THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

He was an apparently charming fellow in the first half of his life. An ordinary American who made his wealth by marketing hardware and software worth billions, growing into a global symbol and a living model of the American Dream.

However, in the second half of his life, he coupled up with the world’s elite/Illuminati and happened to decrease the world’s population by billions, and he meant business. He quickly became one of the most notorious depopulation activists, speaking on genocidal vaccines, conducting vaccination crusades that crippled and killed many people in third world nations, creating GMO mosquitoes that could carry and inject harmful diseases, and he’s continually gaining new ways of delivering his sick ideas.

We are, of course, talking about Bill Gates, the man who recently drove the population control agenda one step further, when he announced the development of a remote-controlled contraceptive microchip, which can be inserted under the skin and last up to 16 years.

 

The microchip Illuminati under the skin, it will begin to deliver a periodic dose of levonorgestral, which is a hormone utilized to inhibit pregnancy. According to the Gate’s Foundation, a woman can decide when to deactivate or reactivate the chip utilizing a wireless controller, however, viewing the Illuminati history of Bill Gates’ involvement in depopulation, we would be stupid to believe them.

In the subsequent TED Talk, Bill Gates demonstrates the increase of CO2 amount produced by a large number of humans being alive and breathing. The world now has 6.8 billion people. Now if they do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health services, they could reduce that number by maybe 10 or 15%.

The remote-contraception idea may appear fancy and cool at first until you recognize that the microchip can simply be inserted under the skin of millions without their awareness and permission, and used as a population control tool.

Even more troubling, several years ago in the Philippines, the powers that be didn’t even bother hiding their sick agenda, and coercively embedded RFID-like microchips into who-knows-how-many people.
Now, please attempt to visualize what the elite-Illuminati can and will do with this sort of technology, and the extreme compression of Earth’s population is one of their open agendas.

The chip that one day may dominate our numbers. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology said the implant would have to be encrypted to shield wireless data flow and keep it secure. The chip’s size is 20mm x 20mm x 7mm and reservoirs of the hormone are stored on a 1.5cm-wide microchip inside the device.

The birth control microchip would hold almost two decades worth of a hormone usually used in contraceptives and administer 30 micrograms a day, according to a report from the MIT Technology Review.

The concept germinated after a visit Bill Gates made to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) two years earlier, where he asked professor Robert Langer if there was any way to turn birth control on and off by remote control. This would save women the trouble of visiting the clinic to have contraceptive implants removed when they wanted to become pregnant.

Robert Langer attached the Gate’s Foundation with MicroCHIPS, a Massachusetts firm authorized to use a controlled-release microchip technology. Since then, the partnership has been active expanding the technology which could see a release as early as 2018.

Based on the evidence that innocent people had been quietly microchipped in the past, it is thought that this microchip has previously been inserted under the skin of many people, without their knowledge.

If you don’t think it is plausible, or even probable, I query if you have viewed his TED Speech. Bill Gates is not at all reticent about his population control objectives. The only questionable thought here is whether or not he would slip it on people unsuspectingly.

Like that’s never been done before right?

Would it be just out of the question for a billionaire with a save the earth from the terrible human’s environmental agenda to recognize it is doing the world a favour?

People have got to wake up and realize that these globalist chaps like gates and soros do in fact have a depopulation agenda, and the things they are supporting do serve that goal. They won’t acknowledge it openly because then people would see them for the demons they are.

Alternatively, they cover it as humanitarian services, like contraceptives, vaccines, and abortions. How dumb do you have to be to not see it?

The One World Government does endure, and their plan is to depopulate the planet to make it simpler for them to maintain and manage the lessened population. These are not ideas. Our government and other governments have been found doing these very things many times.

However, if you do not study it, they surely are not going to teach it in schools or put the info out there. Analysis just how many times in the last 200 years our government has diffused and/or deceived crowds of people to test out new biowarfare, on our own individual people. The records are there. It is happening.

Bill Gate’s daddy was an attorney and administrator of Planned Parenthood, he is satisfying his father’s dreams of killing millions of people. What a great offspring he is.

 

Those courageous people who enter into judicial actions normally do so because of the possible winnings, guardianship of their children, access to their family’s wealth, are so important.

Most people are uncertain about bottled water, however, it’s the improbable subject of a brutal judicial stoush amid sparkling water company SodaStream and the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), which represents labels including Nestle and Fiji Water.

SodaStream’s newest advertisement, named Shame or Glory, engages the aid of two Game of Thrones’ characters to convey a message that bottled water is harmful to the environment. The clip, which has more than two million views on YouTube, portrays a man purchasing bottled water from the supermarket, only to then find himself busted by Game of Thrones’ Shame Nun. He later gets a dressing down from The Mountain, performed by Icelandic actor Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson.

“Why are you carrying shameful polluting plastic bottles? Don’t you know you’re hurting Mother Earth?” The Mountain asks the man.

“With SodaStream, you can make sparkling water at home, at the touch of a button … without carrying heavy plastic bottles and pissing off Mother Earth,” he says.

More than one billion beverage bottles are used every single day throughout the world, the overriding bulk of that plastic ends up in our landfills, parks, and oceans, according to SodaStream.

Millions of people are already using SodaStream and doing their bit to decrease ocean-killing plastic waste, that’s why SodaStream are the world’s biggest sparkling water brand, and they are hoping that everyone will join the rebellion.

However, The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) demands SodaStream now cease and desist showing the video, contending the ad makes false, misleading and disparaging declarations about bottled water.

Whilst maintaining environmental concerns regarding plastic bottles, the company’s video singles out bottled water products for criticism, but not less-healthy sweet beverages that are also packaged in plastic, such as carbonated soft drinks, energy drinks, and juices.

In fact, bottled water has the lowest environmental footprint of all bottled beverages. In particular, the amount of water and energy utilized to create bottled water is smaller than any other bottled drink. Furthermore, all bottled water packages are 100 percent recyclable.

Nevertheless, plastic packages include numerous chemicals, some of which have been distinguished as possibly dangerous. There are two chemicals to keep away from, in particular, bisphenol A and phthalates. Both of these chemicals interfere with animal and human hormones.

Researchers have better distinguished the adverse effects of bisphenol A, pthalates are usually deemed harmless by contrast. However, better safe than sorry. Whether a plastic container has bisphenol A or phthalates in it depends on its type. You can distinguish the kind of plastic in a container by studying the recycling code number.

You usually see Type 1 plastic in bottles for juices, salad dressing, water, vegetable oil, and mouthwash. Peanut butter and pickle jars usually contain type 1 plastic as well. Polyethylene teraphthalate is light-weight, clear and smooth, its makers designed it for a single use only.

Whilst it does not include bisphenol A or phthalates, it does include antimony, a potential human carcinogen. Additionally, dangerous bacteria can build up in it as you reuse it. Polyethylene teraphthalate packages may have the symbol “PET” on them.

Milk bottles, detergent containers, freezer bags and plastic supermarket bags frequently include high-density polyethylene, a comparatively thick plastic. Type 2 plastic neither includes bisphenol A nor phthalates. It is not known to include other dangerous chemicals. High-density polyethylene containers may have the symbol “HDPE” on them.

Polyvinyl chloride contains phthalates that can create reproductive problems in animals and humans. Type 3 plastic can be plasticized or unplasticized, the former is clear and flexible, the latter is more rigid. Food containers usually made with polyvinyl chloride include fruit juice bottles, cooking oil bottles and clear food packaging. Plasticized PVC pipes and siding contain phthalates as well. Polyvinyl chloride containers may have the symbol “V” on them.

Frozen food packaging and sauce squeeze containers usually contain Type 4 plastic since it is pliable and repellent to solvents. Type 4 plastic does not include any identified toxic chemicals. Low-density polyethylene containers may have the symbol “LDPE” on them.

Polypropylene containers do not filter toxic chemicals into foods or liquids. They usually contain yogurt, medicine, drinks, ketchup, and medicines. Type 5 plastic is pliable, hard and semi-transparent and has high stability to solvents. Polypropylene containers may have the symbol “PP” on them.

You should dodge type 7 plastic containers since they may include bisphenol A that filters into their contents. Type 7 plastics usually have the symbol “PC” or “Other” on them. You will find polycarbonate plastics in 3- and 5-gallon water cooler bottles, solid, plastic reusable water bottles, and to-go coffee mugs. Companies use polycarbonate for these purposes since it is practically shatter-proof.

Some kinds of plastic water bottles contain chemicals that may filter into your drinking water. Bisphenol A, or BPA, is one of the most generally cited offenders, and is seen in hard plastic bottles labeled with plastic code “7.”

Other plastics further pose a possible health warning. According to CBC News, Canada outlawed the usage of BPA in October 2008 so the full health effects could not contagion further. Bottles containing BPA are further banned in Japan, according to Scientific American, as of 2010 they are still widely utilised in the United States and other parts of the world.

The BPA used in Type 7 plastic water bottles is linked to a number of possible complexities for expecting women and the fetus. According to CBC News, BPA acts as a faux-estrogen and can produce chromosomal irregularities.

These anomalies are tied to birth deformities and developmental disabilities in utero and childhood. Exposure to these faux-estrogens whilst in the womb can create early onset of puberty and increase the child’s risk of prostate or breast cancer as a grown-up.

It may further influence the eventual fertility levels of a female fetus. CBC News further details possible ties between BPA exposure and hyperactivity disorders and aggressive behaviors in young girls.

Water bottles containing BPA have further been linked to increased incidences of disease in adults. According to CBC News, humans with the greatest concentrations of BPA in their urine are three times more prone to suffer from cardiovascular disease and 2.4 times more inclined to have Type 2 diabetes than people with low BPA concentrations.

BPA exposure is further tied to breast, prostate and ovarian cancer, although further investigation is needed to fully investigate this matter.

Bottles labeled as Type 1 plastic are made from polyethylene terephthalate, or PET. These are the soft plastic bottles most generally used for bottled water. PET bottles contain no BPA or faux-estrogen but do pose possible health hazards.

These bottles are frequently linked to bacterial contamination when they are re-used. This is primarily owing to the bottle’s design, which makes it hard to properly wash the bottle for reuse. When used Type 1 bottles are tested for cleanliness, 13 percent are found to contain microbes from food or saliva while another 9 percent contain fecal matter.

Proper food storage is essential to keeping it safe to eat. Eating food that has been poorly stored has the potential to make a person ill, especially if that storage container is a plastic that contains hazardous chemicals.

Storing food in plastic bags, created just for that purpose, as essential to keeping food protected. Nevertheless, putting food in any plastic, both food storage bags or other plastic bags, can pose real risks to humans.

All plastic is made from chemicals that have the potential to harm a person’s well-being. The chemicals that make up plastic include BPA and DEHA. Grocery bags are made from high-density polyethylene or low-density polyethylene and are normally coded for recycling as a 2 or 4.

When food is put in plastic bags these chemicals can filter into the food and then be ingested. This also includes plastic wrap, which is made up of comparable components. Over time these chemicals have been linked to tissue changes, genetic damage, chromosomal errors, miscarriage, birth defects, early onset of puberty and hormonal alterations.

In children, chemical leaching can cause damage to their growing immune system and can result in disrupted hormones and behavioral difficulties.

Food in the cupboard should be stored in sealed containers to stop bugs getting into them, including insects and rodents.

