Workers at a packed pub secured the entrances and blocked revellers inside as an armed gang attempted to break their way in soon after 10.08pm.

 

The Met’s Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley confirmed that all three of the depraved intruders were shot and killed inside eight minutes of the initial call to emergency assistance after brave cops raced to defend the populace.

 

Establishing the death toll had increased to seven, Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick applauded the remarkable heroism of brave passers-by who stepped in to assist those wounded in the night’s barbarity. The criminals were observed calmly strolling through the market minutes before they started a stabbing assault on pubgoers whilst yelling “this is for Allah”, having previously driven a van into crowds on London Bridge.

The three-strong revolutionary gang wearing fake suicide vests were shot dead by armed policemen after inflicting eight minutes of terror on those enjoying a summer’s evening in the capital, killing seven and wounding 48, with 21 still critical.

 

The Prime Minister Theresa May delivered a staunch warning to those who harbour extremists in what seemed like a turning point in terror tactics after the latest terror offensive struck in the centre of London.

Following the third terrorist assault in three months, Theresa May defiantly verified Thursday’s General Election will go forward and announced a warning to jihadis and those who harbour them and she stated that something must change.

Enough is enough, and everyone must go about their lives as they normally would and society should continue to operate in accordance with our values. However, when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism, something must change.

Although there has been an important development in recent years, there appears to be far too much tolerance of extremism in this country, and we need to be far more robust in recognising it and stamping it out, across the public sector and across society.

President Donald Trump endured a torrent of objection for tweets he posted following the terror assault in London Saturday night. He stated on Twitter that we need to stop being politically correct and get down to the job of safety for the people and that if we don’t get smart things will only get more serious.

He further took the chance to defend his travel embargo, and stated that we need the courts to give us back our liberties and that we need the Travel Ban as an additional level of security, and rebuked London Mayor Sadiq Khan for what Donald Trump considered a nonchalant acknowledgement to the assaults.

Trump’s critique of Khan took the mayor’s words out of context.

Londoners will detect an enhanced police appearance over the course of the next few days. Nevertheless, Khan stated there was no cause to be alarmed.

Khan further wrote on Facebook that the attacks were sickening and that he condemned them in the strongest possible terms and added that he didn’t have time to waste on the U.S. president’s remarks.

 

He obviously has more pressing things to do than reacting to Donald Trump’s ill-informed tweet that intentionally takes out of context his comments advising Londoners not to be frightened when they observed more police, including armed officers, on the streets.

Donald Trump also called Prime Minister Theresa May to extend his sympathies following Saturday night’s terrorist assaults, before going golfing Sunday. Following discharging the inflammatory tweets, the president hit the links at his Trump National Golf Club in Virginia.

Before he became president, Donald Trump scrutinised President Obama for his frequent golfing addiction. According to The Hill, Obama averaged 41 visits to golf courses per year. Trump’s session on Sunday marked his 23rd visit to a golf club since he took position 134 days ago.

London Bridge attack eyewitness recollects fear as at least three knife-men assailed a restaurant and slashed customers, leaving them drenched in victims’ blood. At least six people were killed and 48 hospitalised in the terrorist assault in which revellers were mowned down and stabbed near pubs and restaurants.

 

Jag Sandue was at the Black and Blue restaurant in Borough Market when he declared he observed various men storm in furnished with knives. He stated a man was cut down behind him, with blood diffusing onto his shirt.

There were people launching chairs and glasses outside and Jag Sandue imagined it might simply be a fight. Then realised it was more than that, people were running. Next thing we know, they’re in the restaurant. People were shrieking, that they had knives.

He stated a man behind him was cut by one of the suspects in the turmoil, with people running to the back of the restaurant. Customers Jamie and Emma talked about having to hide in the steak restaurant’s kitchen when three men stabbed people in the face and stomach.

They heard lots and lots of bangs, and they burrowed beneath a table. People came into the restaurant and knocked a collection of stuff over, like the till. A guy had been stabbed, he was wounded and bleeding quite a lot.

Emma continued that there were like three guys and one of them had a bread knife. They came in and marched around the restaurant, I imagine they just stabbed anyone that they saw and knocked things on the ground and they hid.

Cops were heard yelling to leave the area before a storm of ammunition was discharged in the distance in footage acquired by ITV News.

SAS troops were stationed in response to what police employed as a terror disturbance.

Witnesses told of a van scything down pedestrians across London Bridge before three knifemen attacked bystanders. One eye-witness identified as Ben informed the BBC that he saw an assailant wearing a red tracksuit coldly stabbing a victim three times outside London Bridge station. He then proceeded towards Borough Market with another suspect as it swelled with Saturday night pub-goers before he heard shooting.

Police stated the three assailants were shot dead inside eight minutes of the initial distress call and choppers were observed arriving at London Bridge as specialist police engulfed the scene.

Controlled detonations reverberated through the area between 1:20 am and 1:40 am.

 

Panicking Jeremy Corbyn has dramatically U-turned on his long-held concerns over gun cops’ shoot-to-kill policy, responding that police should immediately use whatever force is needed.

In 2015 Jeremy Corbyn announced he was not comfortable with a shoot-to-kill strategy in general, proclaiming it very dangerous and demanding police just use proportionate force against revolutionaries.

However, he has inverted his controversial stand, responding police must have complete power to practice whatever force is required to preserve and defend life.

 

The November 2015 discussion took place in the wake of the Paris attacks, where Laura Kuenssberg asked the Labour boss if he were Prime Minister, would he be happy to order people, police or military, to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?

He answered that he was not comfortable with a shoot-to-kill strategy in general and that he thought that it was pretty risky and considered that it could be counterproductive and that he believed you have to have a defence that stops people shooting weapons where you can.

There are many levels of doing things, as you know, but the thought that you end up with a conflict in the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to prevent these things occurring, that’s got to be the precedence.

However, his surprising attitude propelled a huge dispute, forcing the hapless Labour chief to announce an explanation. Jeremy Corbyn insisted that of course, he supported the practice of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is needed to protect life in reply to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.

 

In reply, the agitated Tory Security Minister Ben Wallace responded back at a hurriedly planned speech intended to help him run from his record on counter-terrorism policy, but it failed.

Jeremy Corbyn has bragged about attacking every single counter-terror legislation, protested the practice of shoot to kill, and gave shelter to the IRA when they bombarded our civilians.

Sadly, voters will judge him on his views and responses in the last 30 years, not his desperate promises and deceptive sound bites three days out from polling.

At an address in Carlisle, Jeremy Corbyn brought an end to the one-day truce after the latest terror assault.

Earlier today Theresa May set out a four-pronged policy to tackle terror by showcasing extreme ideology, locking down on online extremism, preventing the growth of segregated communities, and giving additional powers to police security agencies and courts.

However, the Prime Minister’s remarks sparked objections from Labour that she was getting embroiled in a political dispute on a day when the parties had agreed to pause election campaigning until the evening.

Nevertheless, you can’t protect the populace on the cheap. The police and security services must get the resources they require, not 20,000 police cuts. Theresa May was advised by the Police Federation but she attacked them and said that they were simply howling like a wolf, so now we can dump the onus at the door of No 10.

Theresa May stated that fighting terrorism would demand tough talks with Muslim communities in the United Kingdom, and Jeremy Corbyn maintained that the Prime Minister must likewise be willing to have challenging talks with neighbouring allies and major arms customer Saudi Arabia about terror funding.

 

He cited the delayed publication of an inquiry ordered by David Cameron into the foreign funding of die-hard Islamist organisations, which is reported to centre on the Gulf kingdom.

We do however need to have some complex discussions, beginning with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries that have financed and fired radical ideas and it’s no good Theresa May containing a report into the foreign funding of extremist organisations.

We have to get serious about shaving off the funding to these terror networks, including Isis, here and in the Middle East.

Jeremy Corbyn has basically gone from being a political activist to head of the Labour party, of course, the reality deviates from his goals but look at all the other parties manifestos where they are so far from reality they may as well be on magic mushrooms than hope anything will truly happen.

More importantly is why is Theresa May declining to publish a long-delayed inquiry into foreign funding and support of jihadi organisations in the United Kingdom? She brazenly courts and helps Saudi Arabia who build mosques Europe-wide to generate their odious practice of Islam.

The so-called moderate insurgents in Libya and Syria, with their endless rebranding, are essentially ISIS and Al Qaeda under different titles and you should answer these uncomfortable issues Theresa May.

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t put all the onus on the Tories, in fact not only have all former governments been into Saudi negotiating but, Labour under Tony Blair were considerably worse since not only was he in it for huge cash returns but also to help him spread diversity into the British people, so many of their hate policies have been permitted to increase because of him and his mates doing.

However, we should likewise rebuke Theresa May and the conservatives. They led us into Libya, helped the radicals, let many of them into the country and these so-called average radicals have morphed into ISIS and Al Qaeda. You simply couldn’t make up such total nonsense.

So, has Theresa May failed on terror?

For the third time this year and for the second time in the progression of this campaign, jihadist terror has interrupted the election campaign.

 

We should feel profoundly troubled that the national campaigns were suspended. Paul Nuttall, the UKIP leader had a point when he declared that these attacks are meant to upset our way of life and that election campaigns, even those including Paul Nuttall, are a vital part of our way of life.

The great news, kind of, is that whilst the other parties nationally agreed on, neither party found themselves equipped to keep to it. Jeremy Corbyn closed his announcement delaying the Labour campaign by asking for consideration on the cuts to police figures.

Theresa May went one better, surrendering a speech that went far beyond the brief of a non-partisan leader contributing evidence and reassurance to a concerned nation and was, pretty clearly, a stump address for Conservative plans on terror.

Labour then dived back into the conflict with a talk from Jeremy Corbyn condemning the Conservatives for their cuts to the security services and singling out Theresa May’s elimination of a statement into foreign funding for extremism entirely.

It seems like an unedifying and bitter way to get to where we should be, both party leaders offering their interpretations of what we should do about the menace of extremism.

The greater difficulty is this, do either of them believe a word that they’re saying? The Labour leader presently states he backs shoot-to-kill and is opposed to cuts to the police and security services, when not so long ago he was telling crowds that those were the only cuts he didn’t oppose and backtracking on tears of uncertainty about an overmighty police force.

As for Theresa May, she’s equaling Corbyn conversation-for-conversation. Enough is enough is her advice, once again appearing more like a box-fresh opposition leader than the sitting Prime Minister and Home Secretary of six years.

