A Place to Stand

In Friday's Herald (I haven't linked it because the Herald is subscrption after the first day):

John Stewart argues that the approaching blackouts due to lack of electricity-generating capacity can be postponed by a 10-year extension of the life of Hunterston (Letters, May 30). Robin Harper, Green MSP, in reply (June 1) says that because we use power in other forms (cars, aircraft, etc) we will not notice when what he acknowledges as "only" one-third of our electricity is cut off.

I believe that a new reactor would be cheaper in anything but the short term and safer and would certainly produce less reactor waste than running the current one so far beyond its design life. Whatever the technical case for such an extension, your readers should be informed that at their recent conference the LibDems not only opposed new generators but specifically rejected an amendment which would have allowed such an extension for Hunterston. In which case Hunterston will close in 2011 and blackouts can be expected shortly thereafter.

This is in accord with the policy of Nicol Stephen who declared, during a recent BBC debate, that "nuclear is the easy answer" and went on to explain that it must thus be avoided at all costs since if it were allowed to work the electorate would never accept all the massive subsidies for wind, etc. Personally, I do not consider that position can reasonably be called "liberal".

Perhaps Scotland deserves some political leaders who do not believe that uncomfortable facts will go away if they bury their heads in the sand.
Neil Craig, 27 Woodlands Drive, Glasgow.

Perhaps Mr Stephen will write to clarify his remarks & explain exactly where the electricity to replace Hunterston in 2011 is to come from. Since he has not exactly been highly visible I suspect not.

(no response today - I will add here if they feel able to respond)

I am reprinting here an article by Pete North on the murder of Milosevic
-----------------------------


by Pete North

June 1, 2006

Based on the evidence provided by the ICTY themselves (some of it clearly inadvertant as a result of their clumsy coverup in the immediate aftermath of his death) i.e., public statements from ICTY officials (doctors/toxicologists) that they performed blood tests on January 12 which revealed the presence of the Leprosy drug 'Rifampicine' in Milosevic's blood but kept it secret from Milosevic,his doctors,lawyers and the entire world for TWO MONTHS until March 7, is clear evidence of foul play on the part of officials in the ICTY.

The fact that the ICTY had to change their story repeatedly resulting in numerous self- contradictory and inconsistent statements also points to a clear coverup.

For example, once the Dutch NOS TV station revealed certain facts soon after Milosevic's death - especially that Milosevic had a blood test on January 12 - which the ICTY doctors themselves admitted was performed in order to find out why Milosevic's heart medication wasn't working - and yet failed to tell anyone in the world including Milosevic himself until March 7 - and yet he dies three short days after writing a letter to the Russian embassy complaining of being poisoned.

The constantly changing stories by ICTY officials - all contradictory of one another - given for his death were also highly suspicious.

They first said it was "natural causes", then said "possibly suicide", then they said he took the "wrong medicine" - without explaining how he could have possibly taken the medicine without them knowing - since he was always closely watched and was ONLY given medicine by the prison dispensary in the presence of armed guards.

Then they changed their story yet again by claiming that he must have been "poisoning himself in secret" in a "complex plot to escape to Russia" - even though this necessitated the involvement of his lawyers,doctors, the Russian government and even the ICTY ITSELF (since it was known Milosevic was under strict 24/7 Video surveillance & ALL medicine as indicated previously had to be taken from the prison dispensary in the presence of armed prison guards then how on earth could he be "poisoning himself" in secret?!)

The "poisoning himself in secret" story just didn't make any sense; realizing the absurdity, the ICTY offials simply changed their story yet again and LIED by making the ludicrous claim that he WASN'T monitored 24/7 and that "alcohol and other drugs" were being "smuggled in" to the prison for months before his death!!

But since this necessitated knowing involvement on the part of ICTY officials/guards, they had to change their story yet again by claiming that though the prison guards knew about this alleged smuggling of alcohol and drugs for months,somehow,because of sheer "incompetence", nothing was done about it by the higher ups (i.e the judges/prosecutors) and Milosevic was happily able to poison himself for months on end (and presumably also get drunk)!


The fact that soon after Milosevic's death the Dutch NOS TV station revealed that the ICTY ADMITTED that they KNEW about the presence of the Leprosy drug in his blood since January 12 - but supposedly did nothing about it for two entire months really threw a spanner in the works. This is where the cover up simply fell apart and blew a massive hole in the ICTY's initial "we didn't know he was poisoning himself so couldn't do anything about it" story.

Someone INSIDE the ICTY had to administering the Leprosy drug to Milosevic covertly without his knowledge and that was clearly revealed in the complaint letter that Milosevic wrote to the Russian embassy on March 8 after he received the blood test report -the day before - on March 7 -TWO MONTHS late.

Since in this letter Milosevic makes clear that the ICTY has repeatedly refused to let him go to Russia for heart surgery (even as late as his last appeal of February 24,2006 his request for medical treatment was denied)Milosevic pointed out that Russian specialists would quickly detect the Leprosy drug in a routine blood test - and thus clearly PROVE his poisoning by the ICTY - is it any surprise that the letter doesn't get delivered until AFTER his death?