Plastic grocery bags are not airtight and should not be used. Food storage bags can be torn into or bit open by insects. Using glass containers is the suggested method for storing food in the cupboard as chemical leaching can happen when food is stored in plastic containers.

When food is not stored correctly, it can grow dangerous bacteria that can make a person ill. Food must be stored in sealed receptacles in the refrigerator to stop bacterial contamination. That which is not wrapped properly can become infected with bacteria from other food in the refrigerator that has already spoiled and can spread it as well.

Additionally, meats that are not in sealed wrappings can trickle onto other foods, infecting them with food-borne pathogens like E.coli or salmonella. Plastic grocery bags and food storage bags can break or be torn when moving food around in the fridge, which generates conditions that can spread and grow bacteria.

The IBWA says people should not be shamed for making smart and healthy beverage choices, and they should be praised. Water is invariably the best and healthiest option for hydration, whether from a bottle, a filter, or the tap and seemingly people are making considerable attempts to select healthier foods and beverages.

Ah, but is this, in fact, true? We appear to be in a period of drinking from something that is obviously not healthy for us, and all that we drink from, appears to have some sort of contagion in it, or that purges from it.

Even the water that we drink from our household faucets at home has poisons in it.

Typical Tap Water Content:

Chlorine: Chlorine in Tap Water is Safe to Drink. There has been a large amount of press recently promoting new water filters for faucets, showers, and whole home systems. As a marketing strategy to increase selling of these products, advertisers have been overplaying an unconfirmed risk related to drinking water chlorination.

Fluorine compounds: Fluoride is one of the most poisonous substances known to man, yet based on its inclusion in virtually every brand of toothpaste, however, the American Dental Association believes it’s okay to use fluoride for preventative dental care. Other products, such as bottled water, infant formulas, and even vitamin supplements, now include fluoride.

Trihalomethanes (THMs): Trihalomethanes (THMs) are chemical compounds in which three of the four hydrogen atoms of methane (CH4) are replaced by halogen atoms. Many trihalomethanes find uses in manufacturing as solvents or refrigerants. THMs are also environmental pollutants, and many are considered carcinogenic.

Salts of: arsenic. radium. aluminium. copper. lead. mercury. cadmium.

Arsenic poisoning is a medical disease that happens owing to raised levels of arsenic in the body. If exposure happens over a short span of time symptoms can include vomiting, abdominal pain, encephalopathy, and watery diarrhea that contains blood. Long-term exposure can result in thickening of the skin, darker skin, abdominal pain, diarrhea, heart disease, numbness, and cancer.

Barium: Barium carbonate does not dissolve in water, but does dissolve in the stomach, it can further generate damaging health outcomes. Eating or drinking excessively large quantities of barium compounds that dissolve in water or in the stomach can create modifications in heartbeat or paralysis in humans.

Water is good for you.

Water makes up about 60% of our entire body weight. 75% of our brain is water, 70% of our muscles, even our bones are 31% water.

Every system in our body depends on water. Water transports nutrients to your cells, it washes poisons out of your organs, increases our metabolism, controls blood pressure, protects and moisturises our joints, the list goes on.

When we don’t drink enough water, everything in our body slows down. Even pretty moderate dehydration can strip us of our energy and make us feel tired throughout the day.

When we drink plenty of water and we are well hydrated, it will give us more energy, lift our mood, assist is to lose weight and grow muscles, help us perform better at work, alleviate headaches, make us look younger with healthier skin, lessen the risk of cancer, the benefits really do go on and on.

It’s odd then how we are all so concerned about eating healthy food but give limited or no consideration to whether our water is healthy or not.

The fact is, most sources of drinking water, are far from healthy.

Although it’s better to drink this water than to avoid it and die of dehydration, but it’s a little unsettling knowing that with each glass you drink, you’re taking in hundreds of different unregulated, unfiltered chemicals and poisonous waste products.

Government and state laws in the United States don’t require any testing and haven’t installed safety goals for drugs in water. In 2008, the Associated Press began a wide-scale, 5-month study into pharmaceutical contaminants in drinking water.

They found drugs in the drinking water of 24 main metropolitan regions, comprising South California, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Washington DC, Tuscon, and Northern New Jersey.

Traces of drugs found incorporated antibiotics, mood stabilisers and anticonvulsants like carbemazepine, estrogens, metabolized angina medication and tranquilizers to name a few, and it’s correct that the concentrations of these drugs and chemicals are small, calibrated in parts per billion or trillion, considerably below a medical dose.

Water providers proceed to assert that these levels are safe, but the fact is, scientists, don’t yet know the outcomes of decades of exposure to low levels of multiple drugs. One thing we do know is that scientists are becoming more concerned with new studies which reveal startling effects on wildlife and human cells.

Numerous scientists think that chronic low-level exposure to these drugs and other poisons could be subtly bringing on allergies, creating nerve damage, hindering productivity and growth, destroying the brain and changing behavior, causing cancer and a number of other enigmas and conditions.

Within 1999 and 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey examined 139 surface waters everywhere in the U.S. They found that 80% of these waters contained endocrine-disrupting chemicals, chiefly estrogens. What’s more troubling, is the impacts these estrogens are presently having on wildlife. Fish, in the very waters we end up drinking, are changing sex owing to exposure to excess estrogen.

In 2004, researchers gathered and analyzed a specimen of white sucker fish in Boulder Creek, Colorado. Not only did they discover five times more females than males, but half of the male fish had a female tissue, and the whole population was unproductive.

It’s curious how we can see a comparable trend in humans, with decreasing sperm counts in men, lower testosterone levels than in past generations, increasing incidences of sterility, and more females being born than males. Although to date, investigation hasn’t revealed a straightforward connection connecting the water we drink and feminisation in humans, there’s lots of obscure data that implies estrogen in our drinking water is at least playing a significant part in our feminisation as a species, simultaneously with all the other sources of estrogen we’re exposed to on an everyday basis.

A lot of it comes from the use of the oral contraceptive pill by women. The pill induces women to pass large quantities of estrogen through their urine, which makes its way to our water systems. Depending on which country you look at, up to 60% of women in the West are on the pill, and numbers in the East are growing fast.

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in older women is further to blame, and with people living longer and longer, it’s becoming a growing interest. In a 2011 investigation published in BMJ Open, researchers hinted there might be a connection linking oral contraceptive usage by women, and increasing percentages of prostate cancer (estrogen-sensitive cancer) in men, owing to the excess estrogen from women making its way into our drinking water.

Although women on hormone pills aren’t just the offenders. Estrogen is used almost everywhere now. Vast quantities further come from industry, agriculture, household commodities, and other pharmaceuticals.

The menu of many manifestations and conditions estrogen dominance can create, is enormous. Listed some of the more general effects below. For a more comprehensive list, go here.

In Men and Women In Men In Women

Low sex drive
Weight gain
Muscle loss
Migraines
Depression
Fatigue
Skin problems such as acne, dry skin, and psoriasis
Allergies
Memory loss
Headaches
Insomnia
Impaired fertility
Gynecomastia (man boobs)
Male pattern baldness
Increased risk of prostate cancer
Reduced sperm count & testosterone
PMS
Uterine fibroids
Breast tenderness
Enlarged breasts
Fibrocystic breasts
Increased risk of breast, endometrial and uterine cancer
Increased risk of miscarriage
Hot flushes
Irregular periods
Hair loss

It’s no accident that the above manifestations and conditions are becoming more prevalent over time as more chemicals are being pumped into the environment.

Tap water is far more controlled by the government than bottled water.
Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, public waterways that equip you with tap water, have to submit annual quality reports that show references and levels of controlled contaminants, and their possible health consequences.

On the other hand, bottled water companies who market their goods to millions of people, are not obligated to make any of this public. With most labels, we have no concept where the water comes from, if or not it’s refined at all, and what level of contaminants the water carries.

In recent years there have been a number of investigations carried out by self-governing non-profit organisations, that have reported some startling truths about bottled water. In 2008, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) examined 10 leading labels of bottled water and discovered toxic contaminants in every label that was examined.

There was a total of 38 toxic pollutants, incorporating trihalomethanes, pharmaceutical drugs, caffeine, solvents, arsenic and radioactive isotopes. In a 2009 investigation printed in the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research, researchers discovered notable quantities of estrogen in 78% of plastic water bottle brands.

In addition to contaminants in the water itself, bottled water further contains phthalates, a class of plasticizer that drains into the water from the bottle itself. Phthalates act as potent xenoestrogens, and have been connected to many estrogen-sensitive cancers and other maladies in humans.

Although standards are gradually changing, you have to ask yourself, keeping in mind that bottled water costs 1,900 times as much as tap water, is it actually worth spending the additional charge for water that is at best, just as tainted as tap water?

It is not, therefore, in the public interest to dampen consumption of bottled water. One wouldn’t assume that it’s a safe, healthy, and convenient choice, but by far safer than bottled water.

SodaStream argues the IBWA is just concerned it will lose profits if people quit purchasing bottled water.

After all, everything that we consume or drink is a money making scheme, a method to make money and they are not interested what’s in it, or how it will affect you. It’s simply a plan to make you waste more money on a commodity that’s going to give them good profits.

We could assume that SodaStream is the better commodity to purchase in terms of hydration, and perhaps it once was, when SodaStream came with glass bottles, and not plastic ones. They are not seeking to protect the planet, they are striving to save themselves from going broke, there is no rescuing the planet, we have destroyed it all on our own with our indulgence.

I’m not telling you that SodaStream is the better choice. If you just want fizzy water, like myself since I can’t stand tap water, but if you just want purified tap water, you can do that at home in the comfort of your own kitchen, you don’t need to be going out and purchasing gallons of bottled water because you have been told its better because it’s not.

I don’t know what’s more insulting, the idea that a large corporate organisation believes it can quell a modest business or that the information they want silencing is that plastic bottles represent a genuine menace to the environment.

This is a profiteering group, whose monetary profits are a direct result of the two hundred million plastic water bottles their enterprise makes every day and wants to quell SodaStream from telling the
facts.

Even more disturbingly, the industry wants to persuade customers that there is something wrong with the high-quality, tasty tap water that is accessible in most homes.

I’m not certain about the high-quality, or delicious tap water, but its unquestionably a need in our daily lives, and there are loads of businesses out there that want to jump on it and make a whacking profit, but the even more alarming thing is that people believe them, and they go out there in their drones and buy it, bottles and bottles of it since they genuinely think it’s better for them.

I was previously in America visiting a colleague just outside of San Francisco. I had been to America before so knew that I could drink the tap water, however, when I cracked open my colleagues fridge it had bottles and bottles of filtered water in there, and precious little food.

When I questioned why they had so much bottled water in the fridge, my colleague was completely shocked that I’d directed such an inquiry. My colleague tutted and announced that she wouldn’t drink the tap water because it was full of contaminants.

That was about 20 years ago, and I suspect my colleague is still doing the same thing, crowding her fridge with loads of bottled water that she’s been absorbing for all those years, without any idea of how it could hurt her.

The reported and actual menace we face is from single-use plastic bottles, and if anybody is attempting to deceive purchasers it is the IBWA, not SodaStream in its crusade. So, why should they be silenced?

The video that I viewed was both really entertaining and put the point across very well, not so much the profanity, though… however, still pretty entertaining.

