited from such a system, they would be more ready to recycle because they would make a profit from doing so.
If people were getting 22p for every bottle or can they recycle then they would be more aware because they know they are getting something back for doing so.
German consumers kicked the can because ten years ago, a compulsory security for cans and other one-time use packaging was started. Since then, the amount of cans marketed has dropped, but the balance of reusable bottles has also decreased greatly.
When the then ruling coalition of Social Democrats and Greens passed the container deposit bill, there was an objection from all sides. Retailers and beverage businesses worried their company would be hurt and went to the Federal Constitutional Court in an endeavour to end the mandatory deposit on non-reusable containers. But it wasn’t simply the industry.
Jürgen Trittin, the environment minister at the time, had to protect himself from assaults from environmentalists because they perceived the deposit as a threat to the use of reusable containers.
But we must stop littering our landscape.
We live in a wonderful world that is full of beauty, charm and adventure. There is no end to the adventures that we can have if only we seek them with our eyes open.
Jawaharlal Nehru
There is litter washing up on the shores of the United Kingdom and it’s continuing to increase and much of the rubbish is plastic, driving the MCS to call on the government to urgently introduce a charge on single-use plastic items, such as straws, cups and cutlery.
Around 12 million tonnes of plastic litter enter the shores every year, destroying millions of marine creatures and people are further deemed to be unwittingly consuming the plastic, possibly tainted with poisonous chemicals, through seafood.
The MCS beach clean saw 7,000 enlistees search 340 beaches and accumulate an average of 718 pieces of litter every 100 metres and the survey uses a standard methodology and data from the last decade and shows a mounting stream of litter along the shore.
Most of the litter is tiny, unidentifiable particles of plastic, broken down in the ocean from bigger things and usually mistaken for food by fish and birds, but 20 percent of the litter is packaging from on the go food and drink, such as cups, bottles, cutlery, stirrers and sandwich packages.
The beach clean data reveals an unexpected increase in the volume of litter and our beaches are drowning in plastic and we urgently require some form of cash incentive on single-use plastic as the first line of action.
We should be concerned that this is a progressive uphill trend because plastic never goes away, it does not decay, it simply goes into tinier and tinier bits and becomes much more damaging to our marine environment.
I could never see why they began to use plastic, what was wrong with refundable bottles? Plastic bottles are a recycling disaster and Coca-Cola should have known better.
The Coca-Cola Company produced more than 100 billion plastic bottles in 2016 and this is a troubling revelation, reflecting on how much of the rubbish ends up outside plastic recycling systems.
Separately it has been determined that, on current trends, by 2050 the plastic in our seas may weigh more than all the fish.
In this dispute about rubbish, Coca-Cola has long been the scapegoat of environmentalists and it has a huge environmental footprint that some businesses can match and packaging is merely a portion of the story.
Exceeding the billions of plastic bottles, Coke puts huge demands on the Earth. As early as the 1920s, the company claimed that it was the biggest consumer of sugar cane on the planet. It further quickly declared to be the world’s largest buyer of processed caffeine.
Today, at its bottling plants it uses more than 300 billion litres of water a year and its total water footprint, needed to produce sugar cane and all the other ingredients, is 100 times greater.
Considering this desire for natural resources, it’s clear to understand why organisations such as Greenpeace have seen Coca-Cola as an ecological evil spirit but buried in the company’s archives are some valuable lessons.
Take the history of Coke packaging. In the preceding decades, Coca-Cola has strived carefully to stop communities around the world implementing deposit methods that would require drinks firms to attach a charge to the cost of their commodities, to be returned when consumers returned the packaging to the seller or retailer.
Deposit policies started to spread in the United States in the 1970s, as disposable steel and aluminium cans and substituted the returnable glass bottles that once dominated the beer and soft drink industries.
This change to disposables, which began with brewers in the 1930s and culminated in the soft drinks industry in the 1960s, was in part inspired by a consumer culture that craved convenience. It was further motivated by economics, as large beverage businesses attempted to gain economies of scale by combining their bottling systems, and realised they could save money if they didn’t have to truck returnable bottles back to companies.
However, those businesses did not like deposit policies because they thought government-imposed price hikes could hit sales. Coke, Pepsi and others organised to counter deposit laws. Their campaign was victorious, mostly because of a promise they delivered to discussions: kerbside recycling.
