Click to get your own widget

Tuesday, April 14, 2009


I got this via Watts Up with That & most definitely not from the BBC or ITN despite it being an attempted terrorist act which would have endangered thousands of innocent British citizens.

More than 100 people are in custody after police smashed a major plot to sabotage one of Britain's biggest power-stations.

...Officers swooped on environmental protesters as they prepared a mass raid that could have disrupted supplies to tens of thousands of homes.

The demonstrators are thought to have gathered at night in readiness to move on Ratcliffe-on-Soar power-station, Nottinghamshire.

They were rounded up shortly after midnight on Sunday...

114 men and women from across the UK were detained during the dramatic swoop.

They were being questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage at Ratcliffe-on-Soar.

Supt Manley said: "In view of specialist equipment recovered by police, those arrested posed a serious threat to the safe running of the site.

"This was a significant operation, with large-scale arrests. There were no injuries during the arrests, and the police investigation is ongoing."

"I counted 20-plus vans, all one after the other, with police cars at the rear. Then they blocked off all the roads around the community centre."

with respect to a previous attack At the time Eastside Climate Action, the group involved, said the break-in reflected "the threat climate change poses to the human population".

A spokesman said: "We argue that the threat to human life is so serious that it is a proportionate and reasonable response to take direct action."

This is a very serious large scale threat. Such things become inevitable when the state decides that violence, when carried out in the eco-Nazi cause, is proper. It follows the Kingsnorth trial where Gore's toady James Hansen & Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith testified is support of such violence to put the lights out. If these people want folk to be deprived of electricity they should be exiled to Saint Kilda where they could happily live out their lives free of such modern terrors, its original inhabitants having decided they preferred progress. Happy all round then. Such parasitic thuggery has got to be stopped. {We could let them come back when the sea has risen 3 feet, best guess for which is 500 years}

I was watching TV one night a few years ago and the lead character on a show gave this quote from Abraham Lincoln: The doctrine of the schoolhouse in one generation becomes the doctrine of the statehouse in the next generation.

It was a Christian TV show claiming that Darwinism is false. Other than the announcers claim I have no other source.

Assuming that most military action is undertaken by men around my age or younger that would mean that these saboteurs entered kindergarten around 1990-1995. Either they were all educated in an area where the school system was captured by ecopagans, or the entire public school system on your island has been captured. Either way this shows that public education is one of the great threats to liberty in Britain.

In fact, going further a country where the government does so much should not be ruled democratically. Maybe Elizabeth II can be persuaded to fire your PM and take over.
Our education system is indeed very heavily influenced by the eco-fascists. Hence the need to go to law to try not stop Gore's lying film being shown in schools by simply the requirement that there be a mention that some if it wasn't factual.

Nonetheless I have a lot of respect for people to come to sensible conclusions when pushed far enough. After 70 years of the most all encompasing communsit propaganda the people of Russia don't believe in catastrophic warming & voted overwhelmingly for a leader whose declared understanding of the of free market capitalism is far greater than that of either our national leaders'.

Anyway prince Chuck is heir to the throne & he is not going to lead any fight against eco-fascism.
I didn't say Charles, I meant his mother. She can fire a few million parasites off the public payrolls and then insist that her oldest son step aside due to age so that his eldest may rule. Or she could just override parliament on a few issues, and otherwise let the MPs handle the rest.
Yes but if you accept monarchy, or indeed any other system, only when it provides the answer you want you have to accept it when you don't. I actually rather like Charles because he clearly does care & tries to do his duty. It is just that he is very wrong on the eco subject. The justification for actual ruling monarchy is that somebody has to do it; that those who seek power are just the sort that shouldn't have it; & that if everybody knows who has the job it is much safer for everybody. For that reason getting people to step aside takes away the main advantage while leaving the problem.
Actually, if I remember my very limited history of England, she owns the government and she can do whatever she pleases.
Legally that is close to so & may remain so as long as nobody tries it. When push comes to shove when Edward VII tried to marry somebody the PM didn't like he had to go. Technically she also owns Canada, Australia in the same way & her ancestor owned the 13 colonies. Had he consented never to use that power she still would. The nearest I can think of in US terms is that the college that elects the US President is constitutionally allowed to select anybody but they would never use it.
Here was my source on the history of England:

Second, the Electoral Collage could elect someone else, especially if the candidate dies with no one else to take his place, or the choice is viewed as unfit. In the absolute sense they could do anything.

One limitation on their action is that they do not meet together but gather at their respective state capitols.
In theory they could, in practice they have never come close to doing so. There is a statistical possibility of the President elect dying before inauguration but even thenI think one would have to have a spectacularly unfitted Vice for there to be a fight. In the same way our Monarch has the power to ask whom to become the PM, who must then command a majority in Parliament, which did have some effect when Churchill replaced Chamberlain & Lloyd George replaced Asquith. If we ever had an election where no party was large enough to form a majority the Queen might be forced to make the choice but I think she would go to great lengths not to have to do so in case the one she chose made a mess of it (as most of them do).
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.