Devolution: has it worked?

In 1997, Tony Blair and the New Labour Administration came up with Devolution. The solution to all problems ended in nightmare. The Welsh Assembly controlled by Labour has made a mess of things. The Scottish Parliament has been the source of a never ending series of scandals and bad governance. 

Standards in terms health and education have fallen steadily and division within the ruling SNP have led to the SNP losing support and even to SNP MPs tempted to change sides to the point that just a few days ago a SNP MP joined the Conservative Party.

In Northern Ireland, things are not better. Once again, the Northern Ireland Assembly seem destined to be non operational with Westminster have to exercise what to all effects is direct rule, something that the Good Friday Agreement involving shared power sought to avoid.

We now face various sets of elections in coming May 2024. General Election in the United Kingdom, London Assembly Election and elections involved the so called Devolved Authorities, apart from other local elections.

May 2024 could be a whole set of changes within the United Kingdom, but the political realities might be somewhat different of what many have come to expect. In spite of the fact that many will still be voting on the basis of their political allegiances, many will be willing to change sides and vote for parties that they have never supported before.

There is dissent between parties, but also dissent within political parties. The purge carried out by Keir Starmer may come to haunt him. Many traditional Labour voters do not like Keir Starmer at all. In fact, they seem him as the enemy within. For certain regions, certain issues will take priority and they have proven that they are more than willing to vote for a specific issue and against the political party that they used to support. Immigration will be a huge factor in the coming elections. Anybody promoting open borders will find herself or himself cut off from public opinion.

Can Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage create a new alliance?

 

Can Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage create a new alliance?

As the Conservative Party stands today, commentators believe that the outcome of the 2024 General Election is a given: Keir Starmer as new British Prime Minister and Rishi Sunak to follow Liz Truss on the way out.

It is also said that the SNP stands to lose the next General Election thus given the Labour Party MP seats that it needs to win the General Election.

Now, it the success of Keir Starmer a given. There are many doubters within Labour ranks that don't see that Keir Starmer has traditional labour values at heart. The campaign against Jeremy Corbyn made Keir Starmer some friends, but also many enemies. And what about the A team of the Labour Party? Is it really an A team.

Another factor to be taken into consideration is that Scottish Nationalism might be stronger than many commentators like to think, such levels of emotion regarding independence that will make may Scottish voters who could be reluctant to support SNP the strength to ignore SNP's many failures for the sake of keeping the campaign towards independence going. If this is the case, then Labour might collect some seats, but the SNP might be able to maintain its electoral force. The Greens that have been SNP allies might benefit by allowing SNP to keep its mandate in Scotland while extracting, at the same time, some more concessions in terms of the environmental agenda. A bit like the Greens in Germany entered a coalition with SPD to allow Olaf Scholz to form a coalition.

There are already three test in the immediate future that the Conservative Party must face. One is the seat of the now Former Prime Minister and Former MP in Uxbridge. Another is the seat of Nadine Dorris. And yet another is Nigel Adams' seat. Uxbridge is a marginal seat. The bar in terms of losing Uxbridge is very low. Thus should Boris Johnson's supporters decide to abstain the seat will be lost. Conservative voters will have to decide regarding Nadine Dorris' seat and Nigel Adams' seat. Will Conservative voters decide to punish Prime Minister Rishi Sunak by abstaining? 

In the coming days, should there be more resignations, Rishi Sunak's leadership will be under enormous strain. After the rout of recent local elections, losing three or more by-elections, and this on top of MPs - some from the so called Red Wall - that have not decided to stand for election in 2024, could lead to the unthinkable, but some say that the unthinkable for the Conservative Party will be like committing harakiri. the unthinkable has been defined as yet another leadership contest within the Conservative Party to replace Rishi Sunak. It was Boris Johnson that made the seemingly impossible happen. Boris Johnson as leader managed to persuade Labour Party supports to support the Conservative Party. The Red Wall successes were due to Boris Johnson's leadership and voters feel betrayed.

Some commentors say that many Conservative MPs did not wish to resign because it would be the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas. Let us be reminded that this is not happening right at the beginning of a Conservative administration. They would not be turkeys voting for Christmas because Christmas will happen anyway in May 2024.

If Boris Johson comes to an agreement with Nigel Farage, the Conservative Party could be a goner even before the next General Election. Rishi Sunak is not seen as a leader, but as an administrator. Given what is happening, Rishi Sunak could be a defined as a Caretaker Prime Minister. It must be remembered that Rishi Sunak was not elected by the Electorate and on top of that Rishi Sunak was not elected by Conservative Party members either. He is also remembered as the man who rebeled against Boris Johnson and was part of a coup to unseat Boris Johnson. It woul also be said that his reluctance to support Boris Johnson against what has been qualified as a witchhunt was a calculated effort to get rid of Boris Johson. It would very difficult for Rish Sunak to appeal for party loyalty.

Lots of money for war, but thousands of people in the UK are left without legal support in court

Democracy and Justice? What Democracy and Justice?