 

Her advice that jihadism has been unobtrusively permitted in public life has especially annoyed other sourdoughs of the David Cameron government, not least since she was the biggest antagonist of Michael Gove when he made precisely this argument.

 

One of their number, David Cameron’s former guru Steve Hilton, has broken his silence on Twitter, declaring that he’s sick of Theresa May condemning others for terror when the policy she presided over has clearly failed so lamentably.

It’s true that both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are triangulating on terror. But whilst Jeremy Corbyn is triangulating towards his party, Theresa May risks a conflict with hers.

Everyone is pretty quick to rebuke Jeremy Corbyn with his shoot-to-kill policy, however, this is a man actually doesn’t want to kill anyone. I don’t think he wants anybody’s blood on his hands. Sadly, he’s touched a barrier since, though he would rather not have anyone killed, there has reached a point where he has to agree since if he doesn’t, he pretty well won’t get voted in.

If that was me and I thought that I was correct in an entirely moral viewpoint, then I would have to concede and stand down as a proposed Prime Minister since my ethical opinions would be more noteworthy than being Prime Minister.

I actually hope that he doesn’t do that, either that, or he simply has to develop some balls and pronounce it how it is and speak with honesty on what he would preferably do, rather than lie to please everyone else. Because one thing Jeremy Corbyn is not, and that’s a killer.

Being a Prime Minister is a really challenging business, especially when it comes to making a judgment on if a suspect should be fired upon, particularly if they are subversives, however, the police are equipped for that sort of employment, particularly the SAS, they have been specifically trained and know what they have to do and I don’t think that Jeremy Corbyn being quizzed on what his opinions are on this, let the big guns deal with it, that’s what they are there for, otherwise what’s the purpose of having them. Or do we all want to put a rifle in the hands of Jeremy Corbyn and challenge him to do it for them?

I know that I couldn’t make that choice, I would get some other simpleton to do it for me, after all, I’m not a killer, terrorist or no terrorist, it’s not a choice I could make. Maybe that would make me a bad person in some people’s eyes, but it’s a moral a dilemma, and morally I just couldn’t take anybody’s life.

Nevertheless, it’s different when you’re the person being fronted by a subversive, then your animal drive kicks in and you’ll do everything to stay alive, that’s why it’s better to leave it down to the people who are qualified for this sort of thing.

I question if Theresa May has any morals, mind you, she does remind me so much of the Iron Lady, but I wonder how much of that iron she could carry on her conscience?

Maybe we are being a tad harsh on Jeremy Corbyn, but he appears to be taking it all extremely well, I really wish he would be straight and say what’s actually on his mind on the stand on shooting to kill because I actually don’t believe he’s progressed from being a mere backbencher to a cold-hearted killer…

 

Jeremy Corbyn stated that he denounced all the bombardment by the loyalists and the IRA. Nevertheless, Labour has criticised the Conservatives of creating false news following a Tory attack video that went viral and was edited to show Jeremy Corbyn refusing to condemn the IRA.

 

The Conservatives are further paying Facebook to incorporate in people’s news feeds, that on the 9th June, this man could be Prime Minister, and that they can’t let that happen. It has been all over Facebook, and the astonishing thing is that people believe what they are seeing.

 

This includes a snippet from Jeremy Corbyn’s appearance on Sky News last month when interviewer Sophy Ridge challenged him on if Jeremy could unequivocally rebuke the IRA. Jeremy Corbyn said that bombing is wrong and that he did condemn it.

 

But, Sophy Ridge stated that he was denouncing all bombardment, well duh, of course, he’s rebuking all bombardment, you wouldn’t censure and not the other. So what, some bombing is okay and another bombing is not?

Sophy then asked if Jeremy could denounce the IRA without analysing it, well why the Hades would he want to. He was simply affirming a truth, that he does not support any bombardment of any sort. It’s pretty straight forward if you ask me, but you didn’t, so I’m telling you!

A number of people who have viewed the film are similar to a televised party election broadcast audience, but since it is on Facebook it is not regulated by Ofcom, which can only consider complaints regarding the wrongful or improper handling of people or groups in TV party performances.

Facebook seems to have a lot of adverts that are being funded for by the Conservatives, that claim that Jeremy Corbyn wants to end Britain’s armed forces, but this is incorrect and the Labour manifesto vows to spend 2% of Gross domestic product (GDP) on defence and that they will ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped and resourced to respond to wide-ranging security challenges.

The Conservatives have been running an offensive attack based on distortions, suggestion and bogus news. They do this because they have nothing to give the British people and their super-rich benefactors, and they fear that Labour’s strategy to reconstruct Britain for the many, not the few.

Furthermore, the Conservatives have made no apology for bringing awareness to the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has given a lifetime siding with people who want to do Britain harm, and apparently would undermine our barriers and make our nation less secure.

 

Amongst the next most-viewed political videos was a Green party snippet showing co-leader Caroline Lucas asking the home secretary, Amber Rudd how she manages to sleeps at night.

Rows came as the principal parties cranked up their spending on Facebook advertising with only 4 days to go until the referendum.

Despite the Labour leader’s growing notoriety, the Conservatives are massively scapegoating Jeremy Corbyn with nine out of 10 of their adverts which are attacking him.

According to an investigation of 889 Facebook advertisements set by the three principal parties into the feeds of more than 8,000 voters, the information has been collected by the Who Targets Me project and examined by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Jeremy Corbyn appears to be a leader who maintains our armed forces or one who wants to destroy them, however, this fraudulent claim may have originated from the Conservative’s offensive video which includes a snippet of Jeremy Corbyn declaring that he wants to destroy our army.

 

It was taken from a speech he delivered at a Campaign for a Nuclear Disarmament event in 2012. He announced it would be excellent if each politician around the globe, rather than taking enjoyment in the dimension of their armed forces, did what the people of Costa Rica had done and removed their troops and then took pride in the fact they didn’t have an artillery anymore.

A different publicly distributed Tory announcement asserted that putting Jeremy Corbyn in custody of Britain’s Brexit mediation, and our immigration policy, was too great a gamble to take.

The plan seems to display the large-scale strategy being used by Conservative-supporting newspapers of turning fire on Corbyn as polling day advances.

 

Labour, by contrast, is barely mentioning Theresa May in its social media warfare with just 9% of the 136 various advertisements viewed so far by Who Targets Me pointing to the prime minister.

The adverts that Labour is pushing hardest are not associated with policy but are asking people to get out and vote. The following most popular issues addressed in paid for advertisements by the party are the NHS and education fees.

 

The Conservatives are concentrating most on Brexit, the economy and defence, whilst the Liberal Democrats are utilising Facebook advertisements to talk about Brexit and dementia but further to solicit contributions.

As you observe poor Jeremy Corbyn. This peaceful, well-meaning person muttering away at almost total disregard, you sense a bit of desperate compassion.

They could at least have the respectability to roar a few taunts at him, rather that establishing it on Facebook, which is more than cowardly, and politically, an insult can be deemed some sort of compliment.

It implies that the target is, if not precisely an intimidation, then at least an adversary who they believe is worth keeping their focus on.

They did hesitate to cheer ironically when Jeremy Corbyn admitted that Britain did require powerful soldiers and defence units. But otherwise, he received little more recognition than a busker at rush hour.

Whilst everyone is in such a rush to make an assumption of poor Jeremy, don’t brew yourself into a frenzy. He is simply a human being like anybody else, there is nothing strange about this man. His face might look a tad overused but he appears to be from a newly harvested crop, and okay he’s not particularly subversive, but he’s an average chap, seeking to do the best for his people.

 

He might look a bit of a defeatist sometimes but match to the corrupt Cruella Theresa May, he’s a walk in the park on a spring day.

They say, better the devil you do know, than the devil you don’t, but I don’t agree when it comes to politics.

 

There are too many venomous rattlesnakes out there, and yes, Jeremy could be one of them, but I believe he unquestionably merits an opportunity – I mean, honestly, could he do any worse than Theresa May is doing to this country now?

 

It’s been a long time since we have had a genuinely worthy Prime Minister, and I truly suspect that if Jeremy Corbyn succeeds, that he will end up being one of those iconic Prime Ministers of our time.

 

Pictures of Yemen’s starving children is extremely distressing but must be understood, and a child dies in the war-torn country every ten minutes from starvation.

The Stop the War Coalition denounces the British government’s assistance for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. This battle is an additional destabilising act of hostility in the Middle East, which endangers entangling the region and its peoples in a still broader conflict.

It has been noted that Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has promised Britain’s administrative, professional and logistical assistance for the intervention by the Saudi troops which, as he states, is mostly furnished with British aircraft and munitions.

Saudi Arabia is presently executing a principal role in nearly every anti-democratic growth in the Middle East, including participating in the current Anglo-American assault in Iraq.

We echo our long-standing request that Britain concludes its collaboration with the tyrannical and autocratic Saudi government and stop providing it with arms.

This present struggle in Yemen indicates the determination of both Saudi Arabia and the Western powers to overthrow the democratic potential of the Arab Spring in one country after another. Only the people of Yemen can solve the dilemma in that country and determine their own fate, and their sovereignty and national honour must be completely respected.

Britain must change its Middle East strategy as a matter of importance, including ending attacking Iraq, stopping association in the Syrian struggle and dropping ideas to start a station in Bahrain, another Saudi-maintained dictatorship. The anti-war campaign will put these demands before all competitors in the General Election campaign.

The United States and Britain are actively helping and supporting Saudi Arabia as it indiscriminately slaughters myriads of noncombatants in Yemen.

Whilst the emergency in Syria remains to harvest front-page headlines and extensive television coverage, the media has mostly turned a blind eye to the other travesty unwinding in the Middle East.

Yemen has transformed into a humanitarian emergency, where myriads of missiles are being released, 1.5 million people are relocated and more than 90% of the people is for want of support. The main difference? In Yemen, the United States is one of the principal elements of the dilemma.

The United States and the United Kingdom are actively supporting and encouraging Saudi Arabia whilst the country indiscriminately destroys myriads of noncombatants in Yemen in what amounts to war atrocities by virtually anyone’s interpretation.

The two western governments, who usually hint to care about justice and human rights, are further supporting the Saudi government, one of the most authoritarian governments on the planet, cover up those violations at the UN.

These behaviours are disgusting, and it’s shocking, and the brewing embarrassment has barely gained any recognition from the US political establishment or television headlines.

