A heart attack sufferer passed away following cost cutting measures that prevented the nearest paramedics being sent to assist.

Instead, a further ambulance was dispatched from 12 miles away, however, by the time it arrived the patient was dead.

The misfortune occurred following health bosses deciding to axe an 85p an hour payment for paramedics to answer calls whilst on breaks.

It is not transparent if the man could have been saved by a neighbouring crew. Nevertheless, a whistleblower declared the policy, proposed in January, was putting patients’ lives in unnecessary danger.

It was alleged that ambulance personnel had communicated to the persons in charge that they want to be able to respond at any time a call comes in but had been instructed they are unquestionably not to, and they should not be accessible.

Yorkshire Ambulance Trust reportedly received the 999 call to a caravan park, where a man was having a heart attack at 11.17pm on April 6.

The episode was judged to be top priority Category A purporting life was in danger and the target response time was eight minutes.

It is conjectured that paramedics just four miles away were on a break and had been briefly taken off the road. Paramedics were sent from 12 miles away, which took 18 minutes to arrive.

Ambulance managers were blasted for abandoning the add-on payments.

Each member of personnel has been made unavailable to respond during a meal break, to save themselves 85p an hour, still the ambulance service stated they needed to save finances, however, it’s shocking what’s going on.

The instance comes as ambulance services around Britain are sensing the struggle.

In a separate January case, coroner John Gittins called for action following a pensioner who died waiting for an ambulance whilst a number of crews in the area took undisturbable rest breaks.

Joyce Pring, 63, made four increasingly frenzied calls over 50 minutes following her husband Fred, 74, fell unwell with chest pains at their house near Mold, Flintshire.

Earlier this month paramedics in the West Midlands were driving up to 300 miles on 12 hour shifts and feared they could fall asleep at the wheel, condemning NHS reductions.

There have been a number of cutbacks, causing the ambulance service to be on a sluggish schedule, and the system is horrifying. It is shocking that people who are dangerously sick have to wait such a long time before the paramedics even turn up to assist them. This should ring a few bells with people, and it is incredible what is going on.

Our ambulance service should be a functioning service, and it should not be made convoluted when it comes to peoples lives. It’s not a competing game that we can entertain ourselves with peoples lives. We are all human beings, and when something goes wrong with that human being, at that point, the paramedics should be there in a suitable response time.

I comprehend that people have a right to have a meal break when occupying a post, nevertheless, in a few cases when people are dangerously unwell, and on the brink of dying, at that point, the response time should be instantaneous.

Does this as well indicate that the Fire Service will not have a response time when having to be present at a fire because it’s their meal break? “Hold on there, I can’t attend that burning building because I’m chewing on my lunch, and I’ve been told not to be present at that fire on account of, it will save finances.”

Does this signify that a human life is less significant, and that it’s more significant to save a measly 85p an hour and does this mean that a human life is not deserving of anything at all anymore except if it’s slaving for our government like a pack horse, and that when we are not sustainable any longer, they can merely treat us like swine on the homestead, though presently I believe that swine probably get treated more suitably.

Is it acceptable for people to be managed like this for the reason that the establishment does not think that human life is sustainable and is this a practice that we will have to endure time and time again?

It is undeniable that we will put up with this crap, even though it will not come in the absence of critique, but that is all that it will be. People will scrutinize the things that they accept are off balance, but it will merely be covered up, and many of us will simply conform for the reason that we are developing into subservience by way of significant conditioning.

At one time human life was at all times a priority, and it was encompassed with significance. That pull of anthropological significance is no more, and statistics are divulging that more and more people are being permitted to wither, when it should be paramount that the human species should be sustainable.

Tens of thousands of ailing individuals with terminal failing health are being placed on a death pathway to help end their lives each year, and doctors warned that hospitals may be practicing the contestable stratagem to decrease strain on hospital resources.

It grants medical personnel to hold back fluid and medication in a patient’s concluding days, and they are arguing that it’s the kindest way of letting them slip away, however, natural deaths are usually freer of pain and suffering.

Knowledgeable approval is not invariably being asked for by doctors, and they are declining to ask patients about their wishes while they are still in control of their abilities to think for themselves. This has led to an expansion of patients carrying cards informing doctors that they do not want to be put on the pathway in the final few days of their lives.

Improper use of the pathway, has been executed in up to 29 percent of hospitals. And this is all that it is, an execution style, and crazed method and gateway to depopulate the human race.

If one wants to exercise the method of euthanasia then that is that persons free choice, nevertheless, we should be granted the decision to choose if that is the correct path we would choose to take when terminally sick, still, that is our choice and no one else, and one should be permitted to determine where and when that should be, it should not be at the discretion of some other person, and who is a total outsider.

There is no accurate way of diagnosing approaching death. It is fundamentally a foresight, and another person should not be granted the decision on whether another human being should live or die on account of it would be exceedingly agreeable on their resources. We can dress it up as much as we want, nevertheless, it still comes down to the reality that it is murder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letting homeless people sleep on the streets has never made sense morally.

As well, as the frequent severe social, psychological and physical toll that homelessness has on people, a range of monetary costs embrace failed tenancies, health and substance abuse difficulties and an extended association with A&E departments.

Entanglement with the police and criminal justice system, as desolate people are usually in more danger of coming into association with the criminal justice system and being prey to crime. As well as, continued unemployment and costs of welfare benefits and the financial inactivity.

Expenditure in response to homelessness is located across a span of government budgets. It can embrace, for instance, the costs of furnishing hostels and other temporary accommodation, with differing measures of assistance.

Maintenance to assist people to live without support and maintain tenancies in their own homes, and physical and mental health care assistances and substance misuse help.

A National Audit Office report in 2005 evaluated that the country spends about £1 billion a year to prevent and deal with homelessness. This embraces central and local government spending on administration, accommodation and assistance to desolate people, but disbars indirect expenses to government, arising from health or benefits.

A 2009 CLG reports on the economic benefits of the Supporting People (SP) programme looked at the cost effectiveness of spending on accommodation related support services for a range of client groups, including homeless people. This estimated that the net financial benefits from the SP programme are £3.41 billion per annum opposed to an overall investment of £1.61 billion. The associated report exhibits net benefits by cost classification, embracing accommodation, health and social services, crime costs, etc.