What is happening in Britain is absolutely shambolic. While politicians and mass media are focused on geopolitical nonsense, people in the UK are suffering and suffering ever more and not just because of rising interest rates and rising living costs, waiting lists in health services and almost impossible access to decent housing.

Ministry of Justice has announced that is cutting funding court support service for thousands of people who have to attend court sessions without legal representation and forced to represent themselves. Since legal aid cuts were introduced in 2013 the number of those who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer has skyroketted. By the end of June 2022, a service that has offices in 20 civil and family courts across England and Wales will be left without funding.

It is one of several charities working with unrepresented people in court whose funding is in doubt after the government ended its litigants in person strategy earlier this year. They have been told there will be grants they can apply for in future but given no idea of how much these will be, or what the timescales are.

Left with a £400,000 shortfall in its budget, Support Through Court is about to launch an urgent appeal for funds, without which it faces the prospect of redundancies and the closure of some of its offices.

Eileen Pereira, the chief executive of the charity, said: “Every day hundreds of people who can’t access legal aid walk into court buildings in need of support and guidance and this is only set to rise as the cost of living increases. Without the funding we’ve received for eight years, we’re facing the real possibility of closing the doors on the support we provide to these people.

“To end up closing any of our services would have a devastating impact, not just on the clients we support but on the whole court system.”

Legal aid was taken away in most civil cases and almost all private family law in 2013. Since then, the proportion of private family law hearings where both parties have a lawyer has almost halved to one in five.

In some family hearings it is not uncommon that just one of the litigants is assisted by a solicitor and this happens in 42% of all cases heard in courts across England and Wales. This creates all kinds of injustices as it generates an uneven playing field when it comes to disputes regarding access to childrena and separation of finances. 

While 81% of all those bringing civil claims – such as companies chasing debts – have lawyers, only 44% of those defending them are represented.

The Law Society of England and Wales President, I Stephanie Boyce, said: “Cuts to legal aid have left more and more people having to represent themselves in court as litigants in person. What they most need is legal advice and representation, but Support Through Court provides practical and emotional support that can help them through stressful court hearings. It would be another blow to people trying to navigate the justice system if state funding were removed for this important service.”

The funding shortfall faced by specialist legal and advice support services is £17.5m for 2022-23, according to data collected by the Community Justice Fund.

Look at the numbers. How much money is being diverted to foreign countries and how much money is being withdrawn from critically important services in the United Kingdom. 

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We want access to early legal support to be available to those who need it most and charities will soon be able to bid for new grant funding so even more people can benefit from their services.”

But the fundamental question is how it is possible that people in England and Wales are forced to attend court hearings without legal support simply because they cannot afford legal support and this goes to the core of the very definition of a justice system in the United Kingdom as a whole. Democracy? What Democracy? 

 

Conservative Party is being defeated by demographics

Whether this is accepted or not, the fact remains that demographic changes are changing the political map of England and in particular of London. There are swades of people that might abstain from voting Labour, but would certainly not support the Conservative Party. During the recent local elections in London, there were block votes and mixed votes. Block votes is when all votes on the ballot paper are for a single party. A mixed vote is when on the ballot paper votes are for different political parties. 

After recent changes in terms of the number of wards and of the candidates that could be chosen to represent each ward, it became apparent that people in general could support Labour and Greens or Lid Dems on the same ballot, but very few could bring themselves to choose a mixed vote that included Conservatives. Another option, for many voters who did not want to vote Labour was simply to abstain in a sort of protest vote.

In Conservative ranks there is the view that 'Westminster is poisonous'. This means that events happening at national level are somehow putting off Conservative voters and anybody else who in theory would be willing to support Conservative candidates.

The race card and the socio-economic card play a huge part in local elections in London. The Conservative Party managed to lose the only Councillor it had in Clapham, Lambeth. Members of ethnic minorities would not support the Conservative Party. I have chosen the label 'ethnic minorities' when in fact so called ethnic minorities have become majorities in several London boroughs.

London politics is tribal and tribalism is very much undermining democracy when people vote along racial lines driven by misconceptions about what candidates actually represent. One can understand why Labour demonises candidates of other political parties as a way to keep itself in power, but this undermines relationships between communities. If politics is dominated by ghetto mentalities, and ideas about 'us and the others', peaceful coexistence cannot be promoted.

The realities of Nuclear War

 

Correspondence also sent to London Metropolitan Police and to Home Secretary Priti Patel

On the left, the image of London areas affected that could be bigger if instead of a 100 kiloton bomb there were several nuclear heads multiplying the destructive power. A missile can carry 14 nuclear heads.

Within the four inner circles, buildings will be erased and people will die immediately. Within the outer circle and beyond, radiation effects will take over. Some will die immediately and others will die painfully slowly. The descendants of those who manage to survive will be born with mutations and deformities.

During the evening, London has a population of about 8 million people. During daytime, the population of London grows because of commuting to the capital. So the estimate is that more than 4 million people will die immediately, the rest will die slowly suffering from high radiation doses.