 

The New York Times, the rare exception to the enormous shrug much of the American media has given this crucial subject, newly published a disturbing front-page write-up on the wave of random bombardment, conducted in reply to Houthi separatists who have attacked the gathering assembly, that has been slaughtering numbers of noncombatants with personal cooperation from the United States.

That story came before the latest and bloodiest assault on noncombatants yet. Last week, a Saudi strike destroyed at least 130 innocent people at a wedding, mostly women, and children. Above 500 children have been murdered since the start of the strikes.

It would be difficult for the United States to give more support to Saudi Arabia as they perpetrate these crimes without really dropping the weapons themselves. The Saudis are using cluster munitions, forbidden by charter in the broad majority of nations around the globe, furnished to them by United States defence contractors.

They’re releasing those charges using American-made fighter jets. The US military, far from being an impartial spectator, is actively providing the Saudis with intelligence and logistical help for their air strikes, and the United States is clinching an opportunity to give even more hardware to the Saudis. The Obama government has already sold them more than $90 billion of military weapons over the preceding five years.

As of Wednesday, the United States and the United Kingdom also famously prevented the UN from conducting an independent investigation into the possible war violations perpetrated by Saudi Arabia. Instead, Saudi Arabia will be given permission to investigate themselves. Human rights organisations promptly rebuked the decision.

It turns out that the United Kingdom and the United States further made another mysterious agreement with the Saudi government years ago, according to diplomatic cables announced by Wikileaks. In an exchange of votes, the United Kingdom and the United States planned to get Saudi Arabia the prime spot on the UN human rights directorate, which was only announced last month, also too loud objections around the globe.

The corresponding week, the nation settled plans to execute and torture the offspring of a notable government critic, whose single wrong was attending an anti-government demonstration when he was 17 years old.

The Times further reported on the outcome of Saudi Arabia’s operations in Yemen for the United States. Rather than turning more Yemenis upon the Houthis, although, the strikes are forming outrage in sections of the country upon Saudi Arabia and its comrades, including the United States. Therefore, they’re likely generating a new age of revolutionaries, just as the United States past drone strikes in Yemen have done. And for what?

Even the US military can’t justify why they’re promoting this war so closely. There is no military or national security objective, besides keeping the Saudi Arabian administration happy and the coffers of US armaments producers flush. As the Council on Foreign Relations’s Micah Zenko writes in his wonderful and discouraging review of the unfolding catastrophe.

Preferably, they call upon all individuals in the struggle to stop their fighting, neglecting to mention that the United States military is one of the parties by rendering material assistance, without which Saudi Arabia and its military alliance would not be able to support airstrikes over Yemen for any duration of time.

 

Regrettably, barely anybody within the US administration appears to care. The Intercept’s Lee Fang went to Washington DC to attempt to ask members of Congress about the killings. Many disregarded him, or if they did talk declined to take on Saudi Arabia directly.

 

John McCain even dismissed that Saudi Arabia had murdered noncombatants at all and accused the Houthis of any mortality that may have transpired. He evidently was not knowledgeable that the UN executives have made explicit that the vast bulk of noncombatant mortality were the liability of the Saudi airstrikes, not the Houthis.

It should go without saying that none of these excuses any wrongs perpetrated by the Houthis, which are horrific in their own right.

So as the US media and legislators grow more and more outraged at the stupid destruction in Syria over the next few weeks, as they well should, memorise what they are blatantly disregarding, the US-backed perversion in Yemen.

 

These pictures of children in Yemen is distressing and there is no pleasure in holding your children who are perishing from starvation. They have a lack of enthusiasm in feeding or drinking, exhausted and sick all the time and each time they get ill, it takes them longer and longer to recover.

 

Yet, Theresa May snugs up to the Saudis and sells them ever more weaponry with which to kill Yemeni women and children. She pretends to be a Christian, it’s either surprising cognitive cacophony or brazen hypocrisy.

There are a number of people out there who read the headlines and then tend to add fuel to the fire, declaring that some guy who’s kid is dying looks fat and that maybe he should give some of his food to the sick child.

 

Infants need milk, and a breast feeding mother needs water and feed to deliver milk to the baby. If she can’t breast feed, then the infant needs formula and purified water, so who’s implementing these things?

A mother is in danger because of the fighting and she doesn’t have any breast milk to provide for her offspring. The infant is screaming and all around the mother is a playhouse of fighting and slaughter and she has no control over her situation.

Infants are fragile human beings who rely on us to give them what they need, and if the mother is malnourished, then the infant is going to be malnourished as well.

Whilst a baby is in the mother’s womb, it relies on the mother for nourishment, but if the mother is already malnourished, then the baby is going to be malnourished before it’s even born and once born, the smallest thing can set you on a descending spiral of worsening health where there is no recovery.

Infants don’t hold or maintain weight like grown-ups do. Either way, children are suffering and dying in their thousands across Yemen.

Even if a mother has excess fat, it doesn’t mean that when the food stores go down she will be able to breast feed her baby, because the mother’s body senses the decline in nutrients and maintains her own remaining stock.

This indicates that the mother’s body stops to be generous and milk stock declines fast. Consequently, leaving the infant’s body without enough nutrients to support growth. Then the baby’s body will eat into its own reserves, creating a loss of adipose tissue and leading to a depressed immune system, therefore, opening a gateway to infection and further weight decline.

People browse the papers and they believe what they want to believe, it’s forever been that way and forever will be.

There will always be conflicts because they are self-made by other governments that give arms in an attempt to profit from them, but no war should be about killing babies and young children, they have no business in these appalling hostilities.

If grown-ups want to battle against one another, that’s great, but not when innocent children are affected by it. They do not ask to be delivered into this cruel world we live in, but sadly, it’s survival of the fittest and it’s our animal instinct to procreate to survive, therefore to produce because we are procreating creatures, and the more we produce the more we will survive, seemingly.

I understand the concept of having an opinion, everybody is entitled to that concept, but first, one must do their homework first before they display that opinion because sometimes opinion is misinformed opinion.

I wish there were no ambivalence at all, and that we could all exist in a peaceful environment, but sadly, we have governments that think otherwise and profit planning is an especially profitable pastime, and whilst it continues to be profitable, hostilities will continue till the end of time.

We are a society wrapped in indulgence, and governments appear to believe that human beings are livestock and worthless. Those that are in administration and shielded from harm or danger simply want to cripple other people that they think are unimportant, however, when it comes down to it, actually we are a really inferior race and governments are cowardly and very shameless.

To cause a war solely for indulgence should be regarded as a gutless action and everyone should be wary of this because their sport is forever going to be our demise.

 

A sightseer has been accused of launching her glove at a Queen’s guard in an attempt to make him move before she was told off by a cross Beefeater.

 

The female sightseer was observed standing in front of the guard with another man, with the glove resting on the ground at the guard’s feet.

Observers have alleged the woman, who was observed wearing just one glove, decided to make the guard at the Tower of London move by propelling the accessory on the ground.

The man can be caught speaking in the video: “It’s a standoff, who’s going to get the glove first?”

But a Beefeater guard approaches shortly after, telling the couple off.

He at first asks the couple: “Excuse me guys, did you just throw your glove over to the soldier?”

The woman’s response is muffled but the Beefeater can then be caught responding: “Why would you do that? The army is here to protect the crown jewels, they’re not here for the public to make fun of.”

He continued: “He is a soldier, he serves his country and he deserves to be treated with a little bit of respect.

“Throwing your glove at him isn’t going to work, is it really?”

The footage does not show the sightseer launching the glove.

The Beefeater can be observed escalating over the railing to retrieve the offending glove, which can be observed resting in front of the guard. The woman’s glove is then returned, with her putting it back on her right hand and walking away.

During the exchange, the guard remains perfectly still, simply moving to stamp his foot to attention.

The video has gained almost 50,000 views after being uploaded on Youtube.

By the way, they looked and their attire, they appeared to be devout Jew’s, with the man who had ringlets. Hardly a way to display themselves when mocking a soldier who was just doing his job.

Nevertheless, if you made a stupid crack to a Jewish person, they would announce that they were being victimised. These two must have had their brains in their box since their conduct absolutely sucks, and they unquestionably don’t know the definition of respect.

I wouldn’t have saved the glove, I would have left it precisely where it rested, after all, I’m certain following the guard moving it, it certainly wasn’t considered kosher anymore!

Furthermore, it’s unbelievable from a race that always claims they are disrespected and not treated well.

Perhaps they were jealous because the soldier had a larger and furrier hat than he did?

Sightseers must keep in mind that even though it is their holiday, it’s everyday life for the people of whatever nation they’re touring and they should consider their practices and beliefs and not be discourteous fools.

This is simply a foolish act by simple fools, and they were obviously anxious to make a statement, though if they had carried on, it could have been down the police station.

You frequently view vast masses of people with their clowning around, there is invariably a nincompoop someplace on the streets of London but they are essentially having an enjoyable time, savouring the spectacles of London and most tourists have much admiration for the Royal family and the guardians that defend them.

Once again confirming there are presently only two classes, unrelated to wealth or poverty, those with class and those with no class whatsoever.

Each night, Sofia dreams. She dreams of going to school to get an education, and then Sofia awakes and the torture begins. Because this 11-year-old girl is espoused to a man three times her age.

He doesn’t let her go to school, instead, she prepares meals and cleans all day, and at night, she’s made to do whatever he commands her to do. Even despite her simply being a young girl.

So many girls similar to Sofia face this waking ordeal.

In Bangladesh, nearly two out of every three girls are espoused by the age of 18, with over one-third of girls being married before 15.

However, if you tour Dinajpur, a region in northern Bangladesh, you will see that attitudes are shifting, and fast.

Up the road, resting in the shade beneath a tree is the 15-member district community-based committee. The committee was founded in 1994 when Plan International started operating there.

People now understand the consequences of child marriage, relationships destroyed, a girls’ well-being affected, and they leave education early.

Earlier this year, the National Government brought in a law forbidding marriage below 16 by 2021 and marriage below 18 by 2042, an enormous move forward for girls in Bangladesh, but there are concerns on one thing, number 19, leaves a loophole as it supports child marriage in special cases but a crusade is shifting to abolish it.

Courage. It’s an action of bravery. It’s an action that’s not absent of dread, but one that triumphs over it. It’s an action that’s great or small. Courage is standing up for your freedoms and the freedoms of others.

And everyday girls are standing up for their freedoms and demanding gender equality.