In federal and state government hearings, Coca-Cola and others claimed that municipal recycling operations, if financed and backed by government agencies, would reduce the requirement for deposits and by the mid-80s, this argument had won the day.
Following 1986, Hawaii was the only state to establish a deposit law, bringing the number of states with such enactment to just 10.
The ecological cost of not putting a value on packaging garbage loomed large in America and despite assurances that more kerbside support would considerably boost recycling, large amounts of garbage continued.
Plastic bottles, which appeared in the soft drink industry in the 1970s, were especially questionable.
Coca-Cola maintains its packaging is recyclable.
Plastic containers can be recycled, however current methods of recycling are failing to capture the large bulk of this rubbish, mostly because there are few financial incentives.
The overall public did not implement plastic bottles and aluminium cans. They were brought in by corporations as a means of investment, however, the people are like sheep and if plastic and cans had never been manufactured, the people would have still been drinking out of bottles and would not have batted an eyelid but monetary profit appears to be more powerful than the wonderful universe that we live in.
Businesses are not interested in our ecosystem, they’re just interested in profit and the sheep will simply go along with whatever they put in front of our eyes and advertising is the scourge and control of our behaviours.
If they want the people to reform their ways and views on recycling, then they should bring in an incentive to do that and to be putting a tax on bottles and cans is not an incentive. It will irritate the general public and they will still throw their plastics and cans into the trash.
Coca-Cola should have known this would be the result and in the early 20th century, industry journals scolded soft drink bottlers that did not put securities on their returnable bottles. In 1905, for instance, the Southern Carbonator and Bottler announced that the only rational, logical and lasting answer to the bottle problem is the deposit system.
About 80 percent of Coca-Cola bottlers viewed in 1929 had deposit arrangements in place, and studies of that time revealed that bottles did dozens of trips back and forth between consumer and distributor.
This was a re-use scheme that really reclaimed natural resources, and private enterprise was its largest advocate.
Coca-Cola put its fate in the plastic bottle because Coca-Cola thought recycling methods would enable the business to recover much of the plastic that is used.
The virtue of history is that we can glance back and see if this gamble paid off and using the US as a case study, the message is obvious. Failure to give monetary incentives has produced a wasteful recycling system.
Over 25 years since kerbside recycling started, 70 percent of plastic containers are never reclaimed. Only 30 percent end up being recycled.
The great discovery is that Coca-Cola is contemplating switching course and recently, the company stated it would consider approving a deposit scheme in Scotland. If this occurs, Scotland will probably notice raised recycling rates, much like Germany and other countries that have passed measures to put a price on pollution.
However, even if this is the start of a new age of environmental accountability for Coca-Cola, the company faces an even greater challenge than plastic packaging, what critics call the junk inside.
With countries around the globe facing frightening obesity rates, over 35 percent among American adults, Coke is expected to meet the increased scrutiny of its 330ml cans containing approximately nine teaspoons of sugar, no matter what container it decides to put them in.
We can be in no doubt that plastic is inflicting devastation on our marine habitat, destroying dolphins, killing turtles and diminishing our most cherished environments.
The tax on plastic bags started in 2015, which has seen their use fall by 85 percent, had a speedy influence, with the quantity of bags seen on shores down by 40 percent since 2014 and it’s truly fantastic to comprehend that a small charge totally transformed people’s performance.
The populated south-east of England had the biggest volume of litter, with 1,092 items per 100 metres of beach, a rise of 46 percent from last year. South-west England was second, with 1,036 items per 100 metres.
Apparently, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that they are taking important actions to tackle plastic waste including proposals to introduce a prohibition on plastic microbeads and a proposal for proof around deposit remuneration and reimbursement plans for plastic bottles.
There is definitely more to do in this area and they need to be operating with industry to examine how they can further decrease the amount of single-use plastic consumption.
Iceland and the Co-op announced that they would support a UK-wide bottle deposit return system (DRS), while the Natural History Museum in London has declared it will end selling single-use plastic bottles to the 4.5 million people who attend each year.
The MCS 2017 poll discovered the second largest amount of litter in the 10 years for which there is similar data. The peak in 2014 is considered likely to be the result of unusually harsh storms early that year, which washed up more debris.