 

The Russian Federation has stated very publicly that any no-fly zone will be a declaration of war while the Ukrainian President is attacking NATO for not implementing a no fly-zone. Since central areas of London are the site of political authorities and financial sectors, it would be expected that most Members of Parliament will be killed in the first blast. Buckingham Palace will be wiped out. Downing Street and other key departments like the Treasury will be wiped out. The City will be wiped out. Government, banking, communications, transport, financial activities will be paralysed. London will come to an abrupt halt.

London will have 15 minutes to prepare for it and it will happen when Britain least expect it for maximum repercussion and dire consequences. This will lead to the point of having to declare martial law in the United Kingdom. Civil rule will come to an end. In the chaos, healthcare facilities will not be able to cope. The rule of law will collapse with authorities struggling to maintain public order. Perfect environment for violence and widespread looting. Judging by the consequences of the riots because of the death of a black man in Tottenham some years ago and the inability of Police authorities to cope and prevent the spread of violence and looting across London that included burning of public and private property, I doubt very much that in a nuclear attack scenario Police forces will be able to cope and I also doubt that Armed Forces will be able to cope as radiation levels in Greater London will be so high that everybody who enters the area will be exposed to deadly radiation levels.  

 

Some years ago, there was a nuclear accident in Chernobyl. For many years, radiation exposure reached as far as Scotland. If a nuclear incident happens in London (or in several big cities including London) the entirety of the United Kingdom will be affected. The losses for Britain will be catastrophic. The human, social and financial consequences will be catastrophic. The British way of life will be wiped out.

This is why I feel so strongly that certain public statements made as knee-jerk reactions are extremely damaging and extremely dangerous. Cutting communication links is suicidal and this has effectively led to tit for tat reactions on both sides of the argument across the world. I always remind everybody about the Law of Unintended Consequences when events have a life of their own, when we lose control and end up just reacting to events that unfold and cannot be stopped.

I would suggest that only the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has the authority to issue official statements about the conflict. I copy this correspondence to London’s Metropolitan Police because they will be the ones leading with first stages of dealing with the catastrophe.

Faslane and other military installations as well as nuclear reactors and communication networks including airports and port facilities are obvious targets. With the fallout, digital transactions across the United Kingdom will be affected and this means that every aspect of life in the United Kingdom will be disrupted.  

Within 20 minutes, depending on the location of launching sites, most of what we know will be destroyed forever.

This is why I believe that restraint both in terms of what is said and of what is done is crucially important. Public hysteria promoted by mass media in the United Kingdom spreads across all levels of society in the United Kingdom.

Karl Hohenstauffen

London England United Kingdom

 

 

LGBT and mainstream religions

The message by Pope Francis that the Catholic Church will not bless same sex marriages doesn't come as a surprise. In fact, it has been part of religious doctrine for many hundreds of years. The Anglican Church itself has been in trouble because several branches of the Protestant communion reject the liberal attitudes of the English branch with regards to women as priests and with regards to homosexuality.

In fact, the Bible is about Adam and Eve, not Jenny and Mary or Peter and John. It is assumed that God is male - Father - and the emphasis is on the biological duality of Man and Woman.

The Church doesn't ignore the fact that in the real world there are heterosexual people, bisexual people and homosexual people, apart from other categories that you can imagine like pansexual or asexual.

The Catholic Church is not about Evolution. It is about Creed. The fact remains that if you are going to join any club, it is assumed that you sign up to the principles, rules and regulations of the said club. LGBT Catholics is a contradiction in terms. Despite the fact that there is homosexuality within the Catholic Church (the Catholic Church cannot escape the realities of humanity), there is the understanding that whoever calls himsels a Catholic will live by the principles of Catholicism.

Having said that, you have the choice to maintain your life choices by joining other religious denominations that allow you to maintain your life choices. Therefore, the confrontation between those who want to promote LGBT messages and the Catholic Church is totally unnecessary. You can join another Church or Religion, you can practice your religion privately as your dialogue between you and God or you can do without any religion whatsoever.

What people do in private as part of consensual activities is their business as long as they don't violate laws and regulations established to protect vulnerable adults and children. The same goes for religion. You either believe or don't believe. You don't need Churches or religious organisations to believe. 

The LGBT movement is a political movement that is constantly trying to force the rest of society to live by what they stand for. This is where the problem arises. Other people are also entitled to live according to their own beliefs. If the Catholic Church chooses to stand for and to stick to their beliefs, so be it. You don't have to be a member of the Catholic Church. Nobody forces you to be or to become a member of the Catholic Church. Inquisitions should be a thing of the past. By seeking to impose a Forced Conversion of the Catholic Church, the LGBT movement is shooting itself in the foot. 

Individuals who seek to be respected regardless of gender differences or life choices should understand that trying to force the Catholic Church to accept something that the Catholic Church couldn't accept because it goes against the Creed violates freedom of choice. If you don't like the club, join another club or create a club of your own. 