Hena Akhter’s last words to her mother proclaimed her integrity. Be that as it may, it was past the point where it was possible to save the 14-year-old young lady.

Her kindred villagers in Bangladesh’s Shariatpur neighbourhood had as of now passed harsh suffering on her. Liable, they announced, of having an unsanctioned relationship with a married man. The imam of the village mosque demanded the fatwa or religious law, and the penalty, 101 lashes conveyed instantly, intentionally in broad daylight.

Hena dropped after 70.

Bleeding and wounded, she was taken to a doctor’s facility, where she passed away seven days after the fact.

Amazingly, an underlying medical report pointed to no injuries and deemed her death a suicide. Hena’s mother and father demanded her body be laid uncovered. They needed the world to know what in fact happened to their little girl.

Hena’s mother and father hailed from rustic Shariatpur, mismatched by murky waterways that loan waters to rice paddies and lush vegetable fields.

Hena was the youngest looking of five children destined to Darbesh Khan, a day worker, and his meaningful other, Aklima Begum. They shared a home built making use of corrugated tin and decomposing timber and had a basic life that was abruptly destroyed a year earlier with the arrival of Hena’s cousin Mahbub Khan.

Mahbub Khan came back to Shariatpur from a spell working in Malaysia. His child was Hena’s age and the two were in seventh grade together.

Khan centered on Hena and started harassing her on her way to school and back, declared Hena’s father. He complained to the elders, who controlled the village about his nephew, three times Hena’s age.

The elders warned Mahbub Khan and ordered him to pay $1,000 in costs to Hena’s mother and father. Nonetheless, Mahbub was Darbesh’s elder brother’s son and Darbesh was asked to let the thing rest.

Many months later on a winter night, as Hena’s sister Alya described it, Hena was walking from her room to an outside toilet when Mahbub Khan suppressed her with cloth, took her behind nearby bushes and beat and molested her.

Hena attempted to get away, Alya stated. Mahbub Khan’s wife overheard Hena’s faint cries and when she discovered Hena with her husband, she pulled the young girl back to her hut, beat her and trampled her on the floor.

The next day, the village elders gathered to discuss the case at Mahbub Khan’s house. The imam declared fatwa, and Khan and Hena were found guilty of an illicit association. Her sentence under sharia or Islamic ruling was 101 lashes, Mahbub 201.

Mahbub Khan succeeded in getting away after the first few lashes.

Darbesh Khan and Aklima Begum had no option but to heed the imam’s request. They watched as the lash tore the skin of their young daughter and she fell motionless to the ground.

What happened to Hena is horrifying, and we all should be ashamed that we couldn’t preserve her life. It’s a vile loss of a life, and it makes your hair curl to think that another human being can do anything so dishonorable in the eyes of any god.

What spiritual being would approve of this kind of act towards another human being is beyond me. This is quite simply relentless harm on another human being, though not unusual in these lands, although, it is extraordinary that anyone could think that this sort of behaviour is normal.

I understand that people act in various ways in different lands, however, murder is murder however you look at it, and to then lie about it after is simply true evil.

Bangladesh is viewed a liberal and moderate Muslim nation, and the national law forbids the use of sharia. Nonetheless, activist and reporter Shoaib Choudhury, who reports such situations, declared sharia is still very much in use in villages and urban neighbourhoods helped by the lack of education and a solid legal structure.

The Supreme Court further banned fatwas a decade ago, though human rights monitors have reported more than 500 cases of women in those 10 years who were punished through a religious decision. Together with the not so many who have declared such decisions have been changed.

Last month, the court urged the government to describe what it had done to put an end to extrajudicial punishment established on the fatwa. It ordered the spread of information to all mosques and madrassas, or religious buildings, that sharia is illegal in Bangladesh.

The government requires making a particular legislation to dispense with such perpetrators accountable for extrajudicial execution in the name of Islam.

Sharia law or Islamic law is the holy law forming part of the Islamic culture. It is taken from the religious teachings of Islam, especially the Quran and the Hadith. In Arabic, the word sharīʿah relates to God’s divine law and is contrasted with figh, which refers to its learned explanations.

The method of its use in present-day times has been a topic of discussion among Muslim traditionalists and reformists.

The traditional hypothesis of Islamic law distinguishes four sources of sharia, the Quran, sunnah (authentic hadith), qiyas (analogical reasoning), and Irma (juridical consensus). Different legal schools, of which the most notable are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, and Jafari, developed methodologies for obtaining sharia rulings from religious origins using a system known as ijtihad.

The traditional law differentiates two principle branches of law, Ibadan (rituals) and mu’amalat (social relations), which collectively consist of a wide span of subjects. Its laws allocate actions to one of five classifications, obligatory, recommended, permitted, abominated, and forbidden.

Consequently, some areas of sharia overlay with the Western concept of law whilst others correspond more broadly to living life in accordance with God’s will.

Historically, sharia was explained by self-governing judges (muftis). Their legal opinions (fatwas) were taken into account by ruler-appointed judges who chaired over quadi’s courts, and by mazalim courts, which were controlled by the ruler’s council and administered the criminal law.

Ottoman leaders attained added control over the legal structure by declaring their own judicial system (qanun) and turning muftis into state workers. Non-Muslim (dhimmi) communities had legal autonomy, except in matters of inter-confessional conflicts, which fell under the jurisdiction of quadi’s courts.

The purpose of sharia has become a disputed issue throughout the world, and efforts to force it on non-Muslims have created inter-communal brutality in Nigeria and may have contributed to the breakup of Sudan.

Some Muslim-minority countries in Asia, such as Israel, Africa, and Europe still recognise the effectiveness of sharia-based family laws for their Muslim communities, and there are continuing disputes as to whether sharia is congenial with secular forms of government, human rights, freedom of thought, and women’s rights.

It is true that we should be allowed to follow what we want, however, it becomes improper and way behind the times when somebody is being mistreated and murdered by this process. It is old-fashioned and should no longer be an option.

It might have been given to the Muslim people through thousands of years of teachings via their holy pious text, however, presently it contradicts itself in the 21st century, and people of that society must begin by opening their sights and observing that sharia is way behind the times and that boundaries have to be built.

The United Nations predicts that almost half of Bangladeshi women endure domestic cruelty and many further frequently suffer molestation, floggings, acid attacks and even death because of the nation’s entrenched patriarchal system.

Hena might have quietly become another one of those statistics had it not been for the objection and media recognition that accompanied her death on January 31.

The doctors responsible for Hena’s first post-mortem now face prosecution for what a court declared a fraudulent post-mortem report to conceal the real cause of Hena’s passing.

Public anger sparked by that post-mortem statement induced the high court to request the exhumation of Hena’s body in February. A second post-mortem carried out at Dhaka Medical College Hospital reported Hena had died of internal bleeding and that she displayed the signs of harsh injuries.

Police are at the moment handling an inquiry and have arrested some people, including Mahbub Khan, in connection with Hena’s death.

Darbesh Khan can do nothing else but to ask for justice for his daughter’s death. He took a reporter to the place where his daughter was abducted, and the night she was sexually attacked, where he stood in quietness and took a long gulp of air, she wasn’t even old enough to be married.

Hena’s mother, Aklima, stared vacantly as she talked about her daughter’s last hours, she could barely get the words out. Her daughter was innocent.

Police were guarding Hena’s parents earlier this month because Darbesh and Aklima feared revenge for having spoken out against the imam and the village elders. They had given out the most stringent punishment for their youngest daughter, and they could put nothing past them.

The whole account puts an obnoxious taste in your mouth, and the people that did this terrible thing to this young girl should be penalised and held accountable for what wrong they have done. It will not alter the fact that this girl is dead, but hopefully, it will change things, and make this terrible law void, for good.

Jeremy Hunt has declared that from April this year the NHS trust will be constitutionally forced to verify the immigration status of patients and charge them upfront if they are not eligible for free treatment.

Nevertheless, there is one nurse that will be fighting against passport checks on her ward.

As a nurse, this makes her extremely sad, and as a career, nurses and doctors should be honoured for their personal sacrifice and commitment to an occupation that uses up unlimited hours and low rewards, as well as, the loving work they engage on an everyday basis.

Soon nurses will become figures of fear for people, without any right to good health.

No longer will it be the secure space, the non-judgemental labyrinth, with people who support you in your deepest darkest hour. It will first question your legitimacy to be there, inspect your identification, your history and your priority to health.

There is a particular brutality to a system that pits nurses against patients, that by design will support racial profiling and that will drive many migrant nurses to become border agents.

This nurse works in wards that caters for elective procedures for about 20 cardiac patients every day. The 2011 census information divulges that 17 percent of UK citizens do not hold a UK passport, which means nearly four patients every day are missing their treatment or being confronted with having to establish their acceptability to NHS debt agents.

That’s four additional patients a day who are in considerable danger of having heart attacks, who need a fresh battery for their pacemaker, or who seriously require treatment that will improve their breathing so they can stroll to the shops again. It means a lower level of life for many people, added A&E admissions, and further families destroyed by sudden and preventable mortality.

At the moment doctors are publicly declining to carry out checks and following public participation, and there are reports of a GP surgery in East London agreeing that they will at no time demand to see a passport.

In the meantime, organisations like Docs Not Cops and the Nurses Action Group at Guy’s and St Thomas’s are beginning to stand collectively against the constraints by educating migrants how to get GP services and by providing an information pack to support NHS staff in starting crusades in their own trusts.

As nurses, they can all assist. They can talk to their co-workers and make sure they know about the changes, they can lobby their administrators to vocally turn down the project and put up notices, putting the patient’s mind at rest, and they can make it clear that they will not be checking passports themselves.

There will be no doubt on the amount of bullying response they will get from the administration, nevertheless, if they help each other, they will have to listen. This isn’t the first time nurses will be standing up for the fate of the NHS. In 1983 nurses started a two-month occupation that opposed the closing down of Hayes College Hospital.

In 2004 nursery nurses in Scotland went on strike for seven weeks to end their penury incomes, and more recently, a long-running community battle preserved Lewisham A&E from closing down. For those who don’t work in the NHS, you can help your GP to ostracise passport controls, and get involved in your regional Clinical Commissioning Group and encourage them to do the same, and always decline to show your passport on demand.

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege and we must all stand together just like they did in 1983, and in 2004 with the ongoing Lewisham Hospital crusade and to make sure it carries on that way.

The way in which they are handling this is preposterous, and the healthcare system will cave in miserably because of this. Not everybody in the United Kingdom has a passport, not everyone can afford one, and not everybody has been outside the United Kingdom, so would not need a passport.

How on earth are they going to manage this if somebody comes into A&E, are they going to demand to see everyone’s passport, or will they simply challenge the people that look like they are from a different country, who speaks a different language, or looks like they might be a revolutionary?

Consequently, what if you do genuinely live in the United Kingdom, but don’t have a passport, what, you don’t get treatment?

They clearly haven’t examined this extremely well at all, and this operation is laden with a bone of contention.

This country that we call the United Kingdom is filled with numerous people from various areas, particularly London, Birmingham and Manchester where there is a huge population, and these plans that Jeremy Hunt is going ahead with in April will unquestionably bring the NHS to its heels.

Most people have no idea of the actuality on the ground, they are misguided, to say the least. Immigrants don’t have access to the NHS except if they pay National insurance. One woman who can’t be quoted never got access to free health care.