Approximated cumulative yearly costs of maintaining single homeless people in almost 13,000 units of temporary accommodations was about £107 million. Supplying SP assistances gave an approximated pecuniary benefit of £97 million each year.

The estimated total yearly cost of maintaining single homeless people in around 26,000 units of permanent accommodation was about £130 million. Providing SP helps gave a predicted economic benefit of £31 million each year.

In 2008, Crisis issued reports on the costs of providing private rented accommodation schemes for homeless people.

Would it not make better fairness to house impoverished people that are living on the streets, and would it not cost the government not as much funds to achieve this?

Nevertheless, I say this casually, as there appear to be more and more people that will end up on the streets with their families since Iain Duncan Smith’s demented notion that bedroom tax would be a good thing to institute, making people give up their dwellings on account of, that evidently they live in homes that are considerably too large for them, for smaller dwellings, that appear to be not abundant.

If one establishes a statute that claims that people are residing in properties that are too big for them, would it not make sense to make certain that there is suitable accommodation for them first? After all, you can’t fit a square peg into a round hole, and if you wish to fit a square peg into a round hole, then one would have to remodel it to make it fit, and the likewise for housing.

I frequently question why we in fact have to have Mr Joe Public on the streets because I’ve never looked upon them any differently from anyone else. We all have difficulties, some more than others, but that does not mean that we should be treated adversely from one another, we should all be qualified to have a roof over our heads.

So why should the homeless not have the right to housing as well? Plus why does the government not operate stable housing programmes for the forsaken?

When I was a kid I used to see a number of beggars on the streets, my parents would term them as ‘down and outs’, now they are termed a classification of things. However, now that I’m a grown-up, I have discovered over the years that the desolate are homeless for a variety of reasons, parents booting them out for different reasons, break up of marriages etc.

Numerous homeless out on the streets do not wish to be there, they would by choice be in the solace of their own homes for many of them have suffered the loss and the help of their own families, and have no one to turn to, so is it not our responsibility to make sure that they have at least the assistance of the community and the government?

Councils now consider whether you are purposely homeless, well nearly all people would not make themselves willfully homeless. It is stated that there is a housing deficit in the United Kingdom, and that there is just not adequate housing to go around everyone.

However, there are more than 11m homes that lie vacant all over Europe, ample to house all of the continent’s homeless twice over, according to figures assembled by the Guardian from across the EU.

In Spain, more than 3.4m homes lie empty. In excess of 2m homes are barren in each of France and Italy, 1.8m in Germany and more than 700,000 in the UK.

There are as well a huge amount of empty homes in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and some other countries, according to acquired facts collated by the Guardian.

Numerous homes are in huge holiday retreats erected in the feverish housing rush in the run up to the 2007-08 economic crisis, and have never been occupied.

On top of the vacant 11m dwellings, many of which were acquired as investments by people who never proposed living in them. Hundreds of thousands of half constructed dwellings have been bulldozed in an endeavor to shingle up the prices of existing properties.

Housing campaigners stated that there is an unbelievable amount of dwellings lying vacant even though millions of underprivileged people are screaming out for shelter which is a shocking waste.

The data on this is shocking in view of the incredible number of houses that are going to waste. It’s an extensive scale.

Houses are erected for people to reside in, if they’re not being lived in then something has gone dangerously wrong. Policymakers gravely need to tackle the matter of moneyed purchasers using homes as an investment means, rather than habitation.

There are 11m vacant dwellings, which might not be in the correct loci, however, there is sufficient vacant habitation to meet the problem of homelessness. There are 4.1 million homeless across Europe, according to the European Union.

It’s a disgrace that so many dwellings have been permitted to lie unfilled, and it would simply require fifty percent of them to stop homelessness.

Governments should do as much as imaginable to put vacant dwellings to suitable usefulness, and stop the housing deficit. Homelessness is getting worse across the whole of the European Union. The best way to address it is to put vacant dwellings on the map once more.

Numerous vacant dwellings have sunk into dilapidation on account of, those in deprived districts need jobs, however, empty homes could be simply brought back to the map.

Examinations disclosed that a third of the houses on the most costly stretch of London’s Billionaires Row, are vacant, embracing some that have sunk into dilapidation after standing void for a quarter of a century.

There is growing proof of this practice in wealthy sections of London, and other stretches of the country, and probably all over Europe.

Nearly all of Europe’s unoccupied dwellings are in Spain, which saw the largest construction growth in the mid 2000s fed mainly by Britons and Germans purchasing homes in the sun. The latest Spanish statistics, issued, showed that more than 3.4m homes, 14% of all holdings were empty. The amount of vacant dwellings has arisen by more than 10% in the past decade.

In a few resorts more than a third of homes were however vacant five years after the peak of the economic emergency.

In the United Kingdom, more than 700,000 homes are vacant, according to local official data assembled by the Empty Homes Campaign.

Homes shouldn’t stand empty and the government needs to come up with a more meaningful and bolder concept to tackle the absence of accessible, affordable dwellings.

 

 

Police are hunting thugs who attacked a cat who resembles Adolf Hitler, and left him for dead in a trash box. Seven year old tomcat Baz was discovered clinging to life in the bin days later by a nearby resident.

Vets think the battered moggie was kicked by the yobs who dumped him. Baz lost one eye as a consequence of the assault and heartbroken owner Kirsty Sparrow spent £600 on vet’s bills to save him.

The state of him was horrifying, his eye was enlarged, it was like a marble, and the vet said he would lose the eye. The vet stated that it was unlikely he was hit by a car as there were no other traumas to his body, and that he was probably kicked.

A snapshot of Baz was put on Facebook as he has a notable black mark beneath his nose and his owner asked if anyone at all saw him to get in touch with her.

Kirsty got a call at work from the vet to say he had been discovered in a bin but was in a bad way, and that he had been there for some time.

The woman who discovered him took him straight to a vet for medical care.

It is shocking how somebody could do something to hurt an animal like that.

Baz is back home with Kirsty, in Tredworth. Gloucester, following an operation at Pets at Home on Wednesday.

There is somebody out there walking the streets who can do something like that to a helpless animal, and it’s terrifying. It’s utterly horrific.