The MCS further noticed a huge leap in wet wipes litter in 2017, up 94 percent on the preceding year, although the cause is uncertain and most wet wipes contain plastic.
People should not flush them down the toilet and that labelling on wet wipes needs to change and if they don’t meet the water company measures, they should state non-flushable quite distinctly on the front of the packet.
If you go to the seaside you’re usually used to seeing a band of stinking algae tangled with all kinds of plastic, it’s simply part of the landscape now.
It shouldn’t be that hard to track plastic bottles, they have codes on them. You just have to look at the sides of roads, mainly on slip roads to roundabouts where people are waiting, to view the mounds of rubbish people are content to throw out of their vehicle.
In England, we don’t appear to mind that we throw our garbage anywhere but it’s all packaging of one sort or another and it’s so simple to stop. They banned free plastic bags in supermarkets, that worked, so there is no reason why we can’t do the same with bottles and cans, but there needs to be some kind of incentive with the deposit scheme, people always need an incentive.
After all, people purchase their bottles or cans that they already pay tax on, so why would they want to pay more tax on them? The other thing that comes to mind is that if we are expected to take our bottles and cans to the bottle bank to get our deposit back, that would make it extremely challenging for the elderly and disabled people to do and particularly single mothers with young children.
They just won’t be able to do it!
Two-thirds of our litter comes right from land-based sources. Litter that is being left on the beach or washed down rivers and drains and from litter being dropped in towns and cities. It comes from industry spills, poorly controlled landfill sites and bins close to the coast or by being flushed down the loo.
The rest is lost in the ocean by containers going overboard or lost fishing equipment and Tsunamis, when they retreat from across the land they take all sorts of trash back out to sea.
If you’ve never done a beach clean, the sad reality is it it’s made of plastic you’ll find it and bottles are the least of our concern because much of it is nautical in origin, not simply fishing pursuits. On your local beach, you can spot marine mesh and cordage in common and a pain in the posterior to assemble as it deteriorates to every size, from a few millimetres to metres.
Some of our shores and waters are wreathed with it and another big category is unknown pieces of hard plastic, pieces of pipe, cable, all kinds of material.
The population is growing, of course, this will raise the volume of garbage and packaging which has seemingly raised further but are we cultivating a culture of simply dumping stuff? Polluters on an extensive scale.
The verges and hedgerows close by main roads are jam-packed with trash these days and in the wintertime when the grass recedes, the volume of trash appearing in the undergrowth is shocking.
Perhaps some people notice it more these days but I suspect more and more people see nothing wrong with dropping or discarding their waste packing and we are becoming less environmentally aware, particularly with all the discussion of environmental problems these days.
It’s pretty interesting though with the continuous assault we get about the environment, sustainability and being greener, yet trash appears to be accumulating more and more. Perhaps we are simply becoming thicker as a whole and the public subconscious is being watered down by an ever-increasing population.
People only care about money and charging people to use the tips needs to stop because they only care about money and they will just dump a mattress or sofa by the side of the road. The council will charge £25 to come and take away an old mattress and the thing is, you put out your old mattress or microwave for the council to pick up and you’ve already paid your £25 for somebody else to come and take it because it’s a good find and then you’ve paid the £25 for nothing.
A washing machine was put on the front of my son’s flat some time ago, it seemed all right to my son so he took it in, had a peek at it and paid somebody to come take a look at it, there was barely anything wrong with it, so he had it fixed and it looks brand new now.
Somebody’s Trash is Someone Else’s Treasure.
There is no incentive to pay the council £25 now to take your stuff away when somebody else will take it for you for nothing. I myself, when I am getting rid of stuff, I will put it out and put a note on it “free to a good home”, honestly, it’s gone within around ten minutes, so why would I want to give the council £25 for the privilege?
Has austerity diminished the number of people hired to clean the sides of roads? And if the rubbish is picked up less frequently or never, then it will eventually build up. However, the government don’t want to pay out, they would rather that we the taxpayers pay for it ourselves and if they had a choice they would make us pay for everything, even the air that we breathe?
This is what occurs when our food production is delivered to us in plastic containers that they state are recyclable but their not, it’s all a deception as you can see by our shorelines. What happened to good old-fashioned cooking from fresh, especially before and throughout the war.