It’s estimated that globally one in three women have endured bodily or wanton injury at some time in their lives. That’s nearly 938 million women, more than the number of starving people in the world and close to the population of Africa.

A UNICEF study determined that the majority of women who’d undergone sexual violence first encountered it between the ages of 15 and 19, one in five endured it before the age of 15.

Nevertheless, it’s not only those who are directly harmed by brutality who are touched by it. When girls develop in communities where brutality and harassment are common, normalised even, the terror of brutality has severe consequences for girls’ possibilities and freedom.

The duty for stopping brutality too frequently gravitates to girls being told that they are not allowed to go places, or that they can’t wear specific clothes, go out at night or even be alone, and definitive advice like this usually restricts a girl’s ability to leave the house when she wants.

This, crucially, further limits her access to daily childhood possibilities such as being entitled to play sports with boys or not advancing her learning.

Dodging brutality by restricting girls aged 10 might appear reasonable, but this approach is seldom readjusted as girls get older. In 2011, we spoke to teenage girls in some of the communities in which the study was based.

One girl from Brazil described quite precisely how the fear of brutality that happens from a young age can end up influencing the most critical choices in a girls’ life.

Education must be similar for boys and girls, and their rights must be similar, too, however, this doesn’t occur. Usually, these girls want to take a professional class, but the community doesn’t allow it. Their mothers never let them take a course outside the area because usually the class is far from home and they are scared of sexual brutality and harassment.

The boys want to go too, but there isn’t enough money for both, therefore the boys end up taking the class.

India has the largest amount of child brides in the world. It is thought that 47% of girls in India are married before their 18th birthday, and the incidences of child marriage differ between states and are as steep as 69% and 65% in Bihar and Rajasthan.

Whilst fewer Indian girls are marrying before the age of 15, rates of marriage have increased for girls between ages 15 to 18, and in numerous communities, girls are viewed as a financial hardship and marriage assigns the burden to her new mate. Poverty and marriage customs such as a dowry may drive a family to marry off their daughter at a tender age to lessen these costs.

Patriarchy and status influence the standards and beliefs around the role of women and girls in India. In various communities, limiting standards restrict girls to the position of daughter, wife and mother who are first perceived as the property of her father and then of her husband.

Dominating girls and women’s sexuality is an important part of the tradition of child marriage too. Pressure towards early marriage strives to reduce the shame associated with inappropriate female sexual behaviour, usually leading to marriages planned around the period of adolescence.

Poor educational opportunities for girls, particularly in rural regions, further expand a girls’ vulnerability to child marriage, and the lawful age for marriage is 18 for women, 21 for men, according to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) of 2006.

The PCMA sets penalties for those who do not stop child marriages and creates Child Marriage Prohibition Officers. It encompasses a right to revoke marriage if underage, however, this relies on families to report the act.

A National Action Plan to stop child marriages was drafted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in 2013, nevertheless, it has not yet been concluded, and the Government has employed cash inducements, such as the Dhan Laxmi scheme and the Apni Beti Apna Dhun programme, minors’ empowerment programmes (Kishori Shakti Yojana) and awareness-raising to produce behaviour modification.

India is a part of the South Asian Initiative to End Violence Against Children (SAIEVAC), which adopted a regional action strategy to stop child marriage. The regional action plan is to be executed in 2015 – 2018.

India is one of 12 nations chosen to be part of UNFPA and UNICEF’s Global Programme to Accelerate Action to End Child Marriage.

However, a mass child marriage celebration in India was caught on camera, showing young brides grieving as they are forced to marry.

The tragic video was taken in Chittorgarh, a city in Rajasthan, northern India, a state in the country that is widespread for child marriages. In one clip a young girl of about ten-years-old was seen frantically sobbing and begging for help as her father hauls her about the customary celebration.

In a different clip a priest, leading the Hindu ceremony is also observed punishing the children for crying.

Six marriages took place in two days throughout the Akshaya Tritiya, a Hindu celebration held to be favourable for child marriages in rural India.

One of the child brides, a five-year-old, is observed clothed in a Hindu wedding dress and is ordered to walk around the fire with her kid groom, an 11-year-old. She is weeping aloud but a man orders her to perform the Hindu wedding ceremony, which entails cruising around the fire seven times.

The names of the others in the footage are still to be established by police, who have now filed a case upon the various families that made their children marry, however, all are currently on the run and in hiding.

As soon as the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh learned about the incidents, teams were sent out to find the culprits. Once caught, the marriages of the children will be void and the court will decide action against them.

They have stopped many child marriages in the past but at times, fearing police, the villagers opt for a secretive venue which may be outside their community. Many do not report the incident to police even in concern of the social tensions.

Child rights activist Kriti Bharti, 28, and founder of Saarthi Trust, a foundation for the welfare of child brides and other defenceless children responded: ‘My heart goes out to these little children trapped in this tragedy.’

The police should have responded quickly as the video definitely proves a priest was involved. Action should not only be taken upon the families but every grown-up involved in the ceremony including the decorators, caterers, attendees and relations.

Kriti has so far revoked 29 child marriages in Rajasthan and has prevented 850 child marriages.

Her work means more and more families and communities are starting to realise these child marriages are not the way forward, however, this recent mass child marriage shows there is still much work to do.

Their society will never change and this evil idea will keep continuing if stringent action is not taken against these people.

The Child Welfare Committee now needs to intervene and these victims should be brought into protective care. Once they have protection, they will attempt reaching out to them and counsel them for a better life before them.

The families in these situations require a similar measure of counselling as they are under a lot of societal pressures.

The statutory age for girls and boys to wed in India is 18 and 21 respectively but according to UNICEF, India is home to a third of the globe’s total child brides.

How can the Indian state permit this to continue? They should be ashamed of themselves.

They want to look all cool with their space programme, yet they allow these antiquated traditions to continue. They really are a retarded culture, with these poor little girls suffering nothing but a lifetime of servitude and degradation.

 

The human brain is one of the final frontiers for technological discovery. Picture a future where paralysis occurring from spinal cord injuries is only a brief restriction, rather than a permanent state.

Picture artificial limbs that can transmit the user feedback about how hot or cold their cup of coffee is, or simply how tightly they are holding their loved one’s hand. Picture a future where temporary implants can help an individual recover from a stroke or manage other debilitating neurological infirmities.

Now, all of these apparently impossible medical uses of new technology stand to be within reach for bi-directional brain-computer interfaces.

 

ARM and the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE) have signed an agreement whereby the CSNE will produce a bizarre brain-implantable system-on-a-chip (SoC) for bi-directional brain-computer interfaces (BBCI) aimed at determining neurodegenerative disorders.

Based at the University of Washington, the CSNE is a National Science Foundation engineering research centre operating to develop innovative ways to connect a deep computational perception of how the brain adjusts and processes data with the design of implantable devices.

The research project will enable us to start solving real world health obstacles with brain-implantable chips intended at tackling a pontoon of debilitating neurodegenerative disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and even paralysis.

The long-term purpose is to help people afflicted by neurological infirmities, by designing neurotechnology that will help the body heal, feel and move again.

The new SoC will play an important role in decoding the complex beacons formed inside the brain, digitising them so they can be processed and acted upon, with the end outcome of controlling the body’s muscle functions, which is the key to tackling the neurodegenerative disease.

Brain-implantable chips need to be extremely small, very power-efficient and able. The industry-proven ARM Cortex-M0 processor, the smallest ARM processor-accessible, will contribute to this extremely important area of investigation by being an essential component of the CSNE’s brain-implantable SoC.

The project is a natural fit for ARM and the concept of improving lives throughout the globe by developing a smarter, happier and healthier world with technology. It’s the continuing aim of improving the power efficiency of ARM products aligned with CSNE’s advanced research work in promoting low-power, effective and implantable neural devices for medical purposes.

The BBCI chip is being created to address stroke, spinal cord injury, and other neurological infirmities. People who have experienced a stroke or spinal cord trauma usually have health problems, such as paralysis, which can affect their quality of life by stopping them from moving parts of their body, for instance, a hand or an arm.

The research project will create a SoC which is capable of taking neural signals from the brain that interpret movements the person with paralysis wants to make, before delivering those signals to a stimulator inserted in the spinal cord itself.

This will allow the person to make the desired movements when they want to, dramatically overcoming their paralysis. In the future, the device will also be capable of transmitting information in the opposite direction, enabling the person to once again feel what their hand is touching.

Research is further showing that use of such a system may eventually aid to manipulate brain neurones to rewire in ways that help the brain recover from a stroke. The result of this BBCI collaboration is the development of neural devices that will help people by restoring sensation, limb function and increasing the brain’s innate restorative abilities.

In March 2008, a team of American scientists announced a method they had devised for calculating what somebody is looking at, simply by examining a study of their brain as they look at it. The studies were conducted on an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) device, the likes of which is seen in hospitals everywhere, and their announcement provoked a debate about if scientists will someday be able to observe people’s dreams and thoughts like movies, and of all the privacy concerns that possibility raises.

The story captures one of the scientific and moralistic perplexities of our time. Courts are now allowing neuroscientific evidence, and a new discipline, neurolaw, has been born. Although numerous lawyers and neuroscientists remain dubious.

One possible obstacle is that, if researchers are to form useful conclusions regarding how the brain operates, they must be certain that a section that lights up in an individual brain scan is the equivalent section that lights up in numerous other people’s brain scans under the identical conditions.

However, the anatomical maps they have relied on for so long for determining those areas are no longer up to the task. For one thing, they tend to come in two dimensions, whilst MRI pictures come in three. For another, they don’t take into account the great variability between brains.

 

For the last 30 years, Karl Zilles, Katrin Amunts, and others at the Jülich Research Centre in Germany have been creating a 3D map of the brain that they believe will resolve this dilemma. It separates the brain up according to boundaries between specialised cell groups, based on computer study of brain tissue slices seen under a microscope.

They equate their conclusions over at least 10 brains, to deal with the different variability problem, and they call the result a probability map. They’ve covered almost half of the brain to date and expect to execute the project inside five years.

Even if scientists can meet a distinct pattern of brain activity with a particular visual stimulus, that doesn’t tell them much about how the person experiences that stimulus. Scientists now know that what a person sees is not just a representation of the world, but a reconstruction of it that is formed by their own experience and expectations.

The same is likely to be true of all perception. Take the concept of time, whilst all investigated human societies use a spatial analogy to represent time, not all of them think of the future as in front of them and the past behind.