However, it’s not the first time something like this has occurred.

In a further occurrence, two adolescent youths flung a helpless cat over an eight foot garden fencing into the grasp of a couple of canines.

CCTV footage exhibits thugs walking by a pathway behind homes in Bradford, West Yorkshire, prior to picking up the black and white feline by the neck and throwing her.

The cat was left seriously shaken following the ordeal but was uninjured according to RSPCA inspectors.

Nevertheless, I am extremely disturbed by what is going on now with our children, I’m confident our forebears never behaved like this when they were youngsters, or possibly I am off balance here. This improper conduct seems to be on the ascent, and all I can see emerging is a procreation of teenagers swinging cats about like barbarians.

I know we ‘ve always been an uncivilized and an unmerciful species, but surely we are more disciplined than creatures in a zoo? Plus if we’re not, then all the science and technology in the world has been of no avail, and we have not actually employed our understandings and intellect at all, we merely think that we have.

 

 

 

 

A blogger who tweeted a fact-check of 10 UKIP election assurances might have thought his slightly harmless tweet might win him a few retweets at best. In its place, it gained Michael Abberton a social call from the police officers.

A reproach was made by Cllr Peter Reeve, UKIP’s local government spokesperson and national nominating officer.

Mr Abberton was told by two Cambridgeshire police officers that they were certain he had not broken the law, however, requested he erases the tweet in any event. Nevertheless, acknowledging that they could not coerce him into doing so.

The tweet in question was tongue in cheek poster of 10 Great Reasons To Vote UKIP, such as scrapping maternity leave and paid vacations. Mr Abberton insists he did not even make the poster himself, but simply attached links to the party’s own material that upheld the poster’s declarations.

Cllr Reeve told HuffPost UK that he had reported Green Party constituent Mr Abberton to the police for electoral duplicity. On account of his post not containing an official proclamation that it was Green Party material, required by the Electoral Commission.

Apparently electoral cheating is an exceedingly pressing matter, by reason of the poster is deemed to tell us who produced the poster, and who issued it, so they can be prosecuted if expedient. But Mr Reeve stated. “I didn’t call the police over a tweet. I called them over electoral fraud.

At first, there was reproach from a family member of one of UKIP’s candidates in the south west, who believed it was endorsed UKIP material. Plus it was considered that Mr Abberton was mimicking UKIP’s flyers, and it’s misrepresenting us.

Representations that Mr Abberton put forward, are not UKIP’s views, and the links that Mr Abberton did were to debase candidates.

When questioned as to if such an unmistakably private tweet should have to convey such precise phrasing, Reeve stated: “This man is an active member of the Green party, he has said he is numerous time and for him to promote this leaflet without the official wording is illegal.

“The Electoral Commission is very clear that makes no difference whether it is in print or a tweet.”

Reeve stated UKIP was still contemplating prosecuting Abberton for his tweet. “We have also informed the branch of the police which deals specifically in electoral fraud.”

Mr Abberton wrote on his blog that the police had explained that he hadn’t broken any law. There was no charge to acknowledge and it really wasn’t of police interest.

The police officer at that point requested him to take it down, nevertheless Mr Abberton pointed out that the picture had now been retweeted numerous times, and he had to explain to one of the police officers what twitter was and how it operated. They said that they couldn’t coerce me into taking it down in any event.

The police officers requested for Mr Abberton not to mention the visit on Twitter on account of it looking possibly biased in light of the forthcoming election and the police force need to look impartial, however, they couldn’t stop him from doing so, as he had Freedom of Speech.

They were questioned if they understood how it must look, and one shrugged. The other seem to be embarrassed.

Mr Abberton then claimed he received an aggressive tweet from a UKIP member, who was aware that the police officers had been to visit.

Cambridgeshire Police were called with a grievance regarding a message on a shared media at roughly 12.40pm on Friday.

Inquiries were made as to if any misdemeanors had been carried out under the Representation of the People Act, however, none were disclosed and no additional activity was taken.

Unquestionably police officers do not attend people’s homes and announce that they can’t tweet about these things. This is not 1930s Germany.

Nevertheless, there are tremendous concerns regarding this matter because Mr Abberton had the prerogative to willingly reveal his beliefs, and there doesn’t appear to have been a law that he may have broken, and there doesn’t seem to have been a reason why two police officers were sent to Mr Abberton’s residence to inquire into his tweet which criticised UKIP’s policies, Mr Abberton was simply exercising his Freedom of Speech.

There for what reason was two police officers sent to Mr Abberton’s house to look into his tweet, and under what authorities did they have to request Mr Abberton eliminates his tweet and for what reason he should he not tweet about their visit?

This police activity is both troubling and shocking, that an evidently general grievance from a political party about not liking what was said about them could have directed police to visit Mr Abberton, which many would find frightening. This is a remarkably grave occurrence that demands instantaneous inquiry.

Copious amounts of people put things on twitter about one thing or another, in which they expose their views on an everyday basis. This is what Twitter is all about, embracing other social networking sites such as Facebook. Also if UKIP do not like what is being spoke about them, then maybe it’s not the people who write on there that should be brought to justice, but the social networking sites themselves, as they are permitting this to be published onto their sites.

People write and print what they perceive is unfair, and a few do not invariably recognize that it might be prejudicial, and maybe some should keep an unbiased representation on things, however, social networking sites gives people a tremendous reach on what they want to write, and how they write and print it.

By creation people are questioning creatures, and not everyone wants to be followers or arse-lickers, they would by choice talk about subjects that they think are wrongful and not lawful, and they believe that it’s fitting that they do so, either by social networking sites or by way of the media.

Why should we not have Free Speech, well, why not? Maybe it’s because those that don’t want us to have Free Speech have something to conceal, or they just don’t want the public to know the truth, or the truth to get out there for everyone else to see.

 

 

 

Everybody is chatting about Russell Brand these days. Whether it’s his well vocalized character, subject matter or the actuality that he is famed so mankind will quickly listen to him, he’s a sultry subject and some don’t mind contemplating what he is participating. Not long ago, Russell went at it with Jeremy Paxman arguing the necessity for a world rebellion and encouraging humanities to start standing up for one. He brings attention to the fact that politically and systematically our terrestrial sphere is shattered and he considers voting will never mend the situation despite our beliefs behind the conformity of democracy. Some would totally agree with him on that statement. Time and time again, our system has substantiated its absence of effectiveness when it now comes to taking care of the people, formulating pacification and leaving people smiling.