Personally, I treat everybody fairly as individuals, regadless of gender or sexual orientation. I do not demonise people because of their gender or sexual orientation. Having said that, the Catholic Church has the legitimate right to stick to the Catholic Creed.

United Britain: the task ahead

United Britain: the task ahead

After Brexit, the task is to reinforce the unity of the United Kingdom by putting in place policies that show regions of the United Kingdom - apart from the Southeast - that they do matter.

The rise of the SNP didn't happen overnight. Firstly, the Conservatives lost Scotland in 1997. After that, Labour and Liberal Democrats lost Scotland. But then Scotland was not alone. North/South Divide is a reality and then we reach Northern Ireland that has been treated as the poor cousin.

London/Southeast centric United Kingdom cannot go on. Unless the new Conservative government manages to do something extraordinary to create opportunities for all,  

When Boris Johnson suggested the construciton of a bridge to unite Northern Ireland and the UK mainland, many jumped in to criticize the British Prime Minister.Well, soonafter Crime rejoined the Russian Federation, the Russian President Vladimir Putin embarked on the construction of a bridge to join Crime and the mainland of the Russian Federation. The construction of a bridge would send a direct message to every nation of the United Kingdom and to the world as a whole. 

Will the Conservative government have the sense and the stamina to carry out such a task without repeating the same mistakes that Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats made that led to the present status quo?

It is not an easy task with so many interests that want to break apart the United Kingdom. Some of those interests are linked to internal divisions. Others are foreign and rooted in the European Union that fears the rise of Britain as a serious competitor. The old historical divisions have not gone away. In the end, Germany is Germany and France is France and Germany and France happen to be the main drivers of the European Union. When the time comes, what is going to be on the negotiation table is not the interests of the EU but the interests of the main powers within the EU. And as long as this is the case the future of the EU itself will hang in the balance.

Britain is pulled by blocks and geopolitical realities and very often against British interests. Brexit should mean a truly independent Britain with its own set of foreing policies. The Conservative government will be judged because of its successes at national level and because of its actions in the international arena., 

Royal Family: The rift between William and Harry has now been made official

Royal Family: The rift between William and Harry has now been made official

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/12/prince-william-harry-and-i-are-now-separate-entities

Since the abdication of Prince Edward (later known as Duke of Windsor), this is the most crucial event in the life of the Royal Family. The glamour and romantic aura are over. Now comes reality.

Reality knocks when one Labour Party contender calls for the abolition of the Monarcy and another calls for the abolition of the House of Lords - two of the pillars of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has been kept as one thanks to the Monarchy. Without it, it will be England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland playing separate roles. The union can survive other kinds of political upheavals, but the union would not survive the fall of the Monarchy. Centuries of common history would come to an end.

Why is this happening? Because the Labour Party is in tatters and is in denial and SNP is using the present circumstances to achieve its lifelong mission of destroying the United Kingdom.

This is what Elton John thinks of people who voted Leave

This is what Elton John thinks of people who voted Leave

If you are a fan of Elton John who voted Leave, this is what he thinks of you. According to Elton John, people who voted Leave are "stupid, colonial English idiots".  

Do you like being insulted because of what you think or believe? Apparently, Elton John thinks that he can insult people because of the democratic choices that they make.

Children Services: Extorting money from vulnerable parents

The extent of what is going on with regards to Social Services outsourcing services from private companies that charge parents to see their own children is still being determined. It is indecent and against basic Human Rights to charge parents to see their own children. 

The so called Contact Centres are no more than private businesses charging vulnerable people - very often on benefits or working part-time - that often don't have enough money to pay the £120 fee. If as a parent you don't have enough money to do a bank transfer to the said Contact Centres, the answer is "Sorry, this month you haven't paid and therefore you cannot see your child." 

We have written to Members of Parliament and until now we haven't got a reply. We are going to keep trying because vulnerable people deserve to be helped against what amounts to Slavery in the Twenty-First Century. A better system could not have been designed by the Mafia, but Mafia systems are being using by the State in Britain.

Jayda Fransen: How to be in Northern Ireland without being in Northern Ireland?

Jayda Fransen: How to be in Northern Ireland without being in Northern Ireland?

The incompatibilities of two legal systems: England's legal system and Northern Ireland's legal system are being used for political harassment and anti-terror legislation is being used for purposes that have nothing to do with tackling terrorism.

Northern Ireland is de-facto a country outside the United Kingdom, no matter what British politicians want you to believe and this is all too real when dealing with legal issues.

When it comes to bail conditions in England and in Northern Ireland, the English legal system struggles to find solutions that are not part of present legislation and judges have to be "creative' (creative is one way of putting it) to fill up the gaps created by legal incompatibilities.