Britons do everything in an extremely moronic way.

Get rid of Jeremy Hunt fast, as the person clearly does not have enough expertise to even clean a hospital toilet.

If you believe it’s not insulting to ask for a passport from a foreigner with a British National insurance card, then everyone must be very cold hearted. One could endure being asked for their National Insurance number, there is some reasoning behind that, but to demand a nurse play border guard is totally wrong.

So in order to get sick, you have to get a passport. Let’s pray children never get sick because you can’t put in an application for a passport until you’re 16 or over.

There was a time we were open with hospitality, and even then it was an extraordinary thing.

Presently, according to the government that we are stuck with, decisions still have to be made.

It appears clear that whilst emergency care should be given at the point of need, in chronic sickness preference should be given to people whatever the case.

This nurse appears pretty extraordinary as she bolsters for all mankind. Sadly, not all of us are a sympathetic gentlefolk.

The NHS has in general been considered as one of the most successful healthcare systems in the developed world. For example, a study correlating the healthcare structures of 11 nations between 2011 and 2013 found that the NHS scored highest on quality, access, and performance.

However, by 2016 the image was becoming quite different. Good access to services and high quality of care were in jeopardy, mainly because of inadequate funding of the NHS, who were presently undergoing the largest sustained decline in NHS spending in any period since 1951.

The NHS had once been modified for inflation, and spending on the NHS had been rising by only 0.9% a year on average, well below the 3.7% growth rate in the UK health service that it has been used to in the past.

Yet even worse, once inflation that is specific to the NHS comes into account, the actual boost in funding is only 0.2% a year.

A number of doctors working in A&E departments across the country were asked to describe how their departments were managing, and they said that they were overwhelmed by underemployment, and said that it’s been like an outright war zone.

The government at the moment, (not considering regulatory organisations), are disregarding the worst hospital conditions in memory.

One doctor on a shift walked into see patients that had been waiting four and a half hours to see a doctor. This means that each patient has failed the breach objective by the time they are seen, and a hard-working staff nurse asked a doctor to take a survey on a patient she was a bit worried about.

The lady was devastatingly sick with a perforated bowel and could have quickly become fatally unwell, but she survived thanks to the observational attention of doctors and nurses, and later the wonderful surgical unit.

The London ambulance service is likewise overwhelmed, they couldn’t give a doctor a transfer ambulance for an emergency case to an 11-year-old with a sight-threatening virus for at least 70 minutes, but the objective is eight minutes, it’s a wonder the child didn’t lose an eye.

Hospitals are decaying and are unsafe on a daily basis, and there were 75 patients in a department with 18 major’s beds, thirty-five of those were medical patients who were anticipating beds, but 20 patients hadn’t, as there were no beds to see them or no team to triage them.

Concerns had been orally communicated through formal emails to the trust, along with incident reports et cetera, but nothing could be done as it can’t be done elsewhere either, and medical professionals were debating whether to resign, because they were worried that soon somebody would have died on their watch and that things were getting totally out of control. Perhaps it had already occurred and they just didn’t know about it.

Lord knows what people are thinking about this nationally, and it frightens doctors and nurses because they have no idea what they are heading for, and when a family member got admitted to the hospital, this nurse was terrified, not because it was that grave but she felt they may not be safe in the hospital.

Hospital staff are getting annoyed that things are being overlooked and swept under the rug. They are vexed that they are left to pick up the pieces and have to atone for a system that they have put their heart and souls into, but not only that, have no authority over.

It has been terrible in A&E departments, there are no beds, and there are more than 20 patients lining up in hallways at any given time. Asking a pregnant woman who is having a miscarriage about her blood loss in a queue is demeaning, never mind asking her in a packed A&E which is packed with noisy drunks.

It’s really not fair to have to practice medicine in this way, but what choice do they have?

Patients are getting poor quality of care, and that’s a fact, not fiction.

So much for calling 999 in a crisis, and then having to wait ages for the ambulance to come, and then have to wait in hallways of the A&E to unload the patients.

Even once you enter the department with said emergency, the patient will be waiting hours for any type of evaluation or treatment.

The conclusion in this degradation is solely to keep patients as safe as imaginable, but errors are being made and this is not sustainable.

This nurse was on call at night for a week at a small district general hospital, and they had to put the hospital on divert.

There were 15 ambulances waiting admission and consultants were doing their evaluations on the back of the ambulances.

A four-bedded resuscitation unit is required to make room for eight patients, but a doctors who had left his shift, came back 24-hours later to discover that some of the same patients were still in resuscitation, and being in charge of the emergency department overnight with roster breaks, had requested a divert for a few hours to enable staff to catch up, simply to be informed that the plans had changed and that the capacity problem presently had to be dealt with internally.

In the A&E department were this nurse works, there is a provision to keep up to 12 people overnight in case the wards are extremely crowded, but there were 27 sick patients all needing hospital treatment who were retained in hallways and the laundry room.

It’s normal at the moment for 20 patients to be there overnight. They are having to send patients home they would sooner accept, with limited to no access to social care.

Everyone is petrified, and everyone is expecting something shocking to happen since no matter how laboriously they work, there are simply too many holes that are opening for patients to slide through.

Stafford is where everything went down several years ago, and in hindsight, we really don’t want that happening again, but it appears the same situation is presently happening, and it’s happening on a national level, and I really hope desperately that nobody that you love or care about needs to be admitted to the hospital right now.

The government won’t accept that there is a problem since it accumulates them billions of pounds in expenditure, and another elderly person that dies is more cash in their pocket, another expecting mother that has a miscarriage is yet another shortfall they don’t have to bother about.

We have to be conscious of the reality that each person that dies in the A&E department is extra money in the government’s pocket and the more people that die, the bigger the smile on their faces.

It’s just a well-mannered way of saying feck off, you’re not esteemed here since your not on the elite list, and we want an elitist culture, and everyone else that is other than elitist is simply riffraff, and not deserving.

We are just the dregs of civilisation, the dossers. Nevertheless, they are far from mistaken because we are human beings, not animals that they can just euthanise when it suits them because we simply don’t pigeonhole into a category that they want us to.

However, they do rank us and distinguish as something else, other than human, and if we are not worth a digit to them, we are not worth anything, and far better off out of the way.

That’s why we are put into social classes, but honestly, why do we need social classes, a pecking system where the elite can lay claim to everything that they want, and do anything that they want, and tell us that it’s socially unacceptable to demonstrate against the regime.

However, it’s all a bogus effort to make you frightened and that’s precisely what most of us are, fearful of the regime, whilst they produce a society of elite theatrical circus animals, that are merely pawns that dance to their master’s tune.

There are those that do, and there are those that converse, but what we must do, is to take part and fight against the government and prevent them from telling us stories that are not accurate, to end the hypocrisy and to assert ourselves, and to resist being told what to do like animals at the zoo, we are not pets.

We must start as we mean to go on, otherwise we will just disappear, or will simply be eliminated from society completely, and we must tackle the problem in the moment! We must remain resolute and challenge, infringe the rules, diverge from the norm.

There is simply not enough staff, and 12 ambulances regularly gathering in ambulance bays is sickening, and in A&E departments patients can wait for up to eight hours, although emergency cases do get examined first, as do strokes, and a triage nurse will pull the sickest from hallways, but sometimes they are still seen in hallways, plus a consultant is assigned to the hallway to assure safety, although I’m certain that some hospitals operate on another concept.

A consultant has been staying overnight, owing to safety concerns, but that is unsustainable, and these poor doctors are burning out, and no one is worried about there being a violation any longer.

The whole system is disintegrating, and on New Year’s Eve, nurses at a hospital requested for a divert when the delay was eight and a half hours long with just 14 ambulances left on the roads in Merseyside, but this is not unusual, and the divert was dismissed, since the delay was not the highest, and every other department was in the same position.

One registrar in one of the busiest emergency departments in the country stated that in the past week it had seen the most busiest day on record with almost 200 people waiting in the department at one point, and it was a five-hour wait to be examined, and a 14-hour delay for beds.

There were people queuing to get a space in resuscitation, and it invariably becomes critical because there is an everyday lack of beds, owing to poor movement of patients backing up the emergency department.

The patients are coming to harm, and there is unquestionably mortalities resulting from the prevailing state of emergency medicine.

It appears that we condemn foreigners for all that happens in this realm. We don’t have enough jobs, let’s condemn an immigrant, or we don’t have enough social housing, let’s condemn another ethnic minority. We don’t have enough beds in our hospitals, or staff, so let’s blame a terrorist!

It’s as if we have ultimately ruled that all our problems have been created by immigrants, with the emergence of UKIP, the gossip of immigrants taking all of our jobs, of engulfing our country which is already loaded and swamping our services.

This has been heard, on doorsteps, even in other locations which do not have many newcomers in the local communities, and of course, immigration, and all other matters related to people coming to the United Kingdom from overseas are legitimate topics of discussion, but it does not mean we all have to agree with it.

Some people are working themselves into a hysteria of hate and mistrust of foreign people, frequently founded on no proof, and this will do us financial damage and make us look and sound bigoted as a country.

Ordinary settlers coming into the United Kingdom did not create countless underhanded ways of lending and re-lending pointless loans to get wealthy people even wealthier, which we now are aware led to the banking cave in, and the near decay of our financial system, but you would believe they did, the way people are piling in.

Foreign students total about £8 billion to the UK financial system, and additionally, in the current climate, we could feasibly get a referendum to freeze them all coming here.

Review of numbers from the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that if we reduce net immigration to the United Kingdom, it would cost the economy £18 billion over the first five years, and in the current political climate, we could get a majority to end all migration, even if it costs us billions, and sends us into a financial recession.

This is not all about prejudice, in spite of the fact there will be some of that. This is about numerous taxpayers expressing concerns about the concept of other people coming from elsewhere and using our resources when they have become so scarce.

It is, in some cases, about the dread of development in our communities, as people from various lifestyles move in, and it is in part the opinion of people who do not believe they have a stake in society and the political system.

However, like the suspicion of wrongdoing, it is usually not based on what is really happening, but I like that our country is made up of many cultures, and we profit from the strength of foreigners coming here and starting businesses and striving hard to give us services, but all this is getting lost at the moment in a yelling competition over migration.

That is not to say that there are no difficulties with services in areas, and some immigrant workers may well replace some UK taxpayers from some jobs, but the prevailing mood for the dispute goes far beyond a calculated estimate of what we must do, and it could cost our financial system dearly, and cost us our good name for open-mindedness.

If the law on immigration commands changing or rearranging to deter some people misusing it, then great, but we are well past the level of fairness, especially looking at what is actually happening, and people screaming the most vociferous on how much we don’t like outside people, and how we are going to teach them a lesson.

This is now turning us into a more narrow-minded nation, and this may well cause us financial impairment, and it is very wrong, and there are rules in place for the administration of hospitals to verify acceptability for treatment, so maybe, these really well-returned managers should actually do the work that they are compensated for because it’s not up to doctors and nurses to do their work for them.

Alive in London outside the Houses of Parliament demonstrators were gathering against Donald Trump being given a state visit to the United Kingdom. Yet, it appears, that there were a number of people throughout the country that had the belief that people had nothing better to do with their time, and that they should get over themselves, and that fools rush in.