Then they changed their story yet again and said that Milosevic WASN'T poisoned because they found no PRESCRIBED drugs in "toxic concentrations". How cute. Meaning he wasn't poisoned by the medicines he was SUPPOSED to be taking.

Even though ICTY officials admit that the Leprosy drug, 'Rifampicine', is an UNPRESCRIBED drug which apart from interfering with (i.e., blocking) heart medication - in effect acting as a POISON - it also quickly dissipates from the body leaving no trace of its presence (which they themselves admit) they still had the audacity to attempt to mislead the public by twisting the facts to make it sound as if he just simply wasn't poisoned in any way at all.

The fact that the ICTY blood test report of January 12 did not get delivered to Milosevic until March 7 - two months late - causing him to write his very concerned letter on March 8, outlining his grave fears about being poisoned, and the fact that his MArch 8 lettr did not get delivered to the Russian embassy until well AFTER Milosevic's death speaks volumes about who the only murderer could possibly be: NATO.

Since NATO have on numerous occasions publically admitted that they own - and ipso facto - control the ICTY, it can also be proved by the fact that Clinton's former "peace envoy", Richard Holbrooke was even able to intervene recently directly with the president of the ICTY on behalf of an ICTY-indicted KLA mass murderer, Mr.Ramush Haradinaj, to have Mr. Haradinaj released from The Hague prison without him having to even face trial - let alone be convicted for his crimes - also speaks volumes about what kind of "court" the ICTY truly is.
-----------------------------------
I think this is a pretty definitive dissection. Anybody who wants to claim to believe the ICTY didn't murder him has to explain why they had 8 (count 'em) separate versions of the "truth".

I saw this letter recently in, of all places, the entirely politically correct Independent. This would undoubtedly work. It would undoubtedly not lead to the increase in crime & rioting that we have seen, it would particularly help the most oppressed people in the world & it is entirely politically incorrect & I suspect, despite all the sisterhood of womankind, would not be popular with female electors.

Sir: Having watched the debate on immigration for some time ("Immigration: the real scandal", 18 May), I have come to a conclusion which may provoke some controversy, but which could clearly solve many of our immigration service's current problems. This is that we should immediately remove all migration controls on women.

It is clear that many of the public's apprehensions about immigrants are really confined to male migrants: none of the missing foreign criminals appears to be female; we do not seem to have any female terrorist suspects stalking our streets, and the low-level disorder that sometimes sours relations between migrants and host communities also seems to be male-dominated (I am sure this summer will give ample opportunity for our own lads to demonstrate that young men away from home sometimes get into scrapes).

By contrast, our immigration service seems to spend much of its time chasing female migrants, who in turn seem to be the most vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs etc. Cutting our immigration service's workload by 50 per cent would clearly lighten their load considerably.

This could have considerable fringe benefits. A large number of female migrants would clearly benefit our economy, as few people now seriously doubt that most women work harder than most men; becoming the first democracy to have considerably more female than male voters ought to prove an interesting experiment; and around the world societies with a track record of treating women badly would face the need to reform or face extinction within a generation.

JOE BAUWENS

Since it is the sort of thing which gets ignored because it doesn't fit into normal political boxes I thought it worth repeating here.

Once again the BBC started off the political week. On this occasion he ran a discussion on nuclear power with the remark

"We talk to the experts Sir Jonathan Porrit & Sir David King"

In fact to call either a nuclear power expert is untrue.

Sir David King is Blair's sientific advisor & does have some scientific credentials though nobody would claim he was the best scientist in Britain, or even close, which meant he got his job by being willing to prostitiue himself by giving the advice Bliar wants (if it works for Attourney Generals & MI5 bosses it certainly works for science advisors. Sir David is the guy whom I recently wrote about having said that by the end of the century the only inhabitable continent will be Antartica (which implies at least a 30 degree rise) & later said it would actually be a massive 3 degrees (the BBC naturally described this as "his strongest warning yet). I fully accept both claims as representing the full expertese of this fool.

Sir Jonathan Porritt is one of the more intelligent environmentalists around, which means he isn't always totally wrong. His expertise in nuclear power is equal to mine in potholing - it looks dangerous & I don't fancy trying it.

Both parties entirely agree that catastrophic global warming is the imminent threat & that we need more government regulation, restriction, poverty etc to stop it. Both are government employees & Bliar's curs (the "c" is soft).

This is yet another example of how the BBC always give both sides of the debate & always choose which 2, of very many sides, are acceptable. Thus giving the illusion of honest impartiality while keeping the reality of control.

The piece was introduced with a remark about the BBC's heavily hyped Climate Chaos introduced by David Attenborough whose impartiality is proven by the claim that he "used to be a climate sceptic in the 90s" but is now a loyal believer. I must have missed the programme where he took the GW nuts (it must be the only such the BBC ever did) but have asked the BBC when it was.