He’s absolutely not the only one talking about this considering the world appears to be in the early frames of an uprising, but I am glad he is talking about it. It is not every day you see somebody with his social standing converse about these matters so candidly. I think that it is an essential step to get some people listening, however, some would consider we need to be meticulous not to glorify anybody. It’s idolizing that makes us overlook we are all equal. After all, it is because of the average joe speaking up for so many years that people like Russell even have a spotlight when they decide to speak out. Therefore keep in mind. Your speech is mighty too. Never be afraid to use it.

A notation on the talk circling the reality that Russell might be a follower of the upper class. Even if he is or he isn’t at this point, he is still participating acquired facts that can bring people to life. Anytime the ruling class thrusts something at mankind, it is up to us to do what we will with it. At times, their schemes don’t always work in their favor as deep down the world is requesting that we wake up. The power elite can perform the role of making matters too apparent which in turn helps us to examine things.

In this following question and answer session with Daniel Pinchbeck on Gaim TV, Russell talks coolly about some very intriguing topics. Watch as Russell touches on the necessity for a spiritual mutiny, reptilian overlords, the illuminati and more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rzslKd3IA

 

 

 

A Peasedown St John activist who writes to David Cameron once a day expects to raise his own shoestring army to crowdsource funds to set up a lawful challenge against the government.

Campaigner Keith Lindsay-Cameron is expected to carry out the challenge against the current claimant commitment, which he thinks is equal to modern-day servitude.

Mr Lindsay-Cameron is currently seeking to take civil action after an abortive bid to get Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and welfare reform minister Lord Freud arrested for breaching the Human Rights Act. He went to Bath Police Station on Friday to report the alleged offence, but the police told him they would be unable to arrest either of the politicians.

Mr Lindsay-Cameron is better known to thousands of associate activists as Keith Ordinary Guy, and as the blogger behind the A Letter A Day To Number 10 campaign.

The claimant commitment is another manner of the Jobseeker’s Agreement which sketches what activities, such as instruction, enrolling with an agency or doing work placements, a claimant must carry out while sustaining their allowance.

Nonetheless, Mr Lindsay-Cameron states the contract which publicizes the introduction of the current Universal Credit benefit indicates the loss of access to any benefits if you decline to sign, and benefit sanctions if you are looked upon to be in violation of the signed agreement.

Either way, this amounts to coerced employment and consequently servitude.

Mr Lindsay-Cameron and his advocates have promptly acquired the internet domain name theshoestringarmy.com and will presently commence the method of a challenge.

The DWP stated more than 600,000 people had so far signed the agreement, but did they leap into it, or were they forced into it?

Of course, they have been thrust into it because if they did not sign the agreement there would be an encumbrance of folk begging at the gateways of hellfire for nourishment and shelter for themselves, contained as well as their children, but this is just an illustration of things to come, and a few might relate that I exaggerate the facts, but the reality still endures, that once the administration has contained us, then they will infringe on all things that we stand for, we did have free will, but on the foundations of what is going on presently, quickly that free will, that will be gone permanently.

We have the God given right to be free, flourishing and fulfilled, with your country unimpaired and living in as much armistice as conceivable, but sturdy enough to protect itself vigorously should it need to do so.

Agenda 21 is the draft, it is the action plan, to inventory and to control all land, all water, all plants, all minerals, all construction, all animals, all means of production, all energy, all knowledge and all the human beings in the world. It is an entirely extensive plan. It’s global and it’s executed regionally. It is located in every single town all across the world.

It is operated by the United Nations by way of an NGO (Non Government Organization) named ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’, generally known as ICLEI (pronounced Ik-lee), Local Governments for Sustainability.

This is compensated for by you, the taxpayer, without your approval because you have not had a vote on its implementation.

We are listening to on a regular basis about the burdens that our farmers and food producers are under, but let’s make the point that these policies come from a faraway place. We are in trouble and we all need to get together on this.

Most of those people who do not use the remarkable asset of alternative media have not heard of U.N. Agenda 21, plainly because it’s being imported by underhandedness, otherwise undoubtedly you would have heard of such a huge global plan and all of its intentions.

Putting it plainly, it is obvious that the powers that be don’t want you know about it.

In addition to if the people were knowledgeable of the truth of U.N. Agenda 21, they would rise up at once and terminate it. However, at present there is something corrupt incrementally and it will get through easily enough, as the Nazis substantiated in Germany, for instance, or indeed as numerous wrongful totalitarianism have proved.

A few people, nevertheless, may have overheard about U.N. Agenda 21, possibly on their local website.

That’s on account of the news getting out about this global plan, governments must disclose a little of it, and it’s normally dressed up behind the green mask of false environmentalism, the bane of the world.

Nevertheless make no mistake, this is a treasonous and dishonest plot, and you can see proof of it all about you, from the huge fuel rises, to post offices being closed, to volunteering (ie getting you to work for nothing, when you already pay adequate taxes), to multiculturalism, to the persistent hostilities, to sustainable development, to oppressive constant observation (including the global application of those extremely offensive SMART meters), in fact to the industry limiting carbon taxes (when carbon dioxide is imperative for life and actually in short supply, and in addition to all industry consigned overseas has no carbon limits), to the assault on the middle class by way of higher taxes, to the fake localism from the Localism Act (in the UK) which relies on more centralisation, to the dumbing down at schools and in the media, to any one of the thousands of rules and regulations being coerced on us in the absence of discussion, created to dominate us and dehumanise us and to bring us under one world bank and one world currency and one world government – The New World Order.

Also before you discard this article as gibberish, you only need to look up Bilderberg, or the international banks admitting they run Europe, or simply the reality, for instance in the United Kingdom nigh on 80% of our statutes are made by a foreign unelected bureaucratic upper class, the EU.

Whilst U.N. Agenda 21 has been decorated in fake ‘green’ concerns about ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’, which have since been left behind because they have been exposed as a scam, its true intention is by trickery to put the control of the whole planet and all its assets into the hands of just a few people.