It looks like he’s coming whether we disagree or not. Nevertheless, it appears that some people want to tackle the issue, even if they have to challenge the government and rally, and those objectors can stir up a commotion, but it does not indicate they will get what they want, in fact, they most probably will not.

Numerous people are stating that we should be opposing something worthy because the appearance of Donald Trump will come to pass. Whether it will be a significant visit will only be told in time. I do think it will be a rather intoxicating stay and highly ineffective.

Just how will his administration influence the United Kingdom?

His mother was born in Scotland and he’s a self-confessed Anglophile. However, will a man whose main confrontation with British politicians has been to label former Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond mad in a fight over his golf courses be great news or a tragedy for Britain?

With investigation from the UK think-tank Policy Exchange, here are four ways he’s expected to have a tremendous influence:

 

Brexit and the EU. Time was Donald Trump was blithely ignorant of the most important transformation in British politics, or at least its sobriquet. In a conversation with Michael Wolff for The Hollywood Reporter last year, Donald Trump was confused.

Michael Wolff: “And Brexit? Your position?”

Donald Trump: “Huh?”

Michael Wolff: “Brexit.”

Donald Trump: “Hmm.”

However, promptly enough, following the seismic UK vote, Trump had chosen the sobriquet as his own:

They will soon be calling me MR. BREXIT.

However, when he was President-Elect he celebrated Britain as smart for opting out of the European Union, a coalition that he sees as being on the verge of destruction. Donald Trump stated that he thought others would leave. Furthermore, he considered keeping it together is not going to be as easy as a lot of people believe.

And the reason? Look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Fundamentally a channel for Germany. That’s why he imagined the United Kingdom was so clever in getting out.

The UK Government could hugely profit from the support that the Trump administration will yield to Brexit. The new President’s view changes the former US situation in Europe. This was generally to help European political unification and to assume that Britain should be involved, not least to support to defend US State Department policy goals in Europe.

Part of the UK’s mission post-Brexit will be to show that the United Kingdom is not escaping into a less liberal road to economics and trade.

A vital part of the UK Government critique of EU strategy, even whilst it was an active member of the EU, was the EU’s deficit of interest for a more liberal international multilateral trade management and the barrier posed by the subsidised and protectionist Common Agricultural Policy approach to agriculture and its comparatively high common external tariff.

As trading associates, the bond within the United Kingdom and the United States are important.

The latest Office for National Statistics report reveals the United States is the United Kingdom’s biggest trading associate and second-largest import associate.

By exporting about £30 billion worth of goods and services to the United States each year, comparable to what we sell to Germany and much more than what is sent to China, it’s self-evident that the United States is important.

Furthermore, the initial indications, for the United Kingdom, are positive. Donald Trump’s initial post-election discussion with the UK media established much of what we were given to understand, Donald Trump appears keen to do a deal with the United Kingdom.

Questioned whether he would push forward with a trade deal with the United Kingdom that would come into force following Brexit, Donald Trump announced, certainly, quite soon.

That he’s a great fan of the United Kingdom, and that both are going to strive really arduously to get it done swiftly and done correctly, which is great for both sides. Although it might be too quick to pop the champagne stoppers. After all, this was the guy who swept to power on the back of the pledge to make America great again and whose trade policy is clearly America first.

Donald Trump is a highly prosperous guy and really convincing. He has had a huge influence over the American people, he must have, they voted for him, even though they are complaining about him now he’s got in. Maybe they never believed that he would, but then the American’s like to live the fairytale life, so now Donald Trump is going to be a legend since they made him so.

He’s going to be a trademark of their existence, whether they like it or not, and sometimes you should be cautious what you wish for because even though you may be awarded that wish, it’s not always so pleasant on the other side of the spectrum.

Donald Trump, still, might shock us all, and eventually make America and the United Kingdom great, but somehow I doubt it. He will surrender office by that time because he would have brought it to its knees.

He might be a clever entrepreneur, but he’s not a warrior, and when the going gets tough he will willingly surrender his ownership of President of the United States and hand it over to somebody who is better equipped to the do the job.

Sometimes there are just too many cooks and not enough chefs. It only takes just one person to see the evil in this world, just one person to turn it around. Not for money, not for fame, but solely because they want a better place to live in.

Here out on the streets, everything is plausible. The streets might not be tiled with gold, but you can accomplish your goals if you want to, and it’s the force and energy that transport us there. We observe people out on the streets, either working to make a living or simply seeking to rub a few pennies together to get their next hot drink.

Nevertheless, there are quite a few out there, that are out there to be noticed, not only to support themselves so that they can live, just so that they can be discovered, and there is perfection out there, and to most of us, we simply wonder past since our day is so hectic, we don’t see something great when we see it, but one person did.

This young lady was singing her heart out, her voice was her trademark, and all she desired was for people to notice her, and how good her voice was. She writes her own songs and then she harmonizes, and what a sound, you could have simply stood there for hours listening to the intensity in her voice.

Loads of people simply strolled past her, ignoring her as they had many more important things to do with their time, but there was one person standing there with his phone, listening to her, listening to her in wonder.

He walked out from where he was standing, and wandered up to this beautiful young female, praising her on her song, and how great she was, and she was such a down to earth woman, she simply wanted no more than to be noticed in what she was doing.

That man was Seal, he had been recording her and putting her voice on Facebook, which when I sat and viewed it, I was spurred by what she was doing. You don’t always see perfection out on the streets, however, when you do, it is something, it’s not anything.

Seal chattered with this young woman, regarding her music, her motivations and what she wanted to do with her future, they then both harmonized together. People crowded round to listen to them sing in harmony, indifferent, but collectively it was true poetry.

Like this young lady, Seal himself understands what it’s like to strive as a performing singer, to have a sketchy future, and to know that you have to seize the moment and capture the day when the opportunity happens and to never give up.

I am certain that one day we will be listening to this lady on the radio, and while some might never know her fight to get that far, we need to understand that with endurance everyone can do what they want in their lives.

 

Donald Trumps’s state appointment to the United Kingdom is anticipated to be presented in Parliament following senior Conservatives assembled more than 1.5 million people demanding for it to be banned. Appeal requests for the visit, which is scheduled to take place in the summertime, to be abandoned because of the risk it will upset the Queen.

 

Nonetheless, a Downing Street source has told the BBC that cutting the trip would be populist gesture and undo everything achieved by Theresa May throughout her tour to the United States last week. MPs will examine if US President Trump should be given a UK state appointment on Feb 20.

The internet address quickly broke the 100,000 signatures needed to be considered for a discussion in Parliament, with at one period more than a thousand people signing each minute. Senior Conservatives joined Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, in asking for the visit to be delayed while Mr. Trump’s contentious immigration embargo is in place.

 

Nevertheless, Downing Street sources established that Mrs. May will not be rescinding her invite to President Trump since it remains substantially in the national interest. State visits are intended for both the host, and the head of state who is being received, to honor and entrench the bonds and assigned importance amid their individual nations.

A state appointment from the current president of the United States could not perhaps happen in the best customs of the enterprise whilst a fierce and alienating policy which prejudges upon citizens of the host country is in place.

On Friday 27 January, President Trump endorsed an executive order provisionally blocking travel for immigrants from seven terror prone Muslim-majority nations.

The mandate forces a 90-day prohibition on travelers from

Syria
Iran
Sudan
Libya
Somalia
Yemen
Iraq

Also, it excludes the US refugee program for 120 days and indefinitely suspends reception of refugees from Syria.

The embargo does not apply to some visa types, and to religious minorities escaping religious oppression from those nations, for instance, Christians. Syria is the just one of these nations respectively identified in Mr. Trump’s order. The others stem from a 2015 Obama-era law cataloging nations of interest for terrorism to be banned from the US’s Visa Waiver Program.

 

Mr. Corbyn announced Mr. Trump’s state appointment should be called off until he removes the 90-day prohibition on immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen entering the United States. Is it actually appropriate to defend somebody who has used this terrible misogynistic language during the election campaign, great assaults on Muslims, and then, of course, this crazy notion of building a wall separating themselves and their adjacent neighbor?

We should make it pretty clear we are very disconcerted about it, and it would be entirely wrong for him to be coming here whilst that situation is going on. He should be confronted on this. However, it is possible there will be an urgent proposal in the House of Commons on Monday to address the travel embargo.

Demonstrators are preparing to oppose the policy outside Downing Street and across the land on Monday evening. Theresa May would be placing the Queen in an untenable situation of greeting a man who is banning British subjects solely on grounds of their faith.

Politicians have now started preparations for a visit intended to reinvigorate the transatlantic special relationship. Talks are underway regarding the president playing a round of golf on the private nine-hole course at Balmoral whilst the Queen looks on.

 

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are further set to be involved as the Royal family rolls out the red carpet for the US President and his First Lady. Mr. Trump’s team desire to formulate a photo event to rival the legendary pictures of President Ronald Reagan horse riding with the Queen at Windsor Castle when he toured in 1982.

 

Additional plans incorporate a private stint of the Churchill War Rooms from Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, and banquet at Blenheim Palace, where Sir Winston was born. If the Queen were to allow it, would make a rift in etiquette since the Queen traditionally goes on vacation to her Scottish castle in August.

The “optics” of President Trump’s appointment are very bad and there should be a joint decision to postpone the appointment. US leaders should help the United Kingdom to strive and uncover a basis for why this appointment should not go forward in the short term.

Parliament has previously argued on Mr. Trump once after he first conveyed the plan of blocking Muslims from America. He was portrayed as a buffoon, demagogue, and wazzock in the discussion a year ago following a related appeal was signed by more than half a million people.

Buckingham Palace declined to discuss it.

 

The White House has hit back after a judge briefly barred Donald Trump’s contentious immigration prohibition, initially characterizing the decision as outrageous before dropping the word from a later statement.

 

The Justice Department announced it would request for an emergency stay to honor Donald Trump’s executive order to prevent people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from accessing the United States after District Judge James Robart ordered there was a strong possibility that a legal provocation on the embargo would succeed.

 

Judge Robart declared an interim restraining order on a national footing at a hearing in Seattle and ordered against government lawyers who declared states did not have the position to question Mr. Trump’s order.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are supposed to have told airlines they are permitted to board passengers who had been banned from accessing the country, with the Justice Department not registering an action directly.

 

Gulf carrier Qatar Airways announced this morning that it would bring passengers from the seven Muslim-majority nations and all refugees who had been forbidden under the direction. In his judgment, Judge Robart announced that federal defendants and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from” enforcing the executive order.

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer issued a comment following the decision stating the government will file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. Shortly after, an updated announcement was issued that eliminated the word outrageous.

The president’s mandate is designed to defend the country and he has the legal power and duty to defend the American people. Mr. Trump’s order bans travel for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen and to exclude the US refugee program globally.

Washington and Minnesota were the first two states to prosecute over the order and the travel embargo would significantly harm residents and decrees prejudice. Judge Robart’s ruling, active immediately, puts a pause to President Trump’s undemocratic and criminal administrative mandate.

The law is a compelling thing, it has the capacity to hold everyone answerable to it, and that includes the President of the United States.

The Trump presidency has defended its operations on national security terrains, however, antagonists have labeled the mandate as undemocratic as they think it scapegoats people based on their religious convictions.