Furthermore, it’s not just about the plastic, it’s what occurs to that plastic when you’re cooking with it, especially microwave meals, where once the plastic is warmed up, the contagions filter into our meals.
If your idea of meal preparation is microwaving uneaten food in the plastic takeout package they came in, here’s some bad news. Some chemicals in flexible plastic can filter into your meal when you cook it, and even if you’re careful enough to convey the food to a bowl or plate marked microwave-safe, you still may not be protected.
By and large, that label implies they won’t disintegrate or break when cooked but it doesn’t indicate they’re safe.
The two elements in plastics that experts are most worried about are phthalates and bisphenol-A (BPA), which are frequently referred to as endocrine disruptors because of their ability to influence estrogen and testosterone levels in humans.
They further seem to have the potential to affect the development of the brain and reproductive organs in growing fetuses.
I could go on and on about the effects these plastics have on our daily life, how they influence us and what they will do to you over a long stretch of time but I believe there are a number of people out there that are more than knowledgeable of these factors and for those that are not so informed, then it might be worth a little peruse on what your subjecting your body to and not just your body, but if you’re expecting, what you might be putting your unborn baby through without even realising it.
The fact is that we don’t really need plastic bottles or cans and there was nothing wrong with glass bottles before plastic fantastic came out and when ready meals first came out, they were impossibly fascinating and impressive, they were magical things.
It all began with turkey and television and is presently an enterprise worth £2.6 billion in the United Kingdom alone. It’s safe to say ready meals are a crucial component in what the British eat.
The origins of the modern ready meal go back to 1950s America and a food company called Swansons, even though others had tinkered with them beforehand.
Left with a large overabundance of turkey after Thanksgiving in 1953, Swansons hit upon the thought of wrapping it up with all the other ingredients of the legendary American dinner, but the stroke of inspiration was stuffing it all into the aluminium trays used to serve food by airlines.
The containers served as both baking trays to cook the frozen meal and a plate off which to eat it.
With television taking a grip across the United States, the company called its new merchandise the TV dinner and one hypothesis for this being that you could eat and watch. The new meals were a tremendous victory, with 10 million reportedly sold in the first year.
It was a time before the ready meal took off in the United Kingdom. This is because household freezers did not become the norm until the late 1960s and early 70s and when there was a widespread domestic way of storing frozen food, businesses noticed the commercial possibilities connected with it.
However, it wasn’t simply the technology that fired the growth of such meals. Family life was also developing and more women were working and everyone was putting in long hours at the office.
Anything that could free up time was promoted as a great thing and it became all about convenience.
Ready meals at the time were shown to be beneficial and effective, and they were a relief from domestic labour, even if you had the time to cook from scratch.
From the mid-70s to the early 80s, frozen food took off and the likes of Findus Crispy Pancakes and Birds Eye Potato Waffles were being served up in homes across the United Kingdom. New frozen desserts also became popular, such as Black Forest Gateau, Wall’s Viennetta and Birds Eye’s Arctic Roll.
The model for the usual way to eat was and still is a meal at home, with your family, assembling around a table and dining alone was frequently seen as a symbol of social neglect. Not only were implications of loneliness attached to ready meals, their quality further began to be challenged, with frozen meals frequently seen as second-rate.
People roused up to the yawning abyss between the picture on the packaging and the brown junk served on the practical tray within.
Frozen food, previously a status symbol, had lost its shine. Customers wanted freshness and one retailer was eager to give it to them in a move that would transform the appearance of ready meals permanently.
In 1979 Marks and Spencer started its ready-made chicken Kiev. What made it distinct from everything that had gone before was that it was chilled, rather than frozen. This satisfied customer desire for freshness and made people feel a step nearer to the idea that they had made it themselves.
Chilled ready meal sales grew during the 80s and the appearance of microwaves in the family pantry only raised them more and by 2012, the chilled ready meal made up 57 percent of the UK ready meals market and the market as a whole now governed by supermarkets making their own meals is valued at £2.6billion.
Chilled meals appeared at a time when healthy eating was becoming more popular and again the industry responded with the likes of Findus Lean Cuisine and McCain Oven Chips which used sunflower oil, the healthy alternative to the deep-fried version.
Growing appreciation of healthy eating remained in the 90s, with people becoming more worried about e-numbers, additives and nutritional concerns and it prompted the development of premium products and ranges.