Jayda Fransen's real residence is a property in Northern Ireland but English authorities forced her to reside in England having to pay for accommodation in England that she could ill afford. She was given the choice to live in a hostel surrounded by real criminals including drug-addicts, rapists, paedophiles and the like. Although part of the bill for housing is paid by the state, people placed on bail and forced to live at a certain address that is not their home address are forced to pay part of the bill even when they have their own homes somewhere else in the United Kingdom.

Given the fact that the reasons to imprison her and to later impose draconian bail conditions were utterly political, she was treated like somebody involved in Islamic Terrorism. Due to her very high political profile, she asked SO15 to ensure that the places where she was going to be forced to reside in were safe but SO15 officers failed in their duty of care and told her that 'if she was attacked, she would be transferred to some location in Liverpool'. Translation: wait until somebody attacks you for us to protect you.

A female Probation Officer when asked a direct yes/no question about very serious issues could only come up with a reply saying 'I believe that...'. "I believe that'? An Officer of the Law is not supposed to believe. An Officer of the Law must be able to answer Yes or No. Either security measures were implemented or security measures were not implemented.

We can hardly blame a Probation Officer of not being able to answer a direct question after listening to Members of Parliament including Members of the British Government talking about liability and evidence. They could only produce words like perhaps, maybe, possibly, most probably when dealing with an extremely serious accusation against another country.

It should be mandatory for Members of Parliament to witness trials to see how Legislation is actually being implemented and to see what is going wrong. The judges were struggling to pass sentence but in the end it is not the judges' fault to be put in such idiotic situation because of defective legislation passed by incompetent Parliamentarians who very seldom have to face real everyday cases in the courts.

Are British Courts of Law and Police Services being used for political persecution? Yes, they are. Anti-Terror legislation is being used in cases that have nothing to do with Terrorism. Police Officers are being ordered to detain and arrest individuals using Anti-Terror legislation in cases that have nothing to do with Terrorism.

The so called Prevent initiative has done more damage than good. If anything, it has created widespread animosity because of blatant abuses. Abuses will not promote trust. Abuses will promote Extremism. We have seen Police Officers asking families to denounce their own relatives and friends and asking teachers to denounce their own pupils including those of a very young age. These are not just nonsensical attitudes. They are dangerous attitudes. What kind of society are they trying to create?  

   

  

On Jewish Holocaust and other issues

On Jewish Holocaust and other issues

World War Two has been a subject of interest in my family for understandable reasons and had a profound impact on me from my early childhood. Today, more than 70 years after the end of World War Two both in terms of events that happened during World War Two and after World War Two, the subject appears to be as relevant or even more relevant that it was in the days of World War Two.

We are daily bombarded with references to World War Two and words pertaining to the ideologies very much linked to the conflict are very much part of today's political discourse. There are legal cases across Europe concerning World War Two and this includes Britain where there are legal cases in British courts and there is intense debate involving political parties regarding Jewish issues

A few days ago, in Poland, a law was passed banning references to Polish participation in the plight of the Jews, practically saying that no Poles were involved in the plight of the Jews when in fact history tells us that Poles, Ukrainians and peoples of many other nationalities including French, Italians and even The Vatican were involved in the plight of the jews. 

There is no denying that there was active and deliberate persecution of Jews in Europe but there are serious doubts about numbers and methodology and anybody who raises serious questions about the official version of events suddenly finds himself or herself under attack. Knowing history and accounts about history, many things cannot be written in stone and so called official versions are bound to be countered when new evidence arises showing that official accounts are not accurate or are in dire need of amendments. If it is valid when it comes to the Titanic or the fate of the Russian Imperial Family, it is valid when it comes to the persecution of Jews in Europe - no matter how many laws are passed to deny individuals the right to ask questions and to raise doubts about the veracity of many historical events.

I look at developments in Europe during World War Two and it becomes immediately apparent that there are serious cracks in official versions of events and especially when what is known as the Jewish Holocaust is said to have reached a climax when Germany was fighting in several fronts in Europe, in Africa and in the Middle East. Germany was fully committed in the battlefields. Whoever was not deployed in the battlefields had to be used in the home front to produce what was necessary to keep Germany alive and this was not just about what was necessary to continue the war effort. Manpower had been stretched to the limit. Because Germany didn't have enough manpower, slave workers were employed and foreign nationals did run so called concentration camps.

Fuel was in short supply. Much of the effort made by the Afrika Korps was done to secure oil sources to keep the Wehrmacht operational and after events in Africa and Middle East lack of basic supplies marked the beginning of the end because every bit of fuel available was desperately needed to prevent Soviet advances in the East and to prevent Allied advances both in the West in the South.

Logic tells us that being so over-stretched, the running of the camps would been even more severely affected. If there was little the local population could get with constant bombardment, there would have been even less resources available for concentration camps. If people outside concentration camps were facing extreme rationing, those in concentration camps would certainly be facing starvation and therefore most of the deaths in concentration camps would have been caused by starvation and diseases related to starvation. Those found still alive when then camps were taken were found suffering from extreme malnutrition and this reinforces the idea that malnutrition and lack of basic sanitary facilities were in fact the biggest killers.