There seems to be an awful volume of proof to confirm Mr. Trump’s administrative mandate was aimed at the doctrine of Islam. Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he described the litany of harms suffered by Washington state’s universities and further examined the administration’s use of Sept. 11, 2001, assaults on the United States as a reason for the prohibition.

The Judge asked the federal government lawyer, Michelle Bennett if there had been any terrorist assaults by people from the seven counties listed in Mr. Trump’s order following 9/11. Ms. Bennet stated she did not know.

The answer is none. Trump is here contending they have to defend from these people from these nations, and there’s no support for that. For President Trump’s order to be approved, it had to be based on fact, as opposed to fantasy.

In Dubai, Tariq Laham, 32, and his wife to be Natalia had abandoned arrangements to visit the United States following their July wedding in Poland, where Natalia is from. Mr. Laham said the couple would not change their decision.

A State Department official, articulating on the situation of anonymity since the topic is under litigation, and they are acting closely with the Department of Homeland Security and their legal teams to ascertain how this affects their operations.

They will announce any developments concerning travelers to the United States as quickly as that data is accessible. The order had canceled up to 60,000 visas. That number differs to a statement from a Justice Department lawyer who during a court hearing in Virginia announced 100,000 visas had been denied.

The ruling in Washington state came at the end of a day of intense legal action throughout the nation over the immigration prohibition. In Boston, US District Judge Nathan Gorton displayed uncertainty throughout verbal discussions regarding a civil rights group’s claim that Mr. Trump’s order represented religious hatred, before refusing to lengthen the restraining order.

US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of all persons who has been denied entry to or removed from the United States. The state of Hawaii on Friday too registered an action claiming that the mandate is undemocratic and urged the court to prevent the order across the nation.

This is Trump’s first slap down as President and I believe he’s beginning to understand those checks and perspectives which are sanctified in the American constitution were put there to prevent madmen like Trump transforming America into a tyranny and stopping any one person doing as they like.

It will be really entertaining going forth to see how he dispenses with those checks and balances. Let’s pray that this might be the inauguration of numerous court actions to block him carrying out some of the more radical policies he wants to introduce.

Knowing Trump’s foolish nature, I imagine two situations, he either quits since he can’t get his own way or he gets impeached, either of those outcomes would be better than him serving a full term.

The people with white coats are needed in the White House to put this stupid lunatic in some protective custody. His odd and obscure manner indicates a complete obsessive mindset and his actions are causing the deaths of children being limited access to important operations whilst promoting hatred and destruction such as the current carnage in Quebec.

Every day this crazy narcissistic idiot desperate to remain in the headlines makes some unusual decision or some impulse, some interim executive order. He is clearly certifiably deranged and must be dismissed from office immediately before he sends America into a nuclear conflict which his advisors want.

A week on from the Trump travel embargo, the stupidity of the Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States is getting more transparent. When the White House announced the new President’s travel prohibition last weekend, it seemed to block nearly all nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen from traveling to America.

The only people permitted would be those with a green card allowing them to permanent residency in the United States, or one of five specific permits for official groups such as the United Nations. All regular visitants to the United States from one of those nations, whether on vacation, seeing friends and family, or on business, it appeared, was forbidden. Horribly hardline, but at least apparent.

As airlines fought to make sense of the order, myriads of prospective travelers have been turned away from airports across the globe since they were considered as unfit to travel. Some airlines switched their crew programs to bypass, for instance, an Iranian pilot or Somalian cabin-crew member being appointed to a New York-bound aircraft.

Forty-eight hours later, though, it turned out that the controls would hit only a tiny number of people.

Late on Sunday night, the Foreign Office explained that the prohibition involved simply to people who, in effect, failed two inspections. They carried a passport from one of the seven countries on Donald Trump’s list and were further boarding a flight from one of those seven countries to the United States.

If they are flying to the United States from any place other than one of those countries, for example, the United Kingdom, the executive order does not apply to them and they will encounter no further inspections despite their origin or their place of birth.

Some media distorted that the travel embargo was just for direct flights from those seven nations to America. It took about five minutes’ work with the OAG Pocket Flight Guide to Europe, Middle East, and Africa to establish that the grand total of flights from Tehran, Baghdad, Tripoli, et cetera to the United States was naught.

Consequently, it must refer just to travelers on connecting flights making airside transfers to America. Anybody who went through passport control between flights at Heathrow, Paris, Frankfurt, et cetera would reset the clock by going landside. They would be boarding from a service from the United Kingdom, France or Germany, preferably than one of the seven benighted nations.

Clearly, everybody in that situation would simply retreat from the transit lounge and come back in, then, however, it’s not as simple as that. Even for airside transit at Heathrow, for instance, not all nationalities are similar.

There are 57 types of passports, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and incorporating every seven designated countries, whose nationals need a visa just to switch planes at a UK airport. The single exemption is if they have an important visa from a different land, such as a United States green card, a standard American visa for business or tourism is inadequate.

Given that there’s so much red tape involved when all you want to do is waste a few of hours sipping coffee or buying goods in the transit area, don’t even ask about the difficulties of landside transit. Fortunately, there are lots of other opportunities. Sudanese people, for instance, can make their way across the border to Eritrea, get a visa on entry, and then check in at Asmara airport for a flight to Cairo, Dubai or Istanbul to a broad spectrum of US destinations. Iranians, Iraqis, Libyans and the rest can get comparable workarounds.

The Trump travel embargo may be proving as deceptive as many other presidential promises, but there are lots more countries where the restrictions are present. Even in Europe, you can be turned away from Serbia if you have a Republic of Kosovo admission mark in your passport.

Numerous nations that are largely Muslim, such as Kuwait, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, do not endorse anybody whose passport shows they have visited Israel. Israeli border workers are happy not to mark your passport, although if you are crossing by land from Jordan or Egypt then the departure stamp will give you away.

Frequent travelers to the area avoid these constraints by having two passports and then trying to remember to give the right one. However, if you happen to have been born in Israel, despite your origin, the Foreign Office advises you may not be welcome in Saudi Arabia.

India has firm requirements for foreigners of Pakistan and Bangladeshi origins as well as nationals of those nations. They endure a delay of at least seven weeks to get a visa.

Maybe Donald Trump should have thought about such hardline tactics first. His incompetent effort to look bad has proved feeble.

Following his calamitous defeat for the mission in Yemen, when he went against the military recommendations, Trump is petrified of reprisal. He could be criticized for putting the US lives in danger by his actions. Only now he has a judge to condemn if there are any attacks.

He seemingly knew it was illegal, however, he was depending on the judiciary to come forth so they can be his victims, and he will say that he tried to protect the United States but the sinful left-wingers stopped him. That they should allow him to amend the constitution or they are all going to die. By the way, do you know how many people have perished on American soil owing to terrorists from these 7 countries? None.

Here is somebody calling up about their council tax, which everybody has to do in England, or do they? Here is just one council tax worker who frankly got his just desserts.

This person decided to ring up about his council tax, and he challenges the person about what the policy is if he doesn’t want to pay his council tax. The person on the other end of the phone, we will call him MR BLUE, and the man asking the questions MR CUE, so there are no misunderstandings later on.

Mr. Blue said that Mr. Cue could set up payments by installments, however.

Mr. Cue wants to know what the choices are if he doesn’t want to pay it.

Mr. Blue is a little unsure at this duration, and Mr. Blue said that its the law and that you actually have to pay your council tax.

Then Mr. Blue stated if you have a home you have to pay council tax and that’s the law, so Mr. Cue questions what law is that?

And Mr. Blue tells him it’s: The local Government finance Act, which is an order of parliament.

Nevertheless, orders of parliament require the approval of the government to get the full control of the authority. And at that duration, Mr. Blue on the other end of the telephone was getting very disoriented and had no idea what Mr. Cue was talking about.

And that’s how we interpret the law. Though many of us don’t understand it at all, and consequently just pay their council tax like good loyal subjects.

Mr. Blue stated that everybody in the land has to pay council tax if they have a home that they either own or rent. However what Mr. Cue is stating is that if he lives in a road of say 20 neighbours, if 19 of his neighbours decided to do something, that doesn’t suggest that he has to lawfully pay that money, and the perception is that everyone else does it, therefore simply tags along and do it as well.

 

Mr. Blue, then states again that everyone is legally required to pay council tax, and Mr. Blue continued responding with “legally” when Mr. Cue stated his confusion was that he focuses on lawful, legal is what’s written by people on paper, lawful is what’s relevant at the end of the day.

Mr. Blue stated that’s what the law for the Government Finance Act brought out in 1992 to substitute the poll tax that everyone had to pay.

Mr. Cue questioned who the money goes to, and Mr. Blue stated that it goes to the council.

Mr. Cue asked if that’s a corporation or does it go to the country since the countries a council and Mr. Blue stated that it goes to the council.

Mr. Cue stated, is he right in thinking that if he doesn’t pay this council tax would that legally be a civil argument?

Mr. Blue stated that if he didn’t pay the council tax they would legally be forced to go through recovery methods, then they would have to get a summons and a liability order attached to the account, and then they would be capable of taking money from people’s wages if they were working and if they weren’t working, they would do an attachment of benefit.

 

Mr. Cue then asks that if people don’t pay they can get an attachment of earnings and an attachment from benefits.

Mr. Blue stated that they do that all the time.

Mr. Cue stated, what if he doesn’t use bank accounts and he only deals with cash in hand and doesn’t claim benefits what would be the procedure for scapegoating him since those other arrangements he speaks about sound a little dishonest, so it seems that it’s fortuitous that he doesn’t use banks.

Mr. Blue stated that they would go to his company to take an attachment of earnings.

 

Mr. Cue responded what if he’s self-employed, then they would be coming to him at the end of the day. He stated he was frustrated since if he didn’t have a bank account that they could steal money out of and he didn’t have a manager that they could tell a lie to get his earnings, what would be the method be to get his money, if they finished up in a civil debate and he was refusing to pay council tax?

Mr. Blue stated that if they couldn’t take his money by those means, they would have no choice but to go to a bailiff firm.

Mr Cue stated, how can they do that since a bailiff is a third party and without evidence of claim the bailiff doesn’t have a leg to stand on and he would have to enroll into a contract with a bailiff and that’s legal that’s not lawful, that’s legal and he would never enroll into a contract with a bailiff.

Mr. Blue stated that he wouldn’t have to enroll into a contract with a bailiff, they are committed under the local government to obtain the account for council tax.

Mr. Blue stated that he’s had a couple of run-ins with bailiffs and what occurred originally, the police were summoned, so his first interests were from difficulties in the past, and he questioned why the police had been summoned to assist a civil debate and the police responded that there may well be a violation of the peace.

He stated there’s no violation of the peace, officer.

He stated, these are the encounters he’s had and as far as he is concerned, he’s been confronted with bailiffs at his door demanding that he owes money. He stated that before he gives this money he wants proof of claim which, he said that they’ve tried waving a warrant about in front of the police which wasn’t endorsed and set in print by a magistrate, and they were saying to the police that they could come into my home, yet when that police rang their police sergeant he stated that the warrant wasn’t authentic and that they did need proof of claim and the bailiffs got sent on their way.

Hence that said, my thought now is, if I go down the identical path and don’t pay my council tax with other means, that’s a civil debt and when the bailiffs come if they haven’t got proof of claim, then I don’t owe them any money.

Mr. Blue responded that they would send them the proof that the money was owing.