These people include the sovereignty (for instance, Prince Charles is a big promoter of U.N. Agenda 21 (as he displayed in his talk ‘The New Environmental Agenda’ at the Local Agenda 21 Conference on 7th March 1995 and his recent film ‘Harmony’), top functionaries, top governmental leaders, those at the very top of colossal worldwide enterprise and global banks and others.

A portion of the U.N. Agenda 21 scheme is to take out the middle class. The middle class way of life is not ‘sustainable’; whereas, of course, the way of life of those who are every so often named the ‘global elite’, with their personal jet plans and trains and fleets of cars and official residences, will remain extremely sustainable.

Consequently we are noticing such tremendous rises in fuel costs, taxes, constraints on small businesses. In the interim, ‘global elite’ pay minimal taxes, if any, and are usually financed hugely by the taxpayers.

U.N. Agenda 21 is as well about people decreasing.

The people behind U.N. Agenda 21 desires to reduce world population by up to and in advance of 95%.

It was stated in a recent talk by Lord Monckton on U.N. Agenda 21, that to accomplish such lofty planes of population reduction, ‘It means that a lot of people are going to have to die’.

Also, prior to any of you readers stating that the world needs fewer people, ask yourself whether or not it is you or your children who should die or be sterilized first.

Consider whether it is your responsibility to play God.

The UK Independence party has deferred one of its election candidates who implied that mothers carrying embryos with Downs Syndrome or spina bifida should be coerced to have abortions to avoid the child being “a burden on the state as well as on the family”.

All people will perceive is that this man has been suspended, and they will recognize nothing more. In their cognizance that will be good enough because then they will accept that such things will not take place, but months or possibly even a few years down the line, it will at that point become a realness, and the people of the United Kingdom would have had no say over it because we are now losing our freedom of speech.

It was long ago stated that an aircraft would not in any way get up into the air, however, we now know that it did, but people didn’t accept it at the time. Too often do we reject matters that are explained to us because we simply believe what we want to believe, and because it’s easier to immerse our heads in the sandy soil.

Of course, Orville and Wilbur Wright did glide in the air, and the theory of flight was given birth. Likewise, when mankind stepped on the moon, it was said that it could never be done, but of course it was, even though cynics will tell you differently, and now we have space stations.

Agenda 21 cannot be looked at in any other way except other than an all out global assault on the people and nations of the world; which is tragically executed by duping small time politicians and local councils and others.

It is our God given right to be liberated, flourishing and accomplished, with our nation unimpaired and living in as much armistice as conceivable, but robust enough to protect itself vigorously should it need to do so.

So it is about casting views and news in the face of the corrupt U.N. Agenda 21.

That signifies, that we should be opposed to any aspect of globalism, trans- nationalism, the EU, the UN and the New World Order, whilst having the ultimate intention of helping us endure collectively, with our countries and our integrity unimpaired, to accomplish overall supremacy for freedom and understanding, because U.N. Agenda 21 is entangled with just about every negative aspect in humanity.

Once we’re aware, we can begin incrementally, calmly and tranquilly to take apart this frightful creation and its diabolical organizations so that we return our power, our countries, our accomplishment and our individualities back into our hands.

Agenda 21 is a post industrial shut down to re-engineer the entire world.

Serviceable accomplishment of Agenda 21 will need an intense re-orientation of all human civilization. Unlike anything the world has ever encountered a significant transformation in the priorities governments and individuals and an unparalleled redeployment of human and monetary supplies. This transformation will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of each human activity be united into specific and combined decision-making at every level.

Agenda 21 isn’t coming. It is here. Most don’t know about it. They’ve never heard of it, but it is crawling in your back door right now. So, look behind you. It may already be in your back garden.

What is Agenda 21? It is a United Nation’s program introduced and endorsed in Rio in 1992. At that time, American conservatives laughed it off. “This is too crazy,” they stated. “Impossible. It will never happen. Not here!” Well, it is taking place. It is happening here and it is happening now. Agenda 21 is a extensive environmental fascistic presentation that, when thoroughly executed, will regulate where you live, how much water you can use, and how and where you can travel.

Agenda 21 is placed on the market as a global endeavor to guarantee that all human beings will have entree to sufficient housing, health care, water and food. Of course, this will demand a huge redistribution of capital from flourishing nations to impoverished nations. Predictably, capitalistic nations, like the United States, will experience lower standards of sustenance.

It’s noteworthy that Presidents George H. Bush. Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, through Executive Orders, have signed onto Agenda 21. Hundreds more governors, mayors, and county commissioners have also signed on.
Agenda 21 and associated programs will do away with numerous things we hold dear. These have been proclaimed “unsustainable” and will be eradicated. Here are some of them:

 

All private property rights (property ownership)
All forms of irrigation, pesticides & commercial fertilizer
Livestock production and most meat consumption
Privately owned vehicles and personal travel
Use of fossil fuels for power generation or mechanized travel
Single family homes
Most forms of mineral extraction and timber harvesting
Human population must be reduced to fewer than 1 billion people
It’s not coming from Washington D.C. or state legislatures for the most part. It is oozing in through neighbouring cities and regional governments. Agenda 21 brings with it secretive code words, supportive words such as “smart growth, ” “social justice, ” “bio-diversity, ” and “sustained development.” You will hear them frequently. Translated these words effectively convey a complete environmental totalitarianism and the elevation of heathen customs of the reverence of Mother Earth. Not a farce at all.

179 nations, comprising the United States, originally signed on to the Agenda in 1992. A good deal more has signed up since then. It is currently in progress in 600 U.S. towns. You can examine the inventory of dedicated countries and cities at: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454. You can also read the actual plans of action being executed.

Agenda 21 is designed to control each facet of human life on every square inch of planet earth. Agenda 21 is the key tool of the New World order. Excessively advertised to the state as the redemption for this planet and every human being, but it is anything but that.

By putting these facts out here, it might be categorised as a prominent constituent of the lunatic fringe but I think that we have a moral duty to present the facts, as we see it. If I’m incorrect, well then I’ll be mortified but then I’ll be glad because perhaps this madness won’t take place at all.