People were prepared to spend more for something a touch posher and there started to be a hierarchy of products and supermarkets started luxury ranges. Labels and packaging also began to change, they got much fancier with high quality, alluring images.
The centre for excellence lasted into the 21st Century and the growing number of people eating out also had an influence.
It affected what people wanted to consume at home but most of the time didn’t have the culinary abilities to make, and ready meals were the alternative and the industry is very adaptable and continually adding new products in acknowledgement to trends.
This has served to make ready meals aspirational again and Ready meals have developed immeasurably in recent years.
Ranges now on offer include the likes of Tesco’s restaurant collection and a Waitrose range produced by three-Michelin star chef Heston Blumenthal and the recession has simply served to heighten sales as cash-strapped customers have cut back on restaurant meals to stay in instead.
The market is realising the advantages of the double-dip recession.
However, the nutritional content of such food has drawn adverse reporting and a study printed in the British Medical Journal found that not even one of 100 supermarket ready meals it investigated completely complied with nutritional guidelines introduced by the World Health Organization.
Another study by the University of Glasgow branded ready meals as nutritionally chaotic. But, the market keeps on growing. However, some people were never enthusiasts and never will be.
When you open a ready meal up and peel off the plastic what you are left with is usually not pleasing to the eye or palate and how your food should arrive at your table is up to the person, contingent on whether you are the hunter or the gatherer.
A Brexit campaigner has reported that Vote Leave cheated in the 2016 election by over-spending. However, the Prime Minister’s political secretary states the accusations are factually incorrect and misleading and revealed the accuser as homosexual.
A whistle-blower, who maintains he was outed as a homosexual by the Prime Minister’s political secretary in a fight over cheating allegations in the Brexit campaign, has maintained that the EU Referendum wasn’t legitimate.
In a discussion, Shahmir Sanni, who helped manage the BeLeave offshoot campaign, stated that people have been lied to, continuing that he knows that Vote Leave cheated.
He stated that leaving the European Union, he agreed with. However, he doesn’t agree with losing what it purports to be British in that process, losing what it means to follow the rules, losing what it means to be quite literally a functioning government.
Theresa May’s political secretary Stephen Parkinson has been blamed for outing Sanni after he was invited to answer to allegations of deception by Brexiteers and Stephen Parkinson states the two had been in a relationship for 18-months, which he later suggests distorted his judgement of events.
Channel 4 News can further reveal that Shahmir Sanni went to the Electoral Commission with two other pro-Brexit campaigning friends with their evidence.
They informed the Commission in detail why they believe Vote Leave violated the law throughout the Referendum and surpassed the legal spending limits.
Their lawyers gave the Commission signed statements from the three whistle-blowers and Channel 4 News has seen a copy of the 46-page report prepared by two top QCs, and three thick ring-binders of supporting reports.
The deception dispute centres around the links between Vote Leave and third-party campaign group BeLeave.
Under election laws, Vote Leave was only permitted to spend £7 million on its campaign. However, there were scores of other separate campaign groups who could each spend up to £700,000, if they registered as authorised members.
Nevertheless, spending by each of these groups had to remain really independent, and not governed by, the principal assigned campaigns.
Sanni states he was originally a Vote Leave outreach volunteer. However, he maintained Stephen Parkinson then assigned him to another Brexit group called BeLeave, where he worked with the group’s founder, Darren Grimes.
BeLeave’s headquarters were inside the Vote Leave headquarters and Darren Grimes was photographed holding a Vote Leave banner on the day of the Election and Sanni states that he and Darren Grimes always reported to Stephen Parkinson.
There was no time where anything BeLeave did that didn’t go through Stephen Parkinson. Any kind of article that Sanni posted or an editorial that Sanni wrote, he would run it through Stephen Parkinson and Sanni would ask if it was all right.
This was after they became a separate organisation and Sanni had sent Stephen Parkinson a draft of his speech, and he said ‘Hey, what do you think?’ and collectively, they allege they acted hand in glove with Stephen Parkinson.
In the last ten days of the campaign, Vote Leave donated a total of £625,000 to Grimes, who was listed as an authorised member and the contributions went straight to Canadian data firm Aggregate IQ (AIQ).