 

A few of them, the Aymara of the Andes, for instance, look forward to the past.

 

Do we have free will? Now that the courts have opened their doors to neuroscience, they are being forced to rethink the proposal, fundamental to the dispensation of justice in most cultures, that human beings have free will.

The notion that we are kind, intentional individuals has been eroded by insights from genetics, such as the finding in 2002 by Avshalom Caspi of the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, and others, that men with a particular variant of a gene encoding the enzyme monoamine oxidase-A, who had been abused as kids, were more inclined to show rebellious behaviour than men with comparable backgrounds who had a different variant of the gene.

The central focus of the free will dispute, nevertheless, continues to be a simplistic experiment that was conducted 25 years ago by Benjamin Libet at the University of California, San Francisco. Libet told people to raise their finger when they felt like it, and, crucially, to tell him when they felt that urge, whilst he observed their brain activity.

It was already understood that a shift in brain activity happens promptly before a person makes a spontaneous movement, however, Libet’s surprising finding was that that shift happened 300 milliseconds before people reported the desire to act.

We believe we are making a decision when, in fact, our brain has already made that decision. Our experience of making a decision at that instant is, consequently, an illusion. Furthermore, if we are deluded into believing that we are making choices, then we are further deluded into believing that we have free will.

Genetics is starting to cast light on the obscure notion of intellect, too. In November 2007, Robert Plomin and his associates at the Institute of Psychiatry, London identified six genes that appeared to be strongly linked with high or low intelligence in a sample of 7,000 seven-year-olds.

Even joined together, their results alone accounted for 1% of the variability in intelligence in that group.

Sleep is another puzzle researchers continue to try to unwind. Why do we do it? The current view is that sleep-related brain activity reactivates synapses or links connecting brain cells that were formed or reinforced throughout the day, the neural process that is believed to underlie learning and the development of memories.

However, at least one researcher has the opposing viewpoint.

 

Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin thinks that sleep helps to prune back synapses, which are energetically costly to maintain, therefore ensuring that the brain remains affordable in energy terms.

Tononi doesn’t believe sleep has a particular purpose, however, he does think it may have just one core point. The basis for thinking that is that each animal sleeps. There is no exception.

Our bodies regulate sleep in much the same way that they control eating, drinking, and breathing. This implies that sleep serves a similarly important part in our well-being. While it is hard to answer the question, on why we sleep, scientists have uncovered several ideas that collectively may further justify why we consume a third of our lives sleeping.

Understanding these theories can further expand our appreciation of the purpose of sleep in our lives.

Whilst we may not often speculate about why we sleep, most of us accept at some level that sleep makes us feel better. We appear more bright, more active, content, and better prepared to function following a good night of sleep.

Nevertheless, the evidence that sleep makes us feel better and that going without sleep makes us feel worse only begins to illustrate why sleep might be important.

One way to think about the purpose of sleep is to match it to another of our life-sustaining activities, eating. Hunger is a shielding device that has developed to ensure that we eat the nutrients our bodies need to develop, rebuild tissues, and function well.

Also while it is comparatively straightforward to grasp the purpose that eating serves, given that it involves actually consuming the things our bodies require, eating and sleeping are not as diverse as they might appear.

Both eating and sleeping are controlled by strong internal forces. Going without food creates the annoying feeling of appetite whilst going without sleep makes us feel overwhelmingly tired. Furthermore just as eating reduces appetite and ensures that we get the nutrients we require, sleeping reduces tiredness and ensures that we get the sleep we need.

However, the question lingers, why do we require sleep at all? Is there a particular main purpose of sleep, or does sleep serve multiple roles?

Scientists have examined the question of why we sleep from several distinct perspectives. They have observed, for instance, what occurs when humans or other animals are stripped of sleep. In other studies, they have studied sleep patterns in a diversity of organisms to understand if comparisons or variations amongst species might reveal anything about sleep’s functions.

However, despite decades of investigation and numerous findings of other aspects of sleep, the mystery of why we sleep has been hard to acknowledge.

The absence of a definite response to this challenging problem does not suggest that this investigation has been a waste of time. In fact, much more is known about the purpose of sleep, and scientists have developed numerous encouraging opinions to demonstrate why we sleep.

In light of the evidence that has been found, it appears likely that no single opinion will ever be verified accurately. Rather, it may be found that sleep is explained by two or more of these explanations. The hope is that by better understanding why we sleep, we will learn to value sleep’s functions more and experience the health advantages it provides.

One of the earliest hypotheses of sleep sometimes termed the adaptive or evolutionary theory, implies that inactivity at night is an adaptation that served a survival role by keeping organisms out of harm’s way at times when they would be especially unprotected.

The hypothesis implies that animals that were able to stay still and quiet throughout these periods of vulnerability had an advantage over other animals that remained active. These animals did not have accidents throughout activities in the dark, for instance, and were not killed by predators.

Through natural selection, this behavioural approach probably developed to become what we now know as sleep.

A simple counter-argument to this argument is that it is always safer to remain awake in order to be able to respond to an emergency, even if lying still in the dark at night. Therefore, there does not appear to be any advantage of being unconscious and asleep if safety is paramount.

While it may be less obvious to people living in cultures in which food sources are abundant, one of the strongest factors in natural selection is striving for an effective utilisation of energy supplies. The energy conservation theory implies that the primary purpose of sleep is to decrease an individual’s energy demand and expenditure during part of the day or night, particularly at times when it is least effective to hunt for food.

Research has revealed that energy metabolism is significantly decreased throughout sleep, by as much as 10 percent in humans and even more in other species. For instance, both body temperature and caloric demand lower through sleep, as opposed to wakefulness.

Such evidence corroborates the hypothesis that one of the primary purposes of sleep is to help organisms preserve their energy supplies. Numerous scientists view this theory to be related to, and part of, the inactivity theory.

Another reason for why we sleep is based on the long-held notion that sleep in some way helps to renew what is expended in the body whilst we are awake. Sleep gives a chance for the body to rebuild and restore itself.

In recent years, these concepts have won backing from empirical evidence obtained in human and animal investigations. The most prominent of these is that animals stripped solely of sleep lose all immune function and die in simply a matter of weeks.

This is additionally bolstered by findings that many of the important restorative roles in the body like muscle growth, tissue replacement, protein structure, and growth hormone release happen often, or in some instances simply, throughout sleep.

Other rejuvenating aspects of sleep are specific to the brain and cognitive function. For instance, whilst we are awake, neurones in the brain generate adenosine, a by-product of the cells’ activities.

 

The build-up of adenosine in the brain is believed to be one factor that points to our understanding of being tired. Incidentally, this feeling is invalidated by the use of caffeine, which prevents the effects of adenosine in the brain and keeps us alert.

Scientists believe that this build-up of adenosine throughout wakefulness can help the drive to sleep. As long as we are conscious, adenosine accumulates and remains raised. During sleep, the body has a chance to clear adenosine from the system, and, as a consequence, we feel more alert when we wake.

One of the most current and compelling explanations for why we sleep is based on conclusions that sleep is related to alterations in the composition and structure of the brain. This wonder, identified as brain flexibility, is not fully known, however, its relationship to sleep has many significant implications.

It is growing obvious, for instance, that sleep plays a crucial part in brain growth in babies and young children. Babies consume approximately 13 to 14 hours per day sleeping, and around half of that period is used in REM sleep, the stage in which most dreams happen.

A connection between sleep and brain flexibility is growing apparent in grown-ups as well. This is observed in the impact that sleep and sleep loss have on people’s capacity to learn and accomplish a diversity of tasks.

While these hypotheses remain unproven, science has made great strides in exploring what occurs throughout sleep and what mechanisms in the body regulate the sequences of sleep and wakefulness that help determine our lives.

Whilst this research does not directly clarify the question, why do we sleep? it does set the platform for putting that question in a new context and producing new information regarding this vital part of life.

Amid the shocking suicide attack at a Manchester show that massacred 22 people including children, false news circulators seeking social media fame started fake posts about missing children, gunmen, and dead YouTube stars.

A number of images were tweeted following the attack on missing children, however, some of them turned out to be fabrications, with people identifying popular social media users and friends amongst those listed.

One of those kids was 12-year-old Australian Gemma Devine, who was safely attending school in Melbourne at the time. Her mother Rachel woke to reports of confusion asking if her child was okay. She followed some of the links people had shared and saw Gemma’s picture was all over the web.

Some were concerned that Gemma had been perhaps in the United Kingdom by chance, others were just confused and concerned, and Gemma stated that she felt troubled by the misleading usage of her picture.

Everyone has been upset for the people who were really caught up in this unfortunate tragedy. As to why somebody would do such a thing is baffling, and whoever is doing this has to be some sort of deranged person or persons.

There are clearly some oddballs out there that are so strange that they want the attention by putting false news online and are unquestionably a little sick, and whoever is behind this bogus news should be arrested.

It’s a miserable thing to do but sadly there will always be fraudulent news, a story that somebody wants to release to fire up the public, a cause and effect that limbers up the public’s emotions.

Reporting the news is a serious business since you’re painting a picture of a person or situation and giving the public a description of what actually occurred, a little like a movie, only the details have to be correct since they are giving reports of what occurred at the time of the incident.

We can only guess it was an internet fairy who either aspired to have experience of seeing their tweet received by so many or who believed it would be funny to create obstacles for somebody who yields pictures openly online.

However, it isn’t the first time Gemma’s picture has been stolen for misapplication. Since she has been distributing pictures of her life online, people have been using them and applying them to their own and different situations.

But she’s never seen it so viciously used, in a way that takes away from the people who require help in their time of horrifying torture.

A woman’s daughter in the black hat and red lipstick was deemed to be a victim, yet, she is safe in Australia. Somebody stole her photo.

There are people tweeting false news to get followers and Ms. Devine was not the only one caught up in the fraudulent Manchester attack news.

Somebody put on Twitter: Dude, this photo is fake. I’m not missing. YouTuber, The Report of the Week was forced to post a video overnight, named, I am alive, explaining he was not at the attack.

Some people devised a particular rumour alleging that they were a victim of the assault in Manchester. Plus he made a video to let everyone know that he was living and healthy and okay in the United States where he lives.

Sadly, it was merely an exercise by numerous trolls and website users, to attempt and deceive the overall populace with false news, and news personages are making up falsehoods and applying fake photos to gain retweets.

Those tweets themselves get tens of thousands of retweets because people in good faith believe they’re helping and sometimes all you need to do is right-click on the picture and change Google image search and you find it’s somebody from five or six years ago.