Mr. Cue stated, but you’re a private company and the council is primarily going to another company stating he owes us money.

 

For him to owe anybody money I have to enter into a contract, and I haven’t entered into a contract to do with council tax, therefore, I’m not responsible for it.

Mr. Blue stated that you don’t have to enter into a contract. Mr. Cue stated that you do since that’s what a contract is and that the other man
Mr. Blue is addressing legal and he’s speaking lawful and this is where he’s getting confused and he doesn’t know what’s going on.

He questioned if he could clarify something else, that he had been informed that bailiffs can order admission into your home over council tax but that’s unlikely since it’s a civil debt, and no bailiff has got the ability to come into anyone’s house.

If somebody opens the door and the bailiff gets his foot in the door and puts them in a situation where there would be a violation of the peace, he would personally launch the bailiff out the door since they’re in his home, however, you have informed me that these bailiffs would be able to win admission over council tax and he knows they couldn’t since you can’t force it over a civil debt, you can only force over criminal, this is a civil debt so how can bailiffs have the grounds to come in?

Mr. Blue said that the best thing is to be sensible and pay the council tax, and Mr. Cue is stating he doesn’t want to pay his council tax and he knows that it’s a civil matter, so what he’s asking Mr. Blue is, what is the course of action, and you’re telling me that you’ll get a warrant and I’m telling you that Warrant will be void and he won’t let the bailiffs near his home.

 

Each warrant has to be approved and issued by a magistrate, that’s the law of the land, everybody knows that even the regional police since even the local constabulary are defending people against bailiffs when they’ve had difficulties like this.

Mr. Blue recommended that he write into the council and Mr. Cue stated he doesn’t have to write into anyone since he’s not the one demanding something, this is a private company demanding that he owes them money.

This is a little like the television license people and you don’t have to pay your license but they tell you that’s a law. Mr. Blue stated you have to pay your TV licence, Mr. Cue replied no you don’t, that’s a private company, if you watch live TV you have to pay TV licence because that’s the element of the thing, however, he doesn’t watch live TV so, he doesn’t have to pay for a licence, and he continued, to be fair the BBC, I’ve got my own feelings about live TV, but that’s not up to me to be addressing that with you since clearly you’re there telling me about council tax.

Mr. Blue stated you pay the BBC to view TV, Mr. Cue stated you pay BBC and the BBC aid pedophilia, they’re a private company. He said it’s like him establishing a corporation and then posting everybody a letter in the land, declaring bladdy bladdy bladdy blah.

I don’t want the service and that’s what I tell the TV man when he comes to my door, when it comes to a private company, I don’t want your service, therefore it’s the same kind of thing, it’s a civil matter, the police can’t get involved except if there’s a violation of the peace.

There’s not going to be any violation of the peace since he’s a lawful man, therefore he’s very bewildered and clearly, your my local council, my local authority and I genuinely want guidance and I just want to know what you’re going to do since like I stated I’m a lawful man.

Mr. Blue stated that he had just discussed the methods that they go through, and that he didn’t know what else to tell him.

Mr. Cue stated but it’s a deception to inform me that you can win admission to my home when you couldn’t and it’s a civil debt.

Again Mr. Blue told him to simply pay his council tax, however, Mr. Cue stated he’s not giving him an option, you’re telling me I have to pay council tax and I’m telling you I don’t.

Mr. Blue stated that they have to pay for the maintenance of the area. Mr. Cue announced that there are five separate areas in this land, and what they’re doing with council tax, they utilize the surplus council tax and discursively invest into arms companies, so it isn’t usually used for the maintenance, the bins go out every two weeks, there are craters in the paths, the NHS is falling apart so people can privatize it, so, he don’t know how you can tell me that any local council tax is used for infrastructure since all the infrastructure is falling apart.

They’ve not even got benefits for people on welfare.

Mr. Blue stated that if he’s got concerns about that, he recommended that he go see his local counselor about it since that’s what its there for.

 

Mr. Cue said he’s decided to go in and see his district councillor because he will be talking about Magna Carta Article 61 and its citation in 2001 by the Barons committee, that’s very significant, that’s primarily telling you that all legislation is invalid and the courts have no authority anymore, and that’s been out since 2001 and he just wants to know where the council stand on all this?

 

Since he’s actually signed up for that and signed an Oath of Allegiance to the Baron 6 months ago and as far as he knows, he’s void from all legislation, therefore how does the council stand in relation to Article 61 Magna Carta?

Mr. Blue stated he didn’t know anything about that.

Mr. Cue stated Magna Carta Article 61 is a really serious thing. The Baron requested the Queen in 2001 and they required explanations as to why Britain was entered into the EU.

The Queen never gave the Baron’s address, therefore the country is in a position of lawful revolt, therefore he’s really questioning where the council stood with this.

Mr. Blue stated he couldn’t affirm about if the country was in a position of lawful resistance and Mr. Cue stated that he was telling him that the EU was the brainchild of the Nazis and since they were losing the war, they said we will get through it with politics, and that’s in black and white.

He stated were a sovereign nation and we shouldn’t even have endorsed into the EU, should we? We’ve got a sovereign.

Mr. Blue replied, well Mr. Heath done that.

Mr. Cue announced, well that’s what I mean, it’s treason, this is the influence of Article 61 Magna Carta. Mr. Blue stated he knew nothing about Magna Carta.

So, Mr. Cue said no fine or bill should be taxed upon a Judge (that was the 1689 bill of right, therefore how can a Judge possibly intervene in a civil matter which they won’t that is why a Judge never approves the warrant, that’s why when these stupid bailiffs come, but at this point, Mr. Blue recommends that he writes a letter, therefore Mr. Cue announced, should he write a letter informing them that he’s not going to pay council tax, then he can give his reasons why he won’t pay the council tax and hopefully he will get a letter back from the council.

Mr. Blue replies that if he writes to the council then the council’s solicitors can deal with it.

Mr. Blue said then the council’s solicitors can address his concerns and then respond.

Mr. Cue stated that we exist in the times of deception and untruth.

He said that he’s sent his Oath of Allegiance to the Baron and it primarily presently states that his job as an Englishman is to shame the regime and to not pay any illegal taxes and he’s got that in black and white.

He stated that he’s got his proof that he sent to the Baron and the Baron is a lot powerful than the council, therefore, my allegiance is with the Baron.

Mr. Blue questions who the Baron is, and Mr. Cue said that he can’t actually recollect his name, that he corresponded with three and the first two Barons didn’t respond to him, so he had to go online and what it was, you had to write to certain Barons that petitioned the Queen, but he believed that you could write to any Baron to Pledge your Allegiance, and it’s really complex but when you get into it, its very refreshing but essentially it’s to protect our nation and to protect our liberty, since were all sovereign at the end of the day, and were all being dictated to by Nazis, by paedophiles by charlatans by Zionists and it’s not on, and he wants his nation back to how it used to be, and it’s a travesty the way things are.

The way to do it is to quit paying your council tax since that’s the only way we can upset the regime in a lawful way since he has to remain lawful, he can’t do anything that’s unlawful, he can’t create harm or distress.

Acts, statutes and regulation legal frameworks are not Laws in themselves, there is not a law in this land that says any man or woman has to pay council tax, so if there is anybody out there who knows otherwise, please supply your evidence if I’m mistaken. Acts, Statutory legislation, and regulations can only be given the authority of law upon the approval of the governed.

Statutory instruments are utilized to create a revenue stream for the charge of liability if the person (title) is represented by the human (man or woman) therefore giving joinder by signature to the title and address the paperwork is addressed too, this is how legal consent is obtained.

A company (local tax office) cannot contract with a human as the status is considered unequal and the contract is, therefore, void in Law.

This is an excellent illustration of the law of the sea being forced on dry land, nothing more, nothing less. If there is no contract then there cannot be a liability to pay as no contract has been breached, no loss has been documented or verified and any company cannot lawfully defraud money from a human (only the title that is represented by a man or woman ie… (MR JOE BLOGS in black capital letters) and if does so can be contested in a court of law under full commercial liability and if a judge attempts to deceive by attempting to obtain joinder in court without this evidence they too can be forced to a court of law under perjury if they have not sworn an oath to her majesty The Queen II as the magistrate would not be acting under common law jurisdiction and therefore has no recourse in a court of law.

One of the more significant areas to where the join takes place is when you voluntarily send your eligibility to vote using their paperwork with your title printed onto it, really dishonest. Furthermore, if the council tax is lawful then where are your oaths of office and seals of office to issue summonses? Plus, when was it ever approved by the Government?

I intimate the setting of commercial Charges on all public slaves under punishment of perjury for telling fibs. The taxpayer does not pay for that, they do, reflect it right back at them and see how they appreciate being made insolvent and losing their own homes and property.

The Council tax is legal by consent only but never Lawful and there is a difference and they know it. We should never let the powers that be to defeat the Law of England we are not owned by Rome. Magna Carta is alive and well.

Cestui Que Vie Trusts were set up by Vatican beginning in 1300’s however, Magna Carta predates that effort at treason and tyranny upon the Free men and women of England. We are not vessels and chattel we are Sovereign creatures, reclaim your power and be free.

Under the common law, we do not pay any tax without consent, it is a donation. Challenge your rights peoples and quit funding corruption.

The Supreme Court is anchored to govern on whether disabled passengers are rightfully allowed to have preference use of wheelchair areas on buses. The problem was precipitated by wheelchair user Doug Paulley who tried to embark a bus but was left at a stop because a lady with a sleeping child in a pushchair declined to move out of the selected region.

The bus, run by FirstGroup, had a symbol that stated: “Please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user”, however, the female challenged the buggy would not collapse and declined to move when directed by the bus operator.

FirstGroup has a strategy of requesting but not requiring non-disabled patrons to leave the area if required by a wheelchair user. A judge at Leeds Crown Court decreed their policy broke the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments and granted Mr. Paulley £5,000.

I am wondering if this could actually be made an Original Precedent, whereby the situation is unlike any other, and has never been in litigation, and could then be made into law. There should be specific laws and statutes when it comes to wheelchair users, while some people are in the opinion that just because you’re in a wheelchair you should have no individual freedoms.

It’s crazy the think that simply since one is in a wheelchair, he should not have any rights like somebody that is capable of walking. I admit that some people can be a little odd at times, however, they are not dumb enough to not understand that if one is in a wheelchair, or supporting themselves with a walking cane, that they do not require a space on the bus.

Intellectually, are people that ignorant, or do I have to really break it down for them? It’s not a jail sentence to have to stand on the bus or put your pram down for somebody less capable, as long as there is an extra empty place on the bus for the mother to sit down with her infant.

My mother is an amputee and lost her leg last year. She is a 79-year-old woman who feels the chill when she is out in her wheelchair with my son, who takes care of her. They utilize the bus service regularly since my son does not drive, therefore, bus transportation is a fundamental way of life for them both to get out and about.

Nobody comprehends what goes on in the world of another person, or how much they endure as a result of losing a limb, or being crippled and in a wheelchair for a long range of many things. People go about their daily life, not even appreciating what is going on with people in society, they simply believe that because it’s not befalling them, it’s not happening at all.

Granted, it’s a genuine burden to have to get your baby out of its buggy and close it down for somebody in a wheelchair. I understand the ambivalence, I was previously a parent to youthful kids in buggies, and in those days, there were no handicapped places on the bus, or areas where you could put your buggy, you had no option but to collapse the buggy and put it down.

