Friday, 25 November 2016

The Truth About Jo Cox and Thomas Mair...

Their mistake was that Thomas Mair was more bitter and determined than they expected and the people present at the surgery - whilst massively brave - were not strong enough to subdue the shooter after the first shot.

What was the whole thing all about?

Grab that bacofoil and start folding, then start reading...

Thomas Mair was a loner and a bit unstable, he was easy prey to evil elements who may have need of a 'spectacular' at some point to give the public and politics a 'nudge' if they weren't going the right way... the 'right way' being what ever kept those evil elements supplied with wealth and power.

The UK was on track to vote to leave the EU - this was well known officially, while the usual fake poll results said otherwise, this was just to demoralise the leave camp and keep the remainers motivated.

Among Thomas Mair's personal library of Nazi related books there were some unusual items and some entirely out of place items. One such entirely out of place was a book on the assassination of JFK, of the unusual items was half a shelf of books on Nazi head wear and helmets.

Jo Cox gave every appearance of being a 'bright young thing' despite holding extremist and deeply oppressive and authoritarian political views - she was photogenic with a young family. Indeed, and ironically, the very model used in Nazi propaganda promoting their totalitarian master race.

Thomas Mair was pretty much the complete opposite, scraping through life having missed any opportunity that had come his way (assuming any had come his way). No proper job, a council house that the council wanted to move him out of, no friends and just a few relatives some of whom he was not on good terms with.

What better 'spectacular' than to have the bright young thing grievously attacked by the drop out - the dirty little Englander attacking the divine Europa. Associating Britain and the UK with failure, disappointment, poverty and violence and the EU with an angelic vision being torn down by bitterness from the past?

How might this mega-nudge (shove) help the remainers campaign to stay in the EU? It would be a landslide for them, as everyone not entirely committed to reasserting liberty in the UK would seek to distance themselves from this monster and offer their supplication to the angel - and do so by voting 'remain'.

That was the plan the evil forces hatched - they had a victim and a potential perpetrator, they simply had to persuade the perpetrator and then bring the two together.

There were two shooting incidents in the JFK assassination the shooting of JFK and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald with a single shot to the head at close range - the epitome of an assassination.

This is the vision Mair was sold as per the JFK book, that he would approach the MP fire a single shot and it would all be over, a 'clean' and decisive assassination - which he could then use to promote whatever message it was that he wanted to draw attention to, foolishly convinced that he would be helping whatever cause it was that he was promoting. Or maybe simply to go down in history, to finally make a mark in life - however dirty a mark it may be.

However, this scenario didn't entirely match the evil forces real intention. Their real plan was to make Jo Cox an angel on earth, the new Lady Di but still alive to wield her new found power indefinitely, she was not to die, she was to be grievously injured in the attack but to continue to campaign with all the new found power that the sympathy and disgust would bring to her.

So they armed Thomas Mair - with the least dangerous firearm they could devise - a tiny, .22, cut down, single shot, bolt action, 'pistol'. Difficult and slow to reload, smallest calibre, lowest power bullets available, and to top it off, cut down to such a length that the bullet would hardly have started moving by the time it left the barrel... Fully expecting any wound it created would be entirely survivable.

Their mistake was that Thomas Mair was more bitter and determined than they expected and the people present at the surgery - whilst massively brave - were not strong enough to subdue the shooter after the first shot.

When Thomas pulled the trigger he expected it to all be over - like the Dallas shooting, bang, victim down, job done, surrender and prepare for fame. But the bullet, so under-powered by the careful engineering on the gun and ammunition, bounced off her head - causing an external wound, but no penetrating damage, certainly not to the brain.

In the confusion this caused he had time to reload and shoot  twice more, to little more effect - but he also had a dagger with him and had time to use it, just about over coming his aversion to blood he made many small stabbing wounds,  rather ineffectually with no single decisive fatal wound but enough that his victim would eventually bleed to death after he had left the scene.

A disaster for all concerned it would seem - but not quite. While it is a disaster for the individuals directly involved with at least two lives thrown away, for the dark forces it was just a blip, a small set back, they still have others to call on (wittingly or otherwise), to block the referendum result and now we see them arriving - Blair, Campbell, Branson, Major and more.

And should the referendum result not be honored? They will still be there - Soros, Gates and others known and unknown to us... their power isn't disappearing anytime soon, not unless we seize the opportunity and take it all back...


This isn't a serious academic work - if you need to be told this, then get off the internet now!!
But, I don't want to mislead people - so...

1) Ruby did not kill Oswald with a single shot to the head, it was a point blank shot to the body with a .38

Saturday, 19 November 2016

No, parliament do not need to vote on #brexit #article50 - here's why.

When I first heard the result of the court case over invoking article 50, the courts position seemed pretty reasonable.

I set out my position in another post.

However, more information has come up and I am persuaded differently...

The basic case was that that only parliament can take away rights that parliament created. And that invoking 50 would lead a loss of rights, so parliament must be consulted.

However, the key here is that those rights were not created in our parliament! The law allowing the EU to create rights was passed on our parliament, but not the laws creating those rights.

If the EU changes its law to create or destroy rights out parliament would not get a vote on it because they are 'treaty rights' not 'statutory rights' and as such are under the control of crown prerogative (government) not parliament.

The governments legal team had a draft of this arguement, but never used it in court. It not clear why.

So I beleive the court was wrong, but the government let them get it wrong...

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

State of play #Brexit - what the judge lady let slip.

If this judges view is correct, then brexit may be delayed indefinitely unless we replace our MP's and government with one that is committed to brexit. Simply replacing MP's in not enough - this Conservative government under David Cameron and Theresa May are as much barriers to Brexit as the Liberal Democrats are - just more sneaky and underhand about it.