Yet, there is increasing proof this corrupt ovum named Agenda 21 has been incubating for quite some time, under our very noses. And it reeks unpleasantly. ’

As specified by its authors, sustainability centres on three things: “global land use, global education and global population control and reduction”. Doesn’t appear to harmful, does it? Even so, in reality, these idea’s panned out far beneath their lofty rhetoric.

The real facts of Agenda 21, divulged, death to national sovereignty; restructure of the family unit which signifies essentially the state will take care of your children, with an eager eye toward brainwashing them into state control over family loyalty; termination of personal possessions, i.e property with taxpayers crammed into “stack and pack”, hi-rise apartment buildings, near to railroad tracks while motor vehicles will not be permitted.

Santa Cruz has already been given 300 million federal dollars to construct these apartment buildings. In a trade for their willingness to take part in these sustainable acts, they are given an exception to construction defect accountability.

In Washington, one of these hi risers is a nine story edifice with no elevators, where occupants share a bath and kitchen with seven other residents.

Santa Cruz has become the test case for putting Agenda 21 on the entire map. Speaking of maps, there is an extremely shocking one which manifests the aim of the Wildlands Project, part of Agenda 21, how fifty percent of the country, under this recently developed structure, will be off limits to humans, while almost all of the rest of the land will be extremely dominated. There are small black spots on the map which display the localities of all the high risers which will be erected.

Agenda 21’s trademark focuses around three symbols which represent “Es”. The first one is Equity which utilises enactments to alter the justice from social to equal. The concept of the “Precautionary Principle” means one is not permitted to injure anything, even little animals and even on one’s own property.

The second one is Economy which will take the place of free enterprise with public/private partnerships. In other words, as Hitler called it, Fascism.

The third is Environmental which essentially puts nature beyond man.

The principal emphasis of Agenda 21 is to take control of the land since once they do that, they can control any human activity.

Then there’s Global Citizenship Education Program, indicated in the “No Child Left Behind” programme. Our children will be educated into collectivism.

The third control is over and considerable cutbacks of inhabitants; whoever is left will be assembled in those packed groups of hi risers.

These globalists present the idea that the world populace should not be greater than 500 million. That means 93% of the prevailing population would need to be removed. How do you imagine they intend to fulfil that? Or have been achieving it?

It is the plan for the 21st century you’re living in today, for a brave new world where every single thing that you hold dear and hold true will no longer be.

Agenda 21 determines itself as the comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organisations of the United Nations structure.

It also elevates nature above man, and it comprises something called the Precautionary Principle, where essentially you’re guilty until you’re shown to be innocent.

Sustainable development is the blueprint to bring human beings across the globe, under the full dominance of a narrow human lead.

It’s a 40 Chapter official paper to fundamentally dominate the world. It’s founded totally on socialist control mechanisms.

Sustainable developers have designed a global movement coordinated through a global to local action plan, to create world government, in accordance with certain objectives. These objectives include, an end to national sovereignty, the abolition of private property. The restructure of the family unit, and increasing limitations and restrictions on mobility, and individual opportunities.

The green goal comprises the listings of what’s not sustainable. A couple of the examples incorporate private property.

Some include fossil fuel, golf courses and ski lodges – or not.

Consumerism, irrigation is not sustainable. Paved roads, commercial agriculture, riversides, pesticides. Elsewhere it lists farmlands, pastures. Graising of livestock, and the family unit.

The focus of sustainable development is the abolition of private property, societal undermining of the family, and abandonment of the constitutional protection of our unalienable rights.

Now there were a lot of crazy ideas back in the mid 90’s. Mother earths surface was not to be scratched. Human beings were to be concentrated into human settlement zones. Educational systems were to concentrate on the environment as the central organising principle. All aspects of life were covered.

If you believe this is craziness and foolish, and it has no prospect of having any impact on our society, well then you are wrong.

This is a map of the Wildlands Project:

To explain the map, the red are areas that are off limits to human beings, no resource development, no human activity. If you live there, you won’t. The yellow areas are the areas for major control of all human activity, if you live there, you won’t. The black areas, the black dots are the smart growth zones, are for human beings that are to be a stack and packed in small living units, along rail tracks.

The smart growth programme ultimately has jobs assigned and children cared for by the state.

Questions have been posed many times how the people that are perpetrating these things expect to do this and make it last. The answer to that is you steal a generation of children, and you indoctrinate them, so that they accept these ideas and they become global citizens in the becoming global village.

UNESCO came out and announced in 2005 to 2015, the decade of education for sustainable development, but they go onto saying that it will go onto encompassing the 40 chapters of Agenda 21, that is your national curriculum.

The entire purpose of second grade social studies is tantamount to transfer loyalty from the family to the government, and teach them about sustainable economic consumption. Students construct their own understanding of reality and understand that objection reality is not knowable. So why bother?

The truth is, the truth which keeps men free is being suppressed in order to prop up the attitude training agenda. They learn that mathematics is man made. That is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert.

Nearly all of us presume that 2+2=4, you’re wrong, we might reach a different agreement. How well does it work, well they tell you, in the teacher’s guide at the back?

Because the syllabus does not emphasize arithmetic computations done by hand, sometimes pupils may not do as well on exams evaluating computational expertise. We are confident that such a trade-off is very much to the student’s benefit in the world of work.

Our children are mathematically illiterate by intention. Why is this fundamentally a bad concept because the sustainable development plan tells us so? Normally, more highly educated people, who have higher earnings, eat up additional funds than poorly educated people, who are inclined to have lower earnings. In this instance, additional schooling adds to the dangers to sustainability.

It has been a deliberate dumbing down, I actually thought that a dumbing down was a natural consequence of a bad idea, but it’s deliberate.

The sustainable globalist goal is the orchestration of a plan for all American principles, values and lifestyles. The effect on the average American will be devastating, with modernising technology. The ordinary person will live without independence, privacy or rights.

In the end, we will ALL have to take a backseat to the collective, and resistance will be futile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UKIP has been forced to scrap a free postal address after getting parcels containing blood and excretion.

Nigel Farage’s anti EU party, which is currently leading the votes for the European polls later this month, has been engulfed with parcels from antagonistic voters.

The party used a free postal address on a flyer for a campaign in Norwich in 2010 in a tender to drum up support.