When Germar Rudolf then working for the Max Planck Institute suggested that there were not enough chemicals to justify the official versions of events, he was fired and was also forced to forget about his PhD at the University of Stuttgart. As if this wasn't enough, a warrant of arrest was issued forcing him to flee to Spain, to England and ultimately to the USA from where he was extradited to face courts in Germany. Germany, a highly cultured country, prosecutes anybody who dares to challenge the official version of events even if the official version of events cannot be supported with factual information. Starvation, diseases related to starvation and ailments caused by poor sanitation seemed to be the most likely cause of death in concentration camps. Vast numbers of people living in very crowded conditions would have been prone to contract lethal infectious diseases very much as it happened during several plagues in the history of the European Continent. Burning corpses in ovens or pires or burying them in collective graves would have been the obvious way of disposing of the corpses of those who had succumbed to starvation or disease.

Was there persecution of Jews? Yes, there was persecution of Jews but camps were not only meant for Jews but also for peoples of other ethnic backgrounds including prisoners of war. Life in crowded conditions combined with malnutrition leading to starvation and illnesses was the most important cause of death. There were executions but not enough to justify the numbers that were registered as factual information when in fact they were the product of speculation. We will never know how many people died during World War Two including those who died from natural causes. If it is difficult to ascertain the number of casualties in today's conflicts, we can imagine that during World War Two it would have been even more difficult to determine accurate numbers.

People who have different views about what happened in those days should not be criminalised. Was there persecution? Yes, there was. Did people die in concentration camps? Yes, they did. How many died? We will never know. How many died from starvation and diseases? We don't know because there are no records. There are not enough records of executions and there are not enough records of any other cause of death. Numbers that have been presented as facts are the product of speculation.

It was a terrible time in history. Millions died that should not have died and this includes men, women and children. It was a tragedy but it was a tragedy for all those involved. Nobody should be allowed to use the said tragedy as a propaganda tool for spurious purposes - regardless of nationality, religion or any other classification criteria or background.

World War Two is not the historical patrimony of the Jews. It is estimated that more than 60 millions people across the globe lost their lives, peoples of all religions, peoples of all races, peoples of many nationalities.

Alison Chabloz on trial

Alison Chabloz on trial

The outspoken British singer is yet another victim among those who actually believe that there is Freedom of Speech - or in her case Freedom to Sing.

There isn't Freedom of Speech when a minority is able to oppress the majority imposing a regime of fear in which people end up being afraid of saying anything just in case it might lead them to trouble.

Why Jews were so hated for centuries? There are fundamental reasons for that. Some of them were what we could define as parasites that using money to exert undue influence generated a life of misery for millions.

They did it before when they benefited directly from European wars, selling weapons and 'investing on all sides'. This is the reason why an English King decided to throw them out of England centuries ago. Whether in England, Germany, Spain or in several other countries they were usually identified as exploiters and addicted to use every subterfuge for their own selfish interests regardless of the consequences.

The Middle East and what happens in Palestine is clear example of such behaviour. After coming as refugees at the end of World War Two and after  been given the opportunity to create a homeland for themselves, they decided that what they received in 1948 was not enough and then proceeded to try and take everything else. Two State Solution? No way. They are now planning to annex the West Bank and soon they will turn their anger against the Gaza Strip that they have carpet bombed destroying ten of thousands of family homes and leaving a wake of corpses of men, women and children in the process.

Murder became a synonym of Israel and despite calls made by the Organisation of the United Nations, Israel continues to violate fundamental Human Rights imprisoning children in prisons for adults.Anybody who dares to criticize Israel's violations ends up being called Nazi, Fascist and Racist notwithstanding the fact that Israel prepares itself to expel African refugees 'because Israel wants to maintain the Jewish identity of Israel'. Are the ones in charge of implementing such policies the descendants of those who complained about ill treatment under National Socialist Germany?

The policies of occupation and annexation that they so much criticise when implemented by others are fully supported by the Jewish State of Israel that is the implementation of Mein Kampf  (If you can take it and you can keep it, it is yours). Next time somebody talks about National Socialist Germany, look at what Israel is doing in Palestine.

Israel is a theocratic racist state that will stop at nothing to get its way. Zionists are worst than the ones they criticise.

Jack Renshaw: Justice system gone mad

Jack Renshaw: Justice system gone mad

Jack Renshaw used to be a member of the youth branch of the British National Party and made speeches at the age of 15 at party meeting including a National Conference.

Now, he is in detention in Manchester because some time ago during a speech made at the age of 22, years after he left the BNP youth movement, he allegedly made derogatory comments about Jews.

Jack Renshaw was arrested by the North West Counter Terrorism Unit headed by Detective Chief Superintendent Tony Mole.