Sanni claims that Grimes was not really independent of Vote Leave and was not in control of how the funds were used and he maintains Grimes and BeLeave were used by Vote Leave to get around limits on how much they could legitimately use.
If correct, they could have overspent by about ten percent. Furthermore, there have been many connections between AIQ and Cambridge Analytica’s parent company SCL.
Talking about the donation, Sanni stated that when Darren informed him that it was nearly £700,000, the first thing Sanni asked was, okay so can I get some of my travel fees refunded, reimbursed?
Sanni wasn’t at work and he had only just come out of graduation and he was volunteering. Consequently, Sanni asked for money and Darren responded that he didn’t think they could and the only way for them to get it was if they gave it to AIQ, which Sanni thought was a little odd.
Questioned whether they could have declined to use the money on AIQ, Sanni stated that they didn’t ever feel like they had that level of power and that they never felt like they had authority over the or, over the organisation itself.
They were elected duties but in the terms of that kind of money, they never had a say over that. They never had power over that.
The outcome, they used BeLeave to over-spend, and not simply by a tiny amount, nearly two-thirds of a million pounds makes all the difference and it wasn’t legal.
They stated that it wasn’t coordinated, but it was and therefore the notion that the campaign was legal is misleading.
Stephen Parkinson issued a personal statement:
“I have seen the statements issued by Shahmir and his lawyers, and am saddened by them. They are factually incorrect and misleading. My statement to Channel 4 News and The Observer was issued in my personal capacity and was solely a response to the serious and untrue allegations made against me by Shahmir, Chris Wylie, and others.
“It would be surprising if Shahmir, Mr Wylie, or those advising them thought I would be able to defend myself against those allegations without revealing my relationship with Shahmir. Sadly, the allegations they have chosen to make are so serious that I have been compelled to do so. I cannot see how our relationship, which was ongoing at the time of the referendum and which is a material fact in the allegations being made, could have remained private once Shahmir decided to publicise his false claims in this way.
“The matters raised in tonight’s Channel 4 News programme are already with the Electoral Commission.
“At the relevant time during the referendum period, the Commission advised Vote Leave that it was permissible to make a donation in the way it proposed to do to BeLeave.
“Twice since the referendum, the Commission has investigated this matter, and twice it has found no evidence of wrongdoing. A third investigation into the same issue is currently taking place.
“The Electoral Commission has not contacted me in relation to any of these inquiries, but I will, of course, be happy to assist them if they wish me to do so.
“I firmly deny the allegations in the programme. I had no responsibility for digital campaigning or donations on the Vote Leave campaign, and am confident that I stayed within the law and strict spending rules at all times.”
A solicitor for Vote Leave said: “Vote Leave has twice been cleared on this matter by the Electoral Commission. There are a number of new accusations and allegations being made in what you have sent us. While many of them seem irrelevant or trivial, some are serious and potentially damaging to the reputations of those caught up in those allegations. As has been the case throughout, Vote Leave is obligated to review – to the extent it can after this long elapsed period since the referendum – all such allegations and is doing so. We will as appropriate share any relevant findings with the Electoral Commission, again as we have always done.”
Lawyers for Aggregate IQ said: “Aggregate IQ is a digital advertising, web and software development company based in Canada. It is and has always been 100 percent Canadian owned and operated. Aggregate IQ has never entered into a contract with Cambridge Analytica. Aggregate IQ works in full compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements in all jurisdictions where it operates. It has never knowingly been involved in any illegal activity.
“All work Aggregate IQ does for each client is kept separate. The services carried out by Aggregate IQ for Vote Leave were in accordance with the instructions of Vote Leave. The services carried out for BeLeave were in accordance with the instructions of BeLeave. The accounts were kept separate at all times and there was no overlap or merging in any way.”
Darren Grimes denies all the allegations, however, shouldn’t the police be examining the Tory party over the £700,000 benefaction, exploitation and embezzlement?
Some people might be all right with this but do we simply sit back and do nothing rather than addressing the distortions and dishonesty?
This sort of deception should come with a prison punishment for all those that have been shown to have lied throughout the campaigning in the elections or votes because it’s gaining an advantage through deception and until the perpetrators pay a personal price it will continue and losing their position is no deterrent.
There is no example that has been set that a specific level of electoral deception is acceptable and there should be prison time for people that intentionally grab the reins of control illegally.