However, the address was leaked on the Internet in permitting competitors of Mr Farage and his party to besiege the address with letters and parcels which UKIP would have to compensate for.

A campaign started for people to convey anything weighty to the address such as bricks or bottles of water. Other people sent flyers, leaflets and household waste.

Twitter has been engulfed with photographs of different parcels sent to the UKIP free postal address in an attempt to rack up an immense postal bill for the party.

One member of a constituency sent a large Dostoevsky book using the service intact with Farage’s face bound over the picture of ‘The Idiot’.

Nevertheless over the weekend the UKIPs Bexley branch verified the free post address had been cancelled.

On twitter, the local party posted a memorandum which read: ‘You may be aware that there have been incidents of inappropriate mail items being sent to a UKIP Freepost address.

‘This includes items which are not permitted (such as blood/human faeces) and present a health and safety risk both to you and our Royal Mail colleagues.

You might inquire. What sort of person sends excretions or blood to a political party? I surmise somebody who doesn’t want UKIP to be voted and get into authority. It’s pretty cut and dry actually, there are copious amounts of people out there that don’t want them in, as I am sure there are plenty that do want them to get in.

And those that dont aspire to have them in will do anything whatever to piss off UKIP, and for those that want UKIP to attain as many benches as possible to get in, they will hold out the banners, to support them, they will even go as far as to assault their own people to get them in. And that is something the administration is all about my comrade.

We all end up becoming factory fodder. Still the government is the only animal that consumes without yielding. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak-minded to cultivate the land, he cannot move swiftly enough to seize rabbits. However, he is the ruler of all the animals. He sets them to slave, whilst he hands over to them the bare minimum that will avert them from being undernourished, and the rest he retains for himself.

And come on let’s face it: our animate existence is sickly, arduous, and brief, and the establishment is the only true antagonist we have. Take the establishment from the picture, and the root cause of hunger and exploitation is eradicated permanently.

The answer to all our dilemmas. It is aggregated in a singular word – government.

Regrettably granting money and authority to government is just like giving whiskey and car keys to adolescent boys, and for that logic you should beware the devouring hand of the government. It also appears that over the decades all things the government touches turns to crap.

The governments answer to a problem are normally as bad as the problem, and it is pitiful that the wealthy and powerful too frequently twist the laws of government to their own self-indulgent purposes.

    Parents with embryos detected to have Down’s syndrome and other handicaps should be coerced into a mandatory termination of pregnancy, according to a UKIP candidate’s personal manifesto.

Geoffrey Clark, who is running in a by-election for the Gravesham rural seat of Kent County Council and the Meopham North seat of Gravesham Borough Council, was marked as disgusting by disability welfare organizations and parents.

He stated that there should be mandatory termination of pregnancy when the embryo is identified as having Downs, Spina Bifida or comparable traits because if the infant is permitted to be delivered, it will render the child an encumbrance on the state as well as on the family.

He as well wants unrestricted euthanasia for the over 80s.

Andrew Diedo, from Dartford, who’s 27 year old son Chris has Down’s syndrome, stated Mr Clark’s representation was maybe born out of fear and ignorance.

Nearly all Down’s syndrome children and adults relish an abundant, joyous and fruitful way of life.

Growing up with this syndrome has and still does have difficulties. Having Down syndrome has its good times and bad times, and they’re usually prejudged by others.

In life, there are numerous hurdles they confront every day, from being harassed, to be made fun of, to have a lot of incapacities that ordinary people just don’t comprehend. I am curious that if Down syndrome could be turned around so those masses who affect adults who have Down syndrome would know what it feels like being different from everybody else.

If a person were to convert from having Down syndrome, which they probably wouldn’t, because I’m sure they are happy with who they are and that makes them unimpaired people and it relates to who they are. They may be different, but everybody is different in their own bizarre way. If they didn’t have this additional chromosome, they wouldn’t be who they are, because Down’s syndrome doesn’t make them different. Their world they live in makes them different.

I am offended and disheartened that Geoffrey Clark thinks that these kids are broken and inactive of putting anything back into our society, and would render the child an onus on society. What is this man bothered about, that perhaps he might catch something noxious off them? I can’t grasp how this man thinks because if this applied to him and his wife was going to give birth to their child, and they had just found out that the embryo had Down’s Syndrome, would he find it so simple to just terminate the gestation, it’s not so simple when it is your own child.

It is shocking that Geoffrey Clarke sees disabled people entirely as a weary load, and it is doubtful if he is suitable for public office.

Somebody with Down’s syndrome can presently live a life like anybody else in the community, and Geoffrey Clark’s manifesto is discouraging and upsetting.

Mr Clark stated to the reporter that they were a burden on the state. The NHS is no longer affordable and some services need to be cut.  He said, I’m tired of politicians saying we should cut managers.

There are lots of things that put a strain on society, would Mr Clark recommend that we discard all of them as well embracing the reality that he stated that anyone over the age of 80 is disproportionately costly on the NHS, and that he desired to sanction euthanasia, and give out free euthanasia guidance to all aging people over the age of 80 years of age.

Just because people become elderly does not indicate that they are an encumbrance on the state, and if this is the case why have the government put the retirement age up, for it appears that as we get older, presently we can work longer because the state considers that we are competent of such a deed, but once we reach 80 years old, then we are passed it.

All people get sick irrelevant of their age, infants get sick, children get sick, grown-ups get sick, no matter what their age is, does that signify that we should use euthanasia on everyone, or would that just be like extermination to make a supremacy, like Hitler had the intention of doing?

 

 

 

A Greek financier who gave a multitudinous amount of money to UKIP has provoked insult by stating that it’s not conceivable for a husband to rape his wife, and all homosexual relations are based on a desire.

UKIP distanced themselves from Demetri Marchessini in May last year after the shipping and investment magnet published a book which stated women should not be permitted to wear trousers, and once more in January this year when he insisted homosexuality has always been a crime.

But Channel 4 News claims that Nigel Farage’s party has since accepted at least one other contribution from Marchessini, and reported more of his repulsive views after going to converse with him.

Talking from his London flat, Marchessini was interviewed by reporter Michael Crick about his views on homosexual relations.