Jack Renshaw a target of the North West Counter Terrorism Unit? Jack Renshaw seen as terror threat? It is obviously a joke and a joke that is costing thousands of Pounds of taxpayers money. I wrote to the head of the North West Counter Terrorism Unit and also to the Jewish Group because this is utter nonsense that show how inadequate the services that are supposed to protect from terrorism actually are. If they had done real a real background search on Jack Renshaw they would have discovered who Jack Renshaw actually. If we went to send to Court every single person who has something native to say about Jews, half of the country would have to be sent to Court and ultimately jailed.

Mass hysteria is spreading like wildfire. Look at the headlines regarding the Labour Party, for example. Reading such rising amount of rubbish one would be led to believe that suddenly all Labour Party supporters would suddenly become storm troopers of Das Dritte Reich. Some people like Jews and other people don't like Jews. Get on with it. When a crook like Bernard Madoff goes around ripping off both Jews and non Jews and ends up in jail or a movie mogul like Harvey Weinstein stand accused of molestation, harassment and rape, both Jews and non Jews are angry.

Criticism is not a crime. It is a democratic right to criticise what we do not like without being taken to court for exercising our democratic rights. The legal system is crossing red lines and compromising our democratic freedoms.

North West Counter Terrorism Unit - Manchester

Dear Anthony George Mole,

I met Jack Renshaw, the 22 year-old that stands accused of making derogatory comments about Jews. The fact that he is being portrayed as a dangerous individual beggars belief and shows very little understanding about who Jack Renshaw actually is.

When I met him he would be about 15 years of age posing as a British Patriot and making emotive speeches about Britain, with very little life experience and very little or no political experience whatsoever. He was the typical young boy seeking attention and trying to be the centre of attention for the sake of self-importance.

There are many thousands like him that are much more of a danger to themselves than they could possibly be a danger to anybody else. You should also be aware of the mentality of the people you are dealing with. By sending an immature individual to jail, you are going to be making a very serious mistake. You are going to turn him into a hero.

Jewish publications are talking about him. The UAF is talking about him. Suddenly, from being totally anonymous, you are going to turn him into a celebrity, into somebody who was persecuted “for the cause”. This is the worst way of dealing with individuals like Jack Renshaw. You will be promoting his narrative and the narrative of thousands like him. From University drop-out, to “fighter for the cause”. As I refer to the Jewish Group, he is going to be surrounded by people who are the real danger and that will most probably nurture him as British prisons become centres for political indoctrination and terrorism training hotspots.

Best regards

Karl Hohenstauffen

The World of Politics / Politische Welt/ Мир политики

From: K G Hohenstauffen [mailto:kghohenstauffen@btconnect.com]
Sent: 06 November 2017 23:38
To: 'editorial@thejngroup.com' <editorial@thejngroup.com>; 'newsdesk@thejngroup.com' <newsdesk@thejngroup.com>
Subject: Jack Renshaw
Importance: High

Dear Sir/Madam,

Who is Jack Renshaw? An immature 22-year-old looking for attention and saying silly things that ultimately got him into trouble. I met him about 5 years ago. By then he was presented as an enthusiastic and old-fired up British Nationalist with no political experience whatsoever. He read high-school style speeches full of patriotic fervour but with very little substance and waited for the applause of the audience, not understanding that many of those who made up the audience were people of little consequence, limited education and limited brainpower. He went on to join National Action – a group of very disturbed and disturbing individuals, also of little consequence, of limited education and limited brainpower who he defined as a more radical group because he wanted to be ‘a man of action’. Being a man of action meant for him to talk rubbish, the kind of rubbish he couldn’t possibly talk about as a member of a political party – any political party. Jack Renshaw is not a dangerous individual. If anything, he is merely a danger to himself.

He is already in detention and there is the probability that on January 2^nd, 2018 he will be sent to jail for a very long time. What would be achieved? There are many Jack Renshaw, teenagers that at one point or another lose their bearings and go around seeking attention, getting involved with the wrong kind of people. Because he will be judged for having made Anti-Jewish comments and he is going to be surrounded by Muslim Extremists who are also Anti-Jewish, he is going to spend time with people who are truly dangerous and have the means to commit atrocities. He is going to be trained, nurtured to become a real extremist, because British Prisons are training centres for Islamic Fundamentalists.

Best regards

Karl Hohenstauffen

The World of Politics / Politische Welt/ Мир политики

http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/man-accused-jack-renshaw-stirring-up-jew-hate-pleads-not-guilty/

Theresa May is absolutely right in asking the country for a clear mandate

To be or not to Be: That is the question.

When Prime Minister Theresa May was elected by the Conservative Party, many of those criticising her for calling an early election said that 'she had not been elected in a General Election'.

As soon as Prime Minister Theresa May went to Parliament to amend the legislation about fixed 5-year Parliaments and won, she was criticised for asking the British people for a clear mandate.

I am not a member of the Conservative Party or of any other political party for that matter. I vote with my conscience regardless of any party political allegiance and I say that Prime Minister Theresa May is absolutely right to call a General Election when some of the most crucial negotiations modern Britain will be engaged in are due to take place.