We all exist in a society where we take so much for granted, God forbid we should have another war, nobody would have the foggiest what to do. These days, most kids don’t even know how to make a meal since it’s all so simple, you just pop it in the microwave, and hey presto it’s prepared for you – how difficult was that?

Well then, how difficult is it for somebody to get up from their seat, and donate it to somebody who is in a wheelchair, actually, not that troublesome at all. However, we have grown slothful over the years, and its simply such a burden to get up from one’s seat because there is somebody less able, and in your head, you’re telling yourself, it’s all right, they are sitting down, they can wait for the following bus.

However, the next bus comes along, and they can’t get on that either, and all the while they are freezing cold, and you’re on a nice toasty bus since you were too idle to put the pram down and assemble your baby on your legs.

Nevertheless, the decision was overthrown by the appeal court who declared the policy did not strike an equilibrium within the requirements of wheelchair users and other travelers who might be vulnerable.

It could further point to an escalation in disputes and delayed journeys.
Mr. Paulley brought the matter to the Supreme Court, who will make a judgment on Wednesday. We require and solicit a fair decision on what bus companies have to do to make it possible that wheelchair users will be able to travel.

We further must change in society so that people with pushchairs understand they have to move out of these spaces for wheelchairs so that situations become less of a crunch point and confrontational. FirstGroup stated there was no criminal distinction fronting Mr. Paulley.

He claimed travelers expected to move out of selected areas, or even removed, was not a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act.

It is hoped the Supreme Court ruling will bring transparency for all bus users. Companies designated available places on buses following a supported campaign by disabled people. Now, they are often a lifeline into work and society.

Most people don’t understand just how hard it is for disabled people to get about, to get to the stores, or to visit friends, and it would be nice to see transport companies looking for ways to make it accessible for all of their patrons to use their services.

The court stated the company should examine additional measures to urge non-wheelchair users to move, without making it a statutory obligation to move them. It ordered that FirstGroup’s method of asking a driver to just ask a non-wheelchair user to leave the area without taking any additional measures was unjustified.

Nevertheless, the decision fell short of making it a statutory obligation for bus companies to force non-wheelchair travelers to move from the area. Embracing the decision, the company announced bus drivers would not have to remove customers from buses, which it stated was a key issue for them.

The firm announced it was pleased the Supreme Court decided it did not discriminate against Mr. Paulley. This is a significant milestone. There should be clarity, good practice and the powers of transport providers to ensure this decision becomes a reality.

The decision falls short of finding that those bus companies can eliminate non-wheelchair users from the bus, however, makes it plain they must do more than just demand they depart from the wheelchair area.

Where a driver decides a refusal to remove is extreme, he or she should examine some additional measures to coerce the non-wheelchair user to leave the area.

These might involve re-wording the solicitation as a requirement, or even a denial to drive on for numerous minutes with a view to coercing or shaming the resistant non-wheelchair user to move. This puts a lot of burden on the driver.

There are further important implications for all service providers with wheelchair areas or amenities, supermarket car parks, disabled toilets on trains etc. Businesses will have to make certain their policies go far enough to bypass substantial disadvantage to wheelchair users, and that workers are correctly equipped to implement them.

It’s been astonishing the volume of help Mr. Paulley has had from disabled people, companies, lawyers, family, allies. This is positively going to make a significant difference to disabled people’s travel. However, the problem would invariably require a matter of judgment from drivers.

There’s always got to be some judgment and there will always be some rare situations where somebody can’t be required to leave the area.
However, what this ruling indicates is the driver has to make their own judgment as to if the person is being biased in declining to leave, and if they are, he or she has to tell them that they are expected to move, and if needed, decline to drive the bus until they move.

Therefore, that appears quite clear. Nevertheless, Mr. Paulley’s lawyer told that the decision had fallen short. The decision should have gone further, as there’s no power as things currently stand to force somebody off a bus. Therefore, it goes as far as that, but not that far yet.

Mr. Paulley won an initial lawsuit on FirstGroup in 2013, after he claimed its method of requesting, not requiring able-bodied travelers to move was unlawful disability discrimination. Nevertheless, FirstGroup triumphantly appealed to the Court of Appeal in 2014, following which Mr. Paulley took his petition to the Supreme Court.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which helped Mr. Paulley at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, described the latest ruling in the case as a victory for disabled people’s rights. The whole purpose of the argument was to attempt to get more transparency on how far bus drivers are meant to go in terms of asking people to move out of the area. It is not certain if this decision has given that transparency.

It requires some kind of transparency. Mr. Paulley has done an incredible task of drawing this problem to light and to the mainstream media’s consideration, but at the end of it, there’s no recognition.

It’s sort of back to square one.

Assuming the woman on the bus was fit, strong and well, this parent is thoroughly disagreeable, she should have packed the pushchair up and carried her child. Oh, the disabled can’t actually pack up their wheelchairs.

Readers, please don’t start moaning at me about the possible prejudice upon the mother, it’s pure etiquette, supporting those out who require more help than you. Furthermore, also those with children have the preference of seats and you’d believe if the bus was jammed, somebody would give up their chair so she could take a seat.

The debate that somebody was there first, so they shouldn’t have to pack up their pushchair decreases the reason of right that has effectively mashed up our culture.

It should also be noted that nothing in the decision puts any burden on travelers to abide by the demands or terms by bus drivers or disabled passengers to move or get off the bus. All it means is that bus drivers will have to make two endeavors at urging somebody to give up a spot rather than one endeavor.

The Supreme Court makes the case that bus companies cannot be expected to employ force by putting existing patrons off the bus if they decline to give way to a wheelchair. It further makes the case that the police will not be interested, as a non-compliant traveler is not performing any crime.

It is, of course, subject to bus companies to sell tickets on terms that ask you not to occupy the wheelchair bay when it is needed by a wheelchair user, much as their regular terms probably eliminate your freedom to travel on the outside of the bus, or in the engine bay, and it appears like they may well be asked to do so.

I live in the outskirts outside of London, and here in the outskirts people are really hesitant to move for a wheelchair user, and frequently the bus driver will not let my mother on the bus since there are no places, however, my son has stated that there have been places, but the person in the disabled bay does not want to leave, therefore, the bus driver just won’t let my mother on – now I would call that prejudice.

London is a huge place, and there are numerous people racing about here and there, not giving another thought to another person. I am also a wheelchair user, and I embarked on a bus in London with my son traveling to Enfield.

We got approximately 5 stops down the road, and some unfortunate girl on the bus who was coming home from school had a seizure on the bus. The paramedics were summoned for the young girl, and the bus driver asked if we wanted to board the bus behind, so we got off.

It was crowded since everyone was getting off the bus that we had been on, therefore we didn’t believe we would get on the bus behind us. As the doors cracked open, there was a woman on the bus with a baby in a buggy, so I said to my son, we would have to wait for the following one. The woman put her hand up and stated that it was not a problem, that she would get off the bus and wait for the following one.

My son was completely astonished, there are some genuine people out there that will give up their seat for somebody else in a wheelchair, it’s really a matter of being affable to your fellow bystander. If a mother with a pushchair could have gathered up a buggy and moved to make room for a wheelchair, then she should be compelled to do so. It’s simply good manners.

On the other hand, if the bus was so crowded that she could not have departed the area without getting off the bus, why should she, as a passenger who has paid for her fair, should she be forced to leave? She may have been on the way to catch a train or go to an urgent appointment too.

Lots of able-bodied people are denied admission on buses because they are full and may miss a train as a result. But then clearly the general practice should be to leave lots of time for your journey?

Donald Trump finds himself at odds with the CIA over the Russia hack story, and people are freaking out over it. However, is Donald wrong not to have confidence in the CIA, well the accounts are spotty, to say the least?

The CIA are alleging that the DNC hack did so much harm to the Hillary Clinton campaign from individuals with links to the Russian government. Of course, Donald Trump has stated that he doesn’t accept the report, which has led to a number of wild allegations that its unreasonable for the president-elect to question the reliability of the CIA.

The principal contention coming from intellectuals and government leaders is that the president has to believe the intelligence that comes from the CIA. Plus the reality that our current president-elect doesn’t trust the intelligence and that it’s dangerous for America.

This is unusual and ridiculous for a president-elect to state. Number one arguing what the CIA are telling to their principal customer, the president-elect. However, is it so unreasonable to question the reliability of the CIA?

It’s worth recognising that the CIA is a secret society, virtually unaccountable to the American people, that has tortured people illegally, has spent decades threatening governments throughout the globe, all the whilst misleading the American people whilst spying on their own Congress.

Like that moment in 2011 when John Brennan a long time CIA operative who now operates the agency, responded to a question about CIA drone strikes. Almost for the past year, there hasn’t been a single collateral death.

Well, that’s flat out crazy. Just a few months previous, the CIA drone strike eliminated 50 people in Pakistan. The strike reportedly hit a tribal gathering of dignitaries that were there to determine a mining debate.

However, possibly the most shameless deceptions the CIA has used in the past few years have been linked to the agency’s practice of torture. The CIA essentially lied each single step of the way. Most of this was revealed when the Senate eventually published its torture report back in 2014.

The basic, most notable claim was on the successfulness of the intelligence gained during torture. For years, the CIA claimed that torture or ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ as they like to call it, led to strong, actionable information that prevented terrorist activity.

This claim turned out to be untrue. The story proved, that, in fact, torture produced no valuable information.

They were further deceiving the people on the sort of torture they were doing. For ages, it was thought that the extremely harsh method was waterboarding.

For those that don’t know what waterboarding is. Waterboarding is a method of water cruelty in which water is discharged over a piece of fabric enveloping the face and respiratory passages of an immobilised captive, causing the person to endure the feeling of suffocating.

However, it turns out they were further doing stuff like forced rectal feeding, standing on injured limbs, and threatening to rape the detainee’s mother. However, it doesn’t end there.

Whilst the Senate was preparing the torture report, the CIA was actually trailing on the Senate. Of course, at first, the CIA stated that the CIA was in no way spying on the SSCI or the Senate.

Before declaring that they did it and then atoning for it. I suppose it’s never too late now to say sorry.

So, the CIA first began torturing people in secret. Then they acknowledged they were, but they lied about the successfulness of that torture.

They further lied about the sort of torture they were doing. Furthermore, then they spied on the people who were investigating them for it.

Plus, this is only from the past 15 years ago or so. However, the CIA has been misleading to the American people for decades.

To choose just one instance out of several, the once director of the CIA, Richard Helms was convicted of misleading Congress on the agency’s part in the 1973 military overthrow in Chile, which overthrew the democratically elected President Salvador Allende and established the lengthy dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

Then there was the incident in 1982 when Congress established a statute that prevented the Reagan administration from toppling the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Notwithstanding the reality that Congress, the true image of the American people, directed the government not to defeat the Sandinistas, the CIA, sustained clandestine actions upon them for years.

The entire situation blew up in the Iran-contra embarrassment of 1986. Therefore, it does appear possible that some parts of the Russian state were connected in DNC hacks, though we’ve observed rather little in the way of real, solid proof.

Although, we unquestionably shouldn’t be taking the CIA’s statement at face value, since if the CIA wore pants, those pants would be on fire.