There’s a troubling trend with trolls out there working to get myriads of retweets off people’s goodwill, and the media have identified numerous bogus stories, including allegations that a man with a gun was outside a Royal Oldham Hospital, located adjacent the commotion of the crime, and local police later confirmed that they went to the hospital and following a search, discovered no crimes going on.

Police attended an incident, examined the scene, there were no crimes perpetrated and all workers and patients were safe and well.

Songbird Ariana Grande was also used in the attack on broadcasting news, with some alleging the pop starlet had been injured by the bomb. Users were keen to point out the photo used in these tweets was taken on the set of US television show Scream Queens in 2015.

But as unexpected new information surfaced regarding the Manchester suicide assault, Instagram stars have been drawn into the tale of horror. The faces of Canadian model Janice Joosetema, Lebanese make-up YouTuber Maya Ahmad and Kuwaiti beauty blogger Dalal Al-Doub were posted on a Facebook page purporting to relate to the bomber’s sister.

The pictures then appeared in a number of Italian papers captioned as the attacker’s sister Ms. Abedi. Many Italian websites later announced that the photos were false. They have since been removed.

Ed Miliband appears to be having a wonderful time on the campaign trail this year, released from the restraints of being in charge of the party. Miliband has been filmed doing a bit of Bingo calling and it might be exactly what you need to take the edge off Tory manifesto day.

The former Labour leader pulled out the numbers at the Winning Post, a social club in his Doncaster constituency.

A few weeks ago he was filmed harvesting somebody’s garden while tapping on doors.

Plus he drew recognition for his bingo calling, with one Twitter user saying that Ed Milliband had bingo skills or did they mean bingo wings, as Mr. Miliband seems to have been enjoying social media renaissance recently. He’s been snapped in a series of selfies and videos with dazzled young people, giving cool-as-a-cucumber quotes to an adoring online populace.

 

He brought extensive recognition for his debut on The Last Leg, where he parodied along to A-Ha’s Take On Me.

And last year he was filmed giving a destitute man £10 to help him obtain a place to stay. But really, sometimes this man makes me lose the will to live, he must be so tight fisted, I mean £10 to help a destitute man get a place to stay, honestly, how insulting.

That should have really been a test, making people see that Ed Milliband is not such a kind man after all. Most people know that a place to stay would cost much more than that and somebody should have challenged his logic of why he only gave this person £10 towards a place to stay, knowing full well that £10 wasn’t going to serve this guy at all.

Talk about deflating a man’s self-respect. This chap was already on the underside of the barrel and Ed Milliband couldn’t have driven him any lower if he wanted, and why would another human being want to disparage somebody less able than themselves?

But as politicians tour the nation seeking to gain votes for next month’s General Election, Ed Miliband has chosen to fulfill his time in another way, by calling bingo numbers.

The former Labour Party leader, who is the MP for Doncaster North, treated his constituents in the South Yorkshire town to a fleeting appearance in a local hall. He started calling out the numbers but decided to disregard the famous menu of popular bingo nicknames and just called them out one by one.

The 47-year-old was filmed by somebody from the Thorne Branch Labour Party who posted the clip on Twitter. The politician, who was famously snapped munching on a bacon sandwich in May 2014, opened by saying: ‘8 and 0, 80’ followed by ‘All the 3s, 33.’

Throughout the two-minute clip, which has been retweeted 131 times, he called out 29 numbers and got a chorus of giggles when he called out ’19’ without saying the ‘1 and 9’ first. He atoned for neglecting to do so and humorously said sorry to the group whilst he perched himself on the meager platform.

The only bingo nickname he did say was unlucky for some, 13. It must be his true vocation, he’s used to roaring out to the public from his pulpit, after all, he never does anything with a murmur, aside from when it comes to giving out ten-pound notes.

Following his party losing the General Election in 2015, Ed Miliband stepped down as party leader and has remained a Member of parliament, a post he has retained for 12 years.

But honestly, is he not scraping the barrel, or has he not got anything else better to do? Perhaps now he understands that people are human beings and not beasts that you can control. The answer is of course, that every action has a reaction.

Well, at least he now has a job that he’s moderately competent at. I speculate that a good few more characters like himself will be doing the very same in several weeks time.

Ed Milliband, another Labour politician who can never get their numbers right, which is extremely entertaining.

They call this the information age and Social communications has reformed the shift of knowledge globally, enabling people to connect instantaneously and share knowledge as its happening. While this seems to be a good idea, and in many cases it is, we must take into account who are the ones that are managing these programs, what are their plans and how much influence do these mega companies actually have?

Too many people, these tech monsters may seem to be nothing more than opportunistic companies that have transformed the industry and are simply seeking profits and development.

Let’s begin with this enigma, are Google and Facebook more than simply a search engine and social media program?

Many of you would have responded to this enigma with a single yes or no but to completely understand the impact that these tech monsters use, not only in our own individual lives in the observation of fact, but on issues, people and governments encompassing the world.

To demonstrate this there is a current article by Tony Cartalucci. Google and Facebook have verifiably worked for the US State department in pursuance of regime change and toppling governments whilst forming the public perception to achieve social political goals on behalf of Wall street and Washington for years.

Furthermore, this can be observed and documented in countries such as Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen amongst others. Now clearly there’s some more going on at Facebook and Google, than internet searches and profile updates.

The fact that these companies are operating so intimately with the US government and other governments should be a cause for concern for everyone.

These programs have secured a global monopoly that enables them to control what information you have access to, and we frequently see that the limitations or restriction that is taking place on these platforms is politically motivated.

For instance, it was announced Facebook suspended 30,000 french accounts just prior to the french election. In an attempt to supposedly prevent the spread of false news and misinformation.

Critics are suggesting that this was politically motivated suppression, targeting Le Pen’s support.

Google and Facebook have been all over the news concerning censorship and your free speech is at risk.

In Germany, the tech monsters could face up to $54 million penalties for not banning false news and hate speech.

Immediately next door to Germany, an Austrian court had just announced that Facebook is expected to stamp out regionally defined hate speech all over the globe. Therefore, if this decision holds up, Facebook and by extension, its users will be subservient to a foreign government, nevermind your first amendment.

As Cartalucci shows, other countries are starting to take more seriously the control of the respective information space. Following years of allowing US-based tech monsters Google and Facebook to monopolise and abuse them.

Vietnam is the latest country to take steps to start promoting local options in the search engine and social media network, in order to re-balance the monopoly over information.

The US government can lawfully access your Facebook information.

It’s 2016 and the end of the year is nearly approaching, and information concerning government ill-usage of power started streaming in and according to Facebook’s Global Government Requests Report, government’s appeals for Facebook account information increased 27 percent in the first half of 2016.

Facebook’s official statement revealed that demands for user information went from 46,710 in the last half of 2015 to 59,229 in the first half of 2016. At least 56 percent of these requests included a non-disclosure order that banned them from informing the user.

Furthermore, Facebook acknowledged that governments made use of them to spread information.

Facebook has openly acknowledged that its program has been used by governments trying to manipulate public thinking in other countries, including during the presidential elections in the US and France, and agreed to clamp down on such information operations.

In a white paper authored by the company’s security team, the company reported well-funded and ingenious methods used by countries and other groups to cast misleading information and lies for geopolitical purposes.

These efforts go well beyond fake news and incorporate content seeding, targeted data gathering, and false accounts that are used to elaborate one particular view, plant distrust in political institutions and spread chaos.

They have had to increase their security focus from conventional sadistic performance, such as account hacking, malware, spam and monetary scams, to include more indirect and stealthy methods of abuse, including efforts to manipulate civic discourse and deceive people.

In its attempt to clamp down on information operations, Facebook suspended 30,000 accounts in France before the presidential election. The company announced it was a priority to eliminate suspicious accounts with large amounts of posting activity and the largest audiences.

The company further disclosed how it watched several situations that match the design of information operations throughout the US presidential election. The company discovered malicious actors utilizing social media to distribute data taken from other sources such as email accounts with the intent of harming the reputation of specific political targets.

This method involved constructing dedicated websites to host the stolen data and then generating social media accounts and pages to point people to it.

At the same time, a separate collection of malicious players designed bogus Facebook accounts to erroneously elaborate stories and reports linked to topics shown in the stolen data.

Facebook did not stipulate which stolen data it was pointing to, but we know that tens of thousands of emails were hacked from Clinton operations chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account and published by Wikileaks.

Neither did Facebook credit the manipulation to any nation-state, although it stated that the company’s inquiry does not contradict the conclusions of a January report by the US Director of National Intelligence that outlined Russian involvement in the election.

Russia has further been linked to the hacking of French presidential frontrunner, Emmanuel Macron, according to a report by researchers with Japanese anti-virus firm Trend Micro.

Facebook promised to monitor endeavors to manipulate the program, to generate innovative ways of distinguishing fraudulent accounts, teach at-risk people about how to keep their information secure and support civil society programs around media literacy.

In today’s information climate, social media plays a sizable position in promoting information, not just in terms of civic affairs, such as elections, but in daily expression. In some cases, nevertheless, they must acknowledge that the danger of malicious players attempting to use Facebook to cheat people or otherwise promote inauthentic information can be higher, especially if they are supposedly one of the malevolent participants.

Numerous privacy advocates are concerned about the degree to which tech companies are becoming unofficial government intelligence agents, giving over data about their users to the feds without the users ever realizing it except if they’re charged with a crime.

It came to the front when Twitter argued back against a gag when the Department of Justice called it for information about Wikileaks advocates, supporters who then claimed that Facebook and Google had probably complied with government demands for information that they had obtained.

It turns out that users may never realize their social media accounts were scrutinized even if they are charged with a crime. Reuters went through years of court filings to produce real proof of tech firms complying with law enforcement warrants without warning their users.

Reuters obtained two dozen cases following 2008 of judges letting agents from the FBI, DEA, and ICE poke around in individuals’ Facebook accounts in incidents of speculated pyromania, seduction, and terrorism.

In some instances, the parties hadn’t realized this until Reuters called them about it.

Several of the warrants asked a laundry list of personal data such as communications, status updates, links to videos and pictures, schedules of future and past events, wall postings and declined friend requests. Really, declined friend requests, now that’s getting personal.

In a 2008 handbook for law enforcing, Facebook defines the sort of data it provides, extending from Neoprints, typically a user profile page screenshot and Photoprints, a snap of all the photos a person has uploaded, to IP logs, contact details, and group members.