I witnessed the mayhem and confusion in the House of Commons, the sniper-fire and the air of division and without a shadow of a doubt a House of Commons elected after the implementation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was badly needed because the one we had did not represent the will of the Electorate expressed on June 23, 2016.

We need a Parliament that is fully behind the British Prime Minister showing a United Kingdom that is truly united supporting the will of the British people who, at the end of the day, is the true sovereign of the United Kingdom.

When the new House of Commons rises it will be a House of Commons that truly reflects the will of the Electorate and not a House of Commons that was embattled in the campaign for or against the implementation of Article 50 of the House of Commons.

We hope to see the real balance of forces in all home nations and undoubtedly there is a question mark about the level of support for the Scottish National Party that constantly threatens to break up the United Kingdom cajoling, blackmailing and concocting all kinds of schemes that threaten the political stability of the United Kingdom and weakens the United Kingdom when confronted with external powers.

I will stop short of qualifying Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP as traitors but the actions of the SNP and of its leader are controversial not to say treacherous and treasonable. There was a lawful Referendum on Scottish Independence, Referendum that the SNP has asked for and campaigned for and there was a clear majority of Scots that chose to be part of the United Kingdom. So where the United Kingdom goes, Scotland goes and there is no way out of it. That was the commitment made when people were asked if the wanted an independent Scotland.

All home nations will act as one, together, when decisions are made in the negotiations with the European Union because they share one destiny as the United Kingdom.

Those opposing the implementation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty even appealed to the maximum Court in the land and the maximum Court in the land said loudly and clearly that it was up to the national Parliament and its elected chamber the House of Commons to make a decision and that all other assemblies including the Scottish Parliament should have no say in the matter.

The Scottish government regardless of being or not being a majority in the Scottish Parliament and regardless of the number of MPs that represent the SNP in the House of Commons have to obey the will of the majority in the House of Commons.

The General Election is about having or not having a strong government to negotiate the future relationship with the European Union. Everything else comes second place. The priority is to show a united United Kingdom with an elected Primer Minister backed up by an unquestionable political mandate to do whatever is necessary.

SNP = there are two dimensions in every vote

There are two dimensions to every vote for SNP Scottish National Party.

In a desperate effort to get momentum going for a new Referendum on Scottish Independence, Nicola Sturgeon called for a coalition with Labour and Liberal Democrats not realising that such a coalition in a General Election would go against the will of Scottish voters in Scotland that not necessarily support Scottish Independence - for starters - and who profoundly disagree with SNP in Scottish politics.

In Scotland, SNP needs the support of the Green Party and in England the Green Party was looking for a similar coalition arrangement with Labour and Liberal Democrats but regarding Brexit.

In both cases, in kind of 'coalition arrangement' was discarded by both Labour and Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats have been trying to benefit for the Labour Party's internal struggles. So there is love relationship between Labour and Liberal Democrats.

Tony Blair's meddling in British politics have had a detrimental effect on the so called Remain campaign with Remain Conservative Members of Parliament leaving what is called Open Britain because of Open Britain's declared intentions of unseat pro-Brexit Conservative MPs.

This has been a bit like the outcome of Karl Marx's call 'Proletariat of the World unite'. Party political loyalties - like national loyalties proved stronger in World War One - have proven to be stronger than any kind of pretend convenience.

At the end of the day, most people will vote along party political lines and Members of Parliament will not put their own interests aside to promote the illusion of cross-party momentary alliances.

In the Constituency where I live, the electoral success of the incumbent Member of Parliament is guaranteed. Whatever other political parties might or might not do in terms of tactical voting doesn't really matter. When I go and vote on June 8th 2017, I will already know the name of who is going to be Member of Parliament.

Things might be a bit different in other constituencies where the incumbents have smaller majorities - marginal seats - but we are talking about 650 seats and a few changes here and there will not change the final outcome of the Election.

In 2015, SNP got 56 out of 59 seats in the House of Commons. Having reached the top of the mountain, the only way forward is downwards and this is something that Nicola Sturgeon might be very much thinking about. She didn't expect that she would have to deal with a General Election so soon while still having to deal with difficulties in the Scottish Parliament. She knows that losing members in Westminster will also benefit her Scottish opponents in the Scottish Parliament.

England and Scotland at war. Justice Secretary starts shooting.

No sooner the echoes of the Referendum should be dying down and normality should have reappeared, War has started between England and Scotland over who has the right to decide about what.

From the Daily Telegraph:

Mr Grayling says the constitutional shake-up after the Scottish independence referendum must deliver a new deal for England. English MPs alone must have the final say over English laws, he says.

The Scottish parliament should not receive more powers over tax, welfare and spending while Scottish MPs can still “shape the destiny” of the NHS, education and justice systems in England and force “socialist policies” on their southern neighbours.

“That would be a travesty of democracy, and would be regarded with fury by the English,” Mr Grayling warns.

David Cameron made promises. As soon as the outcome of the Referendum is known, amnesia in Westminster.