I really feel sorry for this lad. He’s had to take safety precautions for his family in Pakistan because of the Tories outing him.
The government has attempted to make this all about Shahmir Sanni and his homosexual involvement as opposed to the information that was presented. They outed him and made him feel like he was a vile person because the snobbish fools had to cover their own butt.
The Tories actually are the most obnoxious people and what a farce this has become and they’re always bungling something or another. However, this time they should be allowed to flounder in their own faeces.
More than a million NHS workers in England are estimated to get a pay increase, following seven years of having their salaries frozen then capped at 1 percent as part of the government’s belt-tightening plan.
This was dramatically cut because their pay was not keeping up with the growing expenses of living.
However, it’s not simply workers in the health service who’ve had their earnings reduced. Teachers, police officers, prison staff, firefighters and armed forces employees have all had real-term reductions in their salaries.
So does this NHS offer a spell the end of the cap on all public-sector workers’ earnings?
Firefighters, police and prison officers have now been offered salary increases in violation of the cap although the firefighters union has refused their salary proposal.
Police and prison officers, on the other hand, have accepted increases of 1 percent with a 1 percent gratuity, and 1.7 percent, respectively for the coming year.
There are two significant differences from the NHS proposal though.
First, the pay increases for NHS workers will be financed through additional money given by the Treasury. However, the police and prison officers’ salary increase will have to be financed from the current resources so sacrifices may have to be made in other regions of spending on the services.
Furthermore, NHS workers are getting an average of 6.5 percent over three years. However half of the nurses will get more than that, and the lowest paid NHS workers will get pay increases of as much as 29 percent. Therefore, numerous NHS staff wages will keep pace with the growing expense of living for the first time in seven years.
That’s not the case for police and prison officers.
Both of their salary proposals are under the 2.4 percent inflation rate forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility for 2018.
Prison Officers Association general secretary Steve Gillan stated at the time: “I have made it clear that it is a pay cut. It is not acceptable.”
The Police Federation of England and Wales had asked for a 2.8 percent rise in basic salary. The Prison Officers Association had requested for a 5 percent rise and in July, firefighters were offered a 2 percent basic pay raise from last July, with a possible further 3 percent increase in line for this April.
However, this was refused by their union.
Fire Brigades Union general secretary Mark Wrack announced in July: “This offer demonstrates that the 1 percent cap is dead in the water but the offer from our employers is simply not enough.”
Both teachers and military employees are expecting to learn what their salary proposal will be for the coming year.
The armed forces are awaiting a report making suggestions on their pay imminently and on 15 January, Defence Minister Tobias Ellwood informed Parliament the armed forces had been liberated from the 1 percent pay freeze.
However, a letter from Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson stated there was still a need for pay discipline and the then Education Secretary, Justine Greening, wrote to the teachers’ pay review body in December, urging it to consider the necessity to address staff deficiencies when making its recommendations.
In the latest review, some of the lowest paid teaching staff got a 2 percent pay raise but most were held at 1 percent and therefore it seems like employers have presently been given extra freedom by the government to give their workers higher salary increases the next time salary levels are established.
But if these raises aren’t going to be financed by the Treasury and already financially compressed services will have to finance them from their existing resources, the problem is will they?
The examples of police, prison and fire-service personnel suggest employers are willing to creep beyond the 1 percent cap but are not yet giving salary increases that will mean their workers have more cash in their pockets once inflation is taken into account.
As well as the outcomes for people of having their salaries restricted, unions have pointed to difficulties with recruiting public-sector workers as an argument for lifting the cap and over most of the public sector, there have been difficulties with recruitment and retention of workers since 2010, even though this differs across various fields.
ICLEI is the International Council for Local Environment Initiatives. ICLEI is a United Nations-affiliated group tasked with subordinating your home, life, farming, and transportation rights to the global government.
So, this book “Our Common Future” talked about Sustainable Development, but a different report called Earth Summit Agenda 21 cutified the other book named “Our Common Future” and it now had an action plan.
So, while regulations are being made up by The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while their being followed up by the forest services, they’re in agreement with the President Council on Sustainable Development because that’s what agencies do, they’re supposed to be in agreement with what the President says, he’s the chief, he gets to tell them what they can do and what they can’t do.
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 