Secret, closed-door negotiations were ultimately made public after an agreement was reached by the US Government to buy the social media giant Facebook for $10 billion. Negotiations started in March 2015 when Mark Zuckerberg chose to step down from his podium, cash out and concentrate on being a family man.

Exactly what does that mean for you, and the additional 1.06 billion Facebook users, and the privacy concerns that may encircle you with Facebook’s new keeper, the United States Government.

There is no doubt that Facebook has been a runaway triumph, but for who? It has been long speculated that Facebook has been supplying data to the NSA, CIA and other government entities and that they excessively use this site to watch the online activity of Facebook users.

The US government has already been found taking dodgy steps with personal privacy. Consider that the NSA has been frequently censured for bulking masses of data from cell phone corporations without the awareness or permission from cell phone users.

With this in mind, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a government agency might want access to your Facebook data.

There’s no disputing the data obtained by Facebook from its users is relevant to a point and there is no issue that the US government has been found collecting private data without people’s approval. Does this suggest the government now has an even greater agenda before them?

The government has made increasingly frequent requests for information from ISPs (Internet service providers), telecom firms and other social media sites. However, the data created by Facebook users has been the government’s main source of the American people.

Insiders with confidential information state that Mark Zuckerberg is weary of the growing requests from government entities. Finally, it has driven him over the edge to sell. Nevertheless, $10 billion is not a bad payday.

But will you keep your Facebook account? And are you concerned about the privacy concerns?

 

Savage Tory cuts could force schools onto a four-and-a-half day week, and the extreme action would be the last resort imposed on them by ministers disregarding the schools funding disaster.

Ministers are disregarding their situation and simply regurgitating the same old mantra that spending on schools has never been higher.

Ministers should examine every feasible alternative accessible to schools and it is immoral to cut funds to schools, and this sort of behavior by the government should be reversed now.

This sort of behaviour from our government will turn our educational system upside down, and this kind of caper from our government is shocking. It’s not only vile but unforgiving since the children are our tomorrow and the government plan to design our children and our children are going to be their exemplars.

This is the plan for the 21st century you’re living in today, for a brave new world where all that you value and held true will no longer exist.

They will ultimately restructure the family unit and there will be the suicidal undermining of the family and eventually, your children will be owned by government or the state.

The question I asked myself numerous times is how the people who are executing these things expect to do this and make it last?

The answer to that is that you steal a generation of children and you teach them so that they believe these concepts and they become global subjects in the effective global community. The whole idea of second-grade social studies is the transfer the loyalty from the family to the government, and they have been doing it for years, and people haven’t even realised it.

You are being manipulated layer by layer. They are already your children’s guardian without you even knowing it.

It is illegal for a parent or carer to spank their child, except where this amounts to reasonable punishment.

Whether a smack amounts to fair discipline will depend on the circumstances of each situation taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack.

However, Boris Johnson supported calls for parents to be permitted to spank their children to teach obedience.

The Mayor of London expressed following a senior Labour MP accused his party’s partial prohibition on spanking children for the August riots.

The former education minister David Lammy asked for a return to Victorian regulations on restraint, stating that working-class parents needed to be able to use corporal discipline to prevent violent kids from joining gangs and brandishing knives, and he is correct.

There are countless parents out there that are far too afraid to spank their children, just in case they get into trouble or are faced with a conviction or even a prison sentence. It is right that parents should not be beating their kids to a pulp, however, there is a distinction between smacking and beating.

There were the days when smacking was allowed and caregivers at school to teach some compliance into their children. I know it did me no wrong and it unquestionably did not do my children any wrong, they were all raised to become decent citizens.

Countless parents have been brainwashed into thinking that it is wrong to smack their children and that simply saying “no” and aiming a finger at them will serve well, but regrettably, that is not the case.

I can remember in around 1989 I was getting ready to go someplace and as I stepped out of my front door, there was a young boy of around 7 years old outside all on his own, he should have been at school, but as I strolled out the door he simply stared at me and said to me quite bluntly, “Fuck off”. I was completely astonished and responded back to him that his mother should rinse his mouth out with soap, he thereupon responded, “If she did that, I would phone the police and have her nicked”.

I can remember reflecting and answering, “Watch this space” and I was right, things simply began to get worse, violence rose on the streets and children believed they could do as they desired since their parents now had no authority over them.

Over time parents have become more brainwashed because now I learn of parents who will actually go into schools to have a go at teachers because a teacher has yelled at their son or daughter, and everything has got proportionally worse.

It’s essentially grown into a fear with parents, that they just won’t smack their child for worry that they will be prosecuted for simply smacking their child and legislation should be lifted as the system leaves families feeling concerned that they would risk prosecution if they endeavored to force authority over their children.

The reasoning was basically that lifting the embargo that smacking would help to put a close to rioting, gangs and knife violence.

Numerous parents stated that the action of smacking counts as child molestation and neglectful parenting. Others, nevertheless, believe there is a distinct difference between smacking which is an efficient disciplinary tactic and abuse which can be carried out in a diversity of ways that are detrimental to the child and would be done so whether there are grounds against smacking or not.

So what do you think?

There is an apparent distinction between discipline and abuse that the majority of parents understand. It is more dangerous to children to grow up with no restraint or control in their lives and has led to many of the stigma suffered by young people today.

There is a distinction in tapping or smacking to correct a behavioural problem and beating a child and losing direction. If a child is disciplined by smacking in a caring environment where the majority of the time the child is appreciated and loved then the random smack will not cripple their growth.

Firstly, since a reasonable smack is a short-term shock that tells the child in no uncertain terms that he/she must grasp the rules. Furthermore, because screaming at a child, is more traumatic. Either the child turns out to be a tormentor or else becomes withdrawn and afraid of others.

They tell you that beating a grown-up is never acceptable, so neither should beating a child. If you lock an adult in his or her bedroom and denied him/her the right to leave, you would be guilty of false imprisonment.

If you seized an adult’s property, you would be guilty of stealing. Will the anti-smacking lobby make it impossible for parents to do this to a child too? Should adults only be able to punish a child after the case has been brought before a court or another legally constituted tribunal?

Mind you, saying that, bailiffs appear to believe they have the right to take a person’s possessions because they have been disobedient and have not settled their outstanding bills, perhaps that should be discontinued as well?

After all, if it’s good enough for a child, surely it’s good enough for an adult. Furthermore simply because an adult for whatever reason can’t manage to meet their bills, sometimes through no wrongdoing of their own, why are we not allowed to have the equivalent allowances as children, after all, we were all children once.

Smacking should be down to the individual. There will always be parents who abuse smacking, but that is because they are not good parents, and does not suggest that smacking in itself is not an acceptable method of controlling children.

Parents are no longer sovereign in their own homes and worry that social workers will take their children away if they discipline them, and the current law was confusing, suggesting that parents do not know how far they can go in terms of smacking their children.

People feel uneasy about inflicting punishment on their children, and whether the law will support them. Of course, they won’t support them, because the government doesn’t want parents to have control of their children anymore, they want authority over them since all they want to do is educate them about is sustainable economic consumption.

Where students create their own perception of reality and realise that objective reality is not visible, so why bother?

The truth is, the truth, what keep men free is being defeated in order to prop up the attitude training agenda. They discover that mathematics is man-made, that is arbitrary, and good solutions are reached by agreement among those who are recognised as masters.

Most of us believe that 2×2=4, you’re wrong, we might reach a new consensus 2×2=5.

Our children have become mathematically illiterate by design.

Generally, more highly educated people, who have greater incomes, use more resources than badly educated people, who tend to have lower earnings. In this instance, more education increases the threat to sustainability.

This is a deliberate dumbing down.

The four-and-a-half day week must be seen as ultimately, the very last option. However, it won’t be, and it’s not all about money, it’s about sustainability, and we hear that word more and more.

All children start out naturally inquisitive and love to learn. When they’re sent to school, rather than learning, it’s a repeated method of learning and repeating knowledge.

The better you are at regurgitating this knowledge, the better you will do in the school system.

The true education is obeying authority.

We are instructed to request permission and we are instructed to not think outside the box. We are taught multiculturalism, drugs, sex, and death education. We are taught to remember and repeat information, an input-output method, not much different from a machine or a slave.

We are taught to react to a bell, just like a factory floor. We are taught to keep our head down and just make it through the day and we are taught to lower our expectations, and that is simply inside of the school.

Outside of school, our communication is impaired as people literally lose the capacity to speak and relate to one another.

Our economic culture is one of slaves, promoting debt. Our political system is one of erroneous decisions. Our media is normalising narcissistic behaviour and we are not taught to develop evaluative reasoning.

We are not taught about debt based money and the principles that our originating ancestors strived for. We are not taught to help and see each other as a team, with different skills and abilities and we are not taught to challenge authority or even the actions required of us.

We are brainwashed not taught. Brainwashed like little slaves.

The secret of education is that it doesn’t teach the way children learn nor is it supposed to. Schools were invented to assist the economy and the social order rather than the children and the families, that is why it’s mandatory.

As a result, the school cannot help anyone grow up since its prime directive is to hinder development. It does it by teaching that everything is hard, that other people control our lives, that our neighbours are unreliable and even bad.

School is the first impression children get of society because first impressions are usually the most crucial ones. School imprints children with doubt, mistrust of one another and specific addictions for life.

It ensnares natural foreknowledge, faith, and the enjoyment of venture. Wiping these out in support of reasonable behaviour and rational management.

In 1880 in England education was made mandatory until the age of ten, following campaigning by the National Education League. Under the Elementary Education (School Attendance) Act 1893 it was raised to 11 and the right to education was extended to deaf and blind children. In 1899 the leaving age was raised again to 13.

The 1870 Education Act stands as the very first piece of legislation to deal particularly with the requirement of education in Britain. Most importantly, it showed a dedication to provision on a national scale.

The Act granted voluntary schools to carry on unchanged but installed a system of school boards to develop and maintain schools in areas where they were required. The committees were regionally selected groups which drew their funding from the provincial rates.

Unlike the voluntary schools, religious education in the board schools was to be non-denominational. A separate Bill extended comparable requirements to Scotland in 1872.

The issue of making education mandatory for children had not been established by the Act. The 1876 Royal Commission on the Factory Acts suggested that education was made obligatory in order to prevent child labour.

In 1880 an additional Education Act eventually made school participation mandatory amid the ages of five and ten, although by the early 1890s attendance within this age group was falling short at 82 per cent.