He responded: “Oh [they are] completely different. There‘s no love, only lust – and also the actions they do are completely different.

“They go out at night and they, pick up five, ten, 15 different partners in one night. Is that love?”

He also insisted there was “no such thing as fidelity in homosexual relationships”.

He went on to say women should only we allowed to wear skirts, because “that is the only way the world is going to continue. Because if they don’t men are going to stop f***ing them.”

In addition to discussing about whether it was conceivable for a husband to violate his wife, he stated: “If you make love on Friday and you make love on Sunday you can’t say Saturday is rape.”

“Once a woman accepts, she accepts. And especially when she makes a vow on her wedding day.”

Marchessini insisted that in spite of UKIP openly distancing itself from him, its bursar Stuart Wheeler was an old friend and from time to time he rang him up and inquired if he would help.

Also, Channel 4 News maintained that on Christmas Eve the party received an additional £5,000 from Mr Marchessini.

Nigel Farage evidently stated that he didn’t know, and that the broadcaster would have to ask the treasurer, and that he was positive that the funds were given in good faith.

When asked whether UKIP should have taken money from a man with these sorts of views, Mr Farage stated: “Possibly not, no. Ask the treasurer. I don’t run everything. ”

Demetri Marchessini’s slant on homosexuals:

Was that there’s no love only desire and as well the physical actions that they do are entirely unconventional, and that they go out at night and they pick up five, ten, fifteen strange companions in one night, and that is not loving each other, they are not husband and wife. They are companions and both of them go out cruising. There is no such thing as loyalty in homosexual relations. They just all go out viewing the action, and that was just the way it is.

He as well stated that women should be forbidden from wearing trousers, and that they used to be prohibited for thousands of years, and that up to 300 years ago a women donning trousers would be killed. That women don’t look pleasing in trousers, and that trousers don’t stimulate men, only skirts arouse men…

And that was the only way in which the world was going to continue. Also, that if women did do not wear skirts, then men would just stop f****g them, and that the frequency of love making in Western Europe had sunk drastically. If men don’t make love to women the Western world was going to vanish…

That woman has at all times attempted to stimulate men because women must get married and men don’t want to get married, so women have to induce them to get married.

He went onto say that there’s no such thing as rape within a marriage, and that when you get married you declare to look after the other person for the rest of their life. You unquestionably don’t announce that you’re going to put them in jail, and that if you make love on Friday and make love Sunday, that you can’t say Saturday is rape. Once a woman consents to that vow, she consents to have sex, and chiefly when she makes a promise on her wedding day.

In a few nations, the absence of criminalization of conjugal rape, united with the lawful or social recognition of child marriage, leads to tyrannical manners of child sexual abuse.

 

Would Mr Marchessini like the equivalent deed be asserted on his own child?

Historically in nearly all ways of life it was lawful for a wife to answer to her husband, granting her husband to discipline his wife if she did not offer herself and to perform her duties as a wife, and let him to f***k her each night.

Rape by a marriage partner, spouse or ex-partner is more usually linked with physical rampage, because if a woman does not want to give herself freely, and a man seizes what he thinks is his by physical violence, that then becomes sexual assault, because you can’t molest another human being, and it can as well be extremely traumatic for that person, who is less able to protect themselves.

Unlike in other manners of sexual assault, where the victim can exclude herself from the company of the attacker and never associate with him again, in the instance of marital sexual assault the sufferer usually has no option but to continue living with her spouse.

When a woman is violated by an outsider, she is forced to live with a terrifying memory. When she is violated by her husband, she has to live with the rapist…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Occupied parents are increasingly sending kids to primary school in nappies rather than potty training them, a shock study discloses.

Nearly one in 10 headteachers knew of a child aged between five and seven who had worn a nappy to school in the past year.

Experts state parents are too busy to deal with the matter, and it doesn’t just affect schoolchildren from troubled backgrounds.

Evidently we’re seeing increased numbers of children in nappies. And it’s found that increased numbers of children have toilet problems further up the school chain.

It can really place tension on educators and it hinders teaching. More than a few parents are as well too occupied to coach their children other fundamental skills, including how to handle a knife and fork or even hold a paintbrush, and as many as 4% of senior workers surveyed stated they knew children as old as 11 who had come to school in nappies.

Another teacher stated she knew of 14 or 15-year-olds with toilet training concerns.

This is just an astonishingly grave state of affairs.

It is said that there are children missing out on 25% of their schooling in Reception because they’re being taken out to be changed, and how are they ever going to catch up?

Nevertheless, I believe there is a point that has been missed out here, and it’s not about how they are going to catch up, but why is this happening?

Is it now stylish to just palm our kids off to the classroom and demand that the school will deal with the whole kit and caboodle, down to the child’s toilet requirements, and is schooling presently our reprieve so that we don’t feel the necessity to do anything whatsoever with our children, apart from treating them like surrogate children, when it amuses us?

It appears that some of us don’t grasp the term “parent”, and what it stands for, and I don’t want to appear like an old fogey, but I’m seized with dread when I think that nearly all parents these days are convinced more of their children as manikins, and that dressing them up appears an actually good thing to do, but when it comes down to the more real features of changing nappies and cleaning up sick, then that is the lesser real, and should in preference be done by somebody else, because of course, you wouldn’t clean up a nappy on a doll or clean up its vomit.

I’m a people spectator, and I’m shocked when I observe teenagers with infants wheeling their prodigies about like little mini me’s of themselves, and as I stand in line at the supermarkets or in stores like Next, a youngster with her newborn will be conferring with another youngster with her infant about how great her newborn is and how it’s so good dressing her baby up, so she can show it off to her friends, and it haunts me when I reflect that infants that are born in this day and age are exclusively so that they can be flaunted around like little mahatma’s.

I’m not proposing that all parents are like this, but on my observation of the general populace, it seems that this is the state of one’s affairs, and that these children will become prey of their own parents who appear to have no interest, but to show them off, and beautify them with clothing that they can’t afford. It appears that nothing much has altered over the years, but when I was younger we would show off our newborns off by saying: “When my son or daughter grows up he or she is going to be a doctor or a lawyer”, these days, it’s “Look my son or daughter is dressed in Armani, and I send him to school for his arse to be wiped”.