I get so fed up with the drip, drip from the media - giving half a story to support their headline but making no attempt to genuinely inform.

Anyway that is why I launched RadioFreeUK ( - to provide an alternative media channel for UK libertarians... or at least UK bods who aren't raving progressive (read: regressive) Social Justice Warriors. But enough of that on with the show (or blog...).

Under Theresa May Brexit has stalled because the EU Referendum Bill was very badly written for those who support brexit. As far as I can see this was a deliberate act of sabotage by David Cameron and his Conservatives to act as a safety back stop in case they lost the referendum - which they did. It is unfortunate that those we would expect to cover this didn't pick up on it... But now we are where we are.

The Government have been challenged in court over whether they can invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and so give notice that the UK is leaving the EU.

In the first court three judged unanimously ruled that the Government cannot invoke Article 50, and that it must be explicitly agreed by the whole of Parliament (all our MP's), despite us having already directly said that we want it done.

An appeal is going directly to the Supreme Court (skipping the court of appeal as it is such an important case, it is going directly to the organ grinders) where the case will be heard by a dozen judges.

Despite earlier claims of 'confidence' in its own case, the government now appears to be less confident and if flapping around looking for other ways of appearing to support the invoking of Article 50.

As it happens I wrote to my MP (a front bench government bod) calling for a one line bill saying 'this house supports the government implementing the will of the people and invoking Article 50 at the earliest convenient opportunity' or similar, it would be a brave MP who voted this down... My MP suggested such a bill was unnecessary, we shall see...

The headline that prompted this blog post was regarding one of the dozen judges that will hear the appeal in the Supreme Court making comments on the case in a speech to students abroad.

Her comments are being drip fed to us by the media.Initially it looked like she only mentioned it in passing, but later drips show she went into some detail (I want a full transcript!).

The big issue she raised was that as only parliament can make and repeal UK domestic law. And while treaties don't usually impact domestic law, so can be entered into and broken by the government using royal prerogative, the 1972 EU Legal supremacy act apparently means EU treaties do impact domestic law so need parliaments assent.

She suggested the implication of this may be that the 1972 act may have to be repealed before Article 50 is invoked. Repealing the 1972 act itself is quite simple, but the consequences of doing so are potentially extensive. Theresa May's original plan was to move all EU law into UK law to mitigate these consequences (200,000 pages and growing of new law). However the Judge has suggested that each individual law may need to be itemised for debate by parliament before being accepted/amended/rejected - a process that could take many years, and as the EU creates new law endlessly (a reason for leaving), it may be a never ending process - and it may all need to be done before Article 50 can be invoked.

I suspect this was the plan all along - and the pro-EU establishment knew this when the 72 act was created and have lied to us all along about it being a simple vote to repeal it 'if we wanted to'.

If this judges view is correct, then brexit may be delayed indefinitely unless we replace our MP's and government with one that is committed to brexit. Simply replacing MP's in not enough - this Conservative government under David Cameron and Theresa May are as much barriers to Brexit as the Liberal Democrats are - just more sneaky and underhand about it.

Sign up here to get inspiration to write to your MP! And/or Sign up to get info on Brexit events! I run a load of lists - do sign up to at least one - having made contact, it would be a waste not to keep it!!
Join a list - keep in touch at

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

Letter to my MP (conservative, junior governent post) - re #Brexit debacle.

I have started a club to help encourage and inspire others to write to their MP's - hints/tips/ideas - why not join the mailing list?

Tuesday 8 November 2016


I am very disappointed with the turn of events around brexit.

I wrote to you before the referendum decrying the fact David Cameron and his Conservative government had apparently been making no plans for the eventuality of the vote going for leave.

Now after much (avoidable) delay while such plans are created, the unthinkable has become thinkable. The small hardcore pro EU, anti democratic element of society have started openly talking about ignoring the result of the referendum.

The appeal has been based on the fact that further legislation appears to be needed before article 50 is invoked - a fact that was (apparently) well known to parliament and MP's all along (being explicitly referenced in the explanatory notes relating to the bill), a fact that Mr Cameron and his government would have been well aware of. From what I have seen and read myself this seems (to such a layman) an entirely reasonable interpretation of the situation (although it may well be subject to other law I am not aware of).

Mr Cameron was prime minister when the AV referendum bill was created and the issue of further legislation was clearly an important point and must have been much discussed. And he must have been aware of this fact when the EU referendum bill was drawn up and later when he falsely stated that 'the government will implement your decision' - as this was a promise he knew he could not make, and a false promise that no MP highlighted or brought to the publics attention to at the time.

It can only be believed that Mr Cameron and his Government deliberately included this flaw in the EU referendum bill as a 'backstop' in the even of leave winning against his own wishes. And the whole of parliament failed the British people in not removing this flaw before the bill was passed.

For the government and parliament to put this right at quickly as possible and avoid public unrest an immediate motion should be passed stating that 'this house unreservedly support the public's decision to leave the EU, and for the government to invoke article 50 at the earliest opportunity and no later than ....'.

I know such a vote was proposed in the recent debate on brexit, and dismissed out of hand, however while the government may be content to sit on their hands for now, the public may be less so.

Such a division would mean the public can be fully aware of where their MP's stand on this issue, and brexit can continue with no further diversionary fuss, and end this additional and extended 'uncertainty' which everyone agrees is a bad thing. Should the division fail the whole situation is no worse that it is now.

For your reference, I have written a short blog referring to the relevant documents and statements.

Yours sincerely,