Numerous children worked outside school hours, and in 1901 the number was put at 300,000, and truancy was a significant dilemma owing to the fact that parents could not afford to give up revenue made by their children.

Charges were further obligatory until a shift in the law in 1891. Additional legislation in 1893 increased the age of obligatory participation to 11, and in 1899 to 12.

Meanwhile, in America amid 1906 and 1920 a handful of world-famous manufacturers and investors came together, schoolmasters, private companies, handpicked university officials, house legislators contributed more consideration and more capital towards forced schooling than the national government did.

Andrew Carnegie and Johnny Rockefeller contributed more funds than the government did mid-1900 and 1920 on education.

Mandatory education Rockefeller to blind and deaf children under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act of 1893, which installed special schools. A similar plan was made for physically impaired children in the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act of 1899.The method of modern schooling was created outside of the public eye and outside the public’s representatives.

In our thoughts, people accept themselves with complete obedience to molding hands. The modern education practices of intellectual and character education evaporate from their thoughts and unhampered by tradition they work your own good will upon a vast structure of responsive people.

They will not work to make these people or any other children into philosophers or men of science. The purpose was not to raise them up to become authors, educators, poets or men of letters. The purpose was not to hunt for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen all of who they had an adequate supply of.

The assignment is easy, they organise the children and teach them in a certain way, the things their parents are doing in a flawed way.

The purpose of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and stimulate their mind, nothing could be further from the truth. The objective is solely to conquer as many as children as possible, the same sustained level, to develop and nurture standardised citizenry, put down dissidence and imagination, that is the plan.

This lowest common denominator citizen is most valuable in a corporate, military or welfare state. Companies, governments, and militaries do not deal with disagreement efficiently, so it’s in their best interest not to have participants that question everything.

In the military, they don’t beat around the bush about this idea. In boot camp, they want instant and compliance to regulations. Throughout life, you will learn the same education, only more subtly. This is why military men are more solicited for corporate positions.

Education should be directed at suppressing free will so that after students leave school they shall be incompetent throughout the remainder of their lives of reasoning and performing differently than their schoolmasters would have hoped.

Our education policy is centred on an input-output method of knowledge. Our achievement or failure depends on our ability to take what the teacher tells us and then repeating that corresponding knowledge to an exam.

Those that are able to instinctively repeat that knowledge the best are compensated with higher grades and they are told that they are smart but in fact, they are completely brainwashed.

This input-output method is no different than a machine or what a slave does. You give it a command and it just does it without question. This method was deliberately designed to fashion us into what we are today.

The masses foolishly stream through this education system and directly fed into centralised systems that want good little loyal workers who take orders without issue. We all know that person who is really smart or brainwashed, that exceeds in a business, military or government position and still, they lack any street smarts, to see what’s really going on in their lives.

When you realise that the mind only performs on what you are shown, it becomes obvious to you, that you are only able to become victorious in a centralised method where taking orders is a way of life.

I think, therefore I am. It is a classic, philosophical declaration on human cautiousness and survival. But what about the people who don’t actually think, do they truly exist?

This input-output mindset is reinforced outside of school in the career world. Our society is about what is actually popular. From early on in our lives, we are pressured into doing what is popular and not what’s best for you.

This is the way a collective gets people to sacrifice what is different and unique about themselves, to become the lowest common denominator in a group that really doesn’t care about you at all.

The most profound publicity technique will produce no progress except if one key principle is displayed in the mind continually. You must restrict it to a few points and duplicate it to them repeatedly.

When you watch the headlines or political discussion on TV, it is encouraged by talking points, where they are reconstructed with such skill it scary. Where you see news reporters repeatedly say the identical information in a corresponding way on various channels.

It’s all the alike but reformed perhaps in a somewhat unconventional way.

If this works for late night TV, what else could this be beneficial for?

All politicians will tell you that duplicating everything is good because in their line of work they keep having to recite themselves over and over for the facts to soak in because they have to catapult the propaganda.

They will tell you about terror, terrorists, terrorist groups, terrorist strikes, terrorist networks, instruments of terror, terrorist sales, terrrorising terror and murder and then they will tell you but we have to keep going over the facts because they have to soak it into the people and catapult the propaganda.

Intelligent debate in the society somehow passes for those who can screech their talking points over the other. This is done intentionally to get a confrontational impassioned response from the brainwashed and to prevent the logical and objective intellectual from even joining the debate.

Through this method, the collective is intellectually sheltered from any challenge to its control.

Do thoughts help to free you or to simply make you freely serve?

These talking points are designed by people who do think about how to dominate society. They manufacture this input-output slave thought into a Hegelian Dialectic that they control. They basically have a society that argues over problems that have no true bearing on the real power of the world.

Revolutionists in power have built financial turmoil, deficits in food and fuel, confiscatory taxation, a disaster in education, the intimidation of conflict, and other deviations to shape Americans for the New World Order.

The method is as ancient as politics itself. It is the Hegelian Dialectic of bringing about transformation in a three-step process. Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.

The first action (thesis) is to generate a dilemma. The second action (antithesis) is to create hostility to the dilemma (panic, fear, and confusion). The third action (synthesis) is to give the answer to the dilemma generated by step one.

A change which would have been unlikely to force upon the people without the proper mental conditioning performed in steps one and two.

Using the Hegelian Dialectic, and overwhelming economic power, hidden change agents try to destroy cultural and political structures by which independent men govern themselves, antiquated monuments built at great sacrifice in blood and riches.

Their goal is to weaken sovereign countries, unite societies under universal government, centralize financial powers, and control the world’s people and resources.

Millions of American’s support free speech. They strongly think that they are the only nation to have free speech and that anyone who even questions free speech had damn well better shut up.

However, European nations and Israel ban specific kinds of address, Nazi emblems, anti-Semitic accusations, and Holocaust rejection, and address that encourages prejudice on the grounds of nationality, faith, and so on.

The American rule of free address believes that the single purpose of the legislation is to defend people against bodily injury, but it allows extensive emotional abuse. The new investigations (not quoted) point that emotional abuse is similar in magnitude to that encountered by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic.

Therefore, the victims of hate address, experience as much as or more than victims of hate crime. So, why should speech be excluded from public welfare matters when its social costs can be even more dangerous than that of bodily harm?

I firmly believe in free speech, however, I believe that the supporters of free speech must face two factors, first, the American policy of free speech is not the only one, most liberal governments maintain comparatively open societies under a separate collection of rules. Next, the system isn’t cost-free. Controlling speech has costs, but so does allowing it. The only mature way to resolve the system is to look at both sides of the ledger.

We all have the freedom to express any viewpoints without restriction and that would be almost true so long as you’re not on the receiving end of it.

Hitler had freedom of speech and look what transpired there, thousands of Jews became his target and he took over nations solely because he had freedom of speech, and he was a great speaker, and people listened to him like lambs to the slaughter.

Of course, you can’t imprison a person’s freedom of speech but when it transforms people’s behaviours in such a way that it’s harmful to another’s well-being, that’s when freedom of speech becomes dangerous and we lose perception of why we needed free speech in the first place.

However, we should be entitled to preserve our free speech, so long as it doesn’t take over an entire race of people or harm their dignity or harrass.

Most people that want their freedom of speech is usually to do with politics and what they avoid telling us, therefore obviously people want their say on things, and rightly so. Nevertheless, freedom of speech was never about that at all, it was getting people to say what they needed to say and to create anarchy and disorder so that the people would end up competing against one another since obviously not everybody’s mindset is identical.

But have you met the Stepford students? They’re everywhere. On campuses across the country. Sitting stony-eyed in lecture rooms or secretly patrolling beer-fuelled banter in the uni bar. They look like students, dress like students, smell like students.

But their student’s brains have been replaced by brains deprived of critical faculties and processed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned adolescent, but anyone who’s spent more than five seconds in their company will know that these students are far more interested in closing debate down than lighting it up.

Stepford concerns are over-amplified on social media. No sooner is a controversial topic raised then a university campaign group emerges on Facebook, or a hashtag on Twitter, demanding that the debate is closed down.

Technology means that it has never been simpler to whip up a fake sense of mass abuse and target that false outrage at those in charge. The authorities on the receiving end feel so attacked that they yield to the demands and threats.

Heaven help any student who doesn’t kneel before the Stepford reasoning. The students’ union at Edinburgh recently passed a proposal to End lad banter on campus. Laddish students are being ordered to abandon their bantering ways.

Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was dismissed for a year after its members gave out flyers encouraging rugby boys to shun mingers (ugly girls) and homosexual lewdness. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club openly recanted its unforgivably disgusting performance and announced that its members have a lot to learn about the harmful consequences of teasing.

They’re being made to take part in fairness and diversity education. At British universities in 2014, you don’t simply get training, you also get re-education, Soviet style.

The censoriousness has reached its depth(s) in the rise of the safe space policy. Loads of student unions have established large swaths of their universities and listed them safe spaces, that is, areas where no scholar should ever be made to feel unsafe, repellent or depreciated, whether by teasing, bad reasoning or Blurred Lines.

Protection from physical attack is one thing, but protection from words, concepts, Zionists, boys, pop tunes, Nietzsche? We appear to have trained a new age that thinks its self-esteem is more superior than everybody else’s freedom.

This is what those complaining Cambridger’s meant when they kept stating they have the right to be comfortable. They weren’t speaking about the freedom to lay down on a chaise longue, they meant the right never to be challenged by disturbing ideas or mind-battered by offensiveness.

At precisely the time they should be jumping brain-first into the rough and tumble of grown-up, testy debate, scholars are cushioning themselves from anything that has the smell of debate. We’re seeing the conquest of political precision by underhandedness.

As the irritating PC gone mad army clattered on and on about extreme examples of PC, schools forbidding ‘Baa Baa, Black Sheep’, et cetera, nobody appears to have noticed that the key principles of PC, from the desire to stop bad language to the urge to re-educate clearly warped minds, have been eaten whole by a new age.

This is a tragedy, for it suggests our universities are growing into breeding grounds of dogmatism and if we don’t allow our judgment to be sufficient, frequently, and fearlessly addressed, then that opinion will be handled as a stagnant doctrine, not a breathing truth.

One day, these Stepford followers, with their desire to ban, their fight on foul dialect, and their terrifying discussion of pre-crime, will be controlling the country. And then it won’t only be those of us who occasionally have reason to attend a campus who have to bear their lifeless doctrines.