All welcome to Garry's SKILFUL site.

Anderson

SKILFUL (Oxford English Dictionary) Note the single L's
Endowed with reason; rational; also, following reason, doing right.
Reasonable, just, proper.
Having practical ability; possessing skill; expert, dexterous, clever.

Q.E.D. (Quod Erat Demonstrandum) [L.] Which was to be proved or demonstrated

Subjects: vCJD . New Labour . Surveillance . Censorship . Democracy
Sick of Spin . Surgery Warning . Petrol Tax . Family

All on this site is my truthfully considered and informed opinion.
I believe it is the Truth - but decide in your own mind.

Garry Anderson - Haverhill, UK

If you think any argument illogical, please explain why: garry@skilful.com

Latest critic: 24 Sep 03

On record as being most outspoken about SPIN (as can be seen for years on this site and from many postings on UK government websites) - I ask you now:

"The government's use of spin shows that they cannot be open and honest with the public - proving they have arrogant contempt of us. It is fact: They use half-truths to deceive or give legitimacy to iniquitous actions. They may wish respect and trust - but does abuse of public trust deserve respect?"

"The Truth is not something that should be manipulated to deceive people. I believe spin is the greatest danger to democracy. How can people make informed opinion, when given distorted view and salient facts are hid or demeaned?"

"This can be seen in the recent Iraq invasion, when UN 1441 and French position were both misrepresented to UK public. Also in Afghanistan invasion, when Blair would not have released Bin Laden to the US either."

"Cowards in the media pretend not to see - that deception through half-truths is exactly the same motive as out-right liars. They say spin is not as serious."

"In effect is it not worse, more malicious, because those using spin profess and defend this dissembling using any link with truth to do so?"

"Are you afraid to admit that spin is abuse of the truth?"

About Site

Firstly: Hello, Garry here. The family are; my wife Carol (married 27 years) and two daughters, Camille and Faye. I hope you and yours are well.

When the site started, over five years ago (on different URL address), the main aim was to warn people about the under reporting of elective surgery errors. I had two operations go badly wrong and did not want others to go through what I have. You should be properly informed of true risk before going under the knife. Like everything on the site, based on known facts, this was logically the truth. I have since been proven correct, although their figures are still under estimated - the details are below.

I have learnt to question things more since then. Nothing too difficult - just using logic and basic common sense. It is how skilful.com was acquired after many millions of domains had gone. Also, how the problem to conflict between trademarks and domain names was solved (which honest lawyers have ratified). This is even though the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization experts 'said' they were stumped for an answer. They would not confirm or deny the solution when it was shown to them. "Why not - don't they want to stop consumer confusion?", you might ask. Trademark and Competition Law is being violated by big business - so money and power perhaps. It is indisputable fact that the answer was self-evident and easier in use than the phone. To see major findings please visit WIPO.org.uk - not associated with UN WIPO.org.

Once a Labour supporter (now advocate no party) - I am pro-democracy, pro-liberty and likely my priorities are similar to your own. In case you forgot - democracy is a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people. I jest because we are supposed to be living in a democracy. Mr. Blairs actions demonstrate we do not. When possible they use spin and propaganda to engineer public opinion. Sophistry comes easy to them. Is Blair a good leader that takes into account the Cabinet (which he castrated) and the rest of government, or is he an autocrat? I certainly believe him an autocrat - it is nothing but spin to call this strong leadership.

This site certainly is not anti-authoritarian, but in fact highlights the misuse of authority. Please note that very important distinction. There is explanation of how those at the top abuse this power.

All I do is ask simple reasoned questions. You can learn lots when asking the right questions. You may be able to answer them yourself. Even if nobody answers, it helps see the situation more clearly. I hope that this site will help you to question what you are told. That is unless you are content to be misled, listening to spin. Like stated: I believe spin is the greatest danger to democracy.

Why the use of dogma and doctrine through all these powerful spin-doctors? The Ministry of Propaganda is embedded into every department of government. Or - are you naive enough to think spin is just presentation or viewpoint on a subject? This is not a cynic speaking - just somebody who questions and now sees more clearly.

Bill Clinton said in his speech at the Labour party conference in Blackpool: "And we know we are not always right, even though everybody hates to admit that, we are not. So we have to operate on the basis of evidence, and be open to argument. Their politics is based on ideology and power, and they don't like evidence and argument very much. ...But at some point you've to look at the evidence."

Note Clinton did not admit that our politics, most especially the United States, is also based on ideology and power.

When saying, "And we know we are not always right, even though everybody hates to admit that, WE ARE NOT" he is telling a blatant lie or has been misled.

I have corresponded with US, UK and UN authorities, including the US Department of Commerce - they all hate to admit they are wrong.

To say "we have to operate on the basis of evidence, and be open to argument" he is telling a blatant lie or has been misled.

They refuse to answer simple questions - totally ignoring evidence of fact and reasoned argument - they cannot be open and truthful.

You might ask: "Why do they refuse to answer - are they dishonest cowards?"

Quote: "at some point you've to look at the evidence".

I believe the evidence proves they are dishonest cowards.

Do not know about you, but I am sick of political spin, evasion and deceit.

They cannot be honest with us. They view us with contempt - should we not view them with disdain?

Site still under reconstruction

Proven: vCJD

Government risked the lives of the ENTIRE UK population.

Links to skilful.com statements are recorded on Internet Wayback Machine.

vCJD and Mad Cow problems are said, by this and prior governments, to be only clear in hindsight. This is total rubbish, it does not require retrospective knowledge. Common-sense dictates the problems were all too obvious. What do you think?

For example, the Government had denied vCJD could be carried in blood - calling the risk only "theoretical" - so I warned pre-August 2000:

"Blood is the MOST obvious transport for this disease. Even if it were not, it would still be a possibility, therefore the word 'theoretical' is totally superfluous. Used to lessen significance - to avoid prosecution." In other words, SPIN.

August 2002, two years later:

BBC News quote: The study's authors suggest the risk of vCJD transmission through blood may be "appreciable" where the government had previously described it as "theoretical"

Professor Hugh Pennington, of Aberdeen University, said: "The worry is that there are more people out there incubating the disease."

"We don't know how many people are going to come down with vCJD."

They took inadequate precaution, throughout the whole episode - from the beginning. They risked the lives of UK population. IMO these people are guilty of manslaughter - 114 victims in the UK so far (January 2002 figures).

BBC News quote: Call for national CJD tests - December 2002
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has reportedly said all Britons should be tested for variant CJD. Professor Stan Prusiner, who discovered the cause of mad cow disease (BSE), said the government should also be testing livestock. Speaking on a visit to Britain from his native US, he claimed thousands of infected cows and sheep were still entering the human food chain.

Yet again, I gave another warning pre-August 2000 - over two years earlier:

"WARNING: Beef may still kill. Beef from animals older than 30 months is illegal to sell. Isn't something not taken into account? Common sense really. Cattle can pass BSE onto offspring, without signs shown. Recent news has shown a mother pass vCJD onto child. It seems very stupid then to sell beef at all - even animals under 30 months. Assurances aside, it still has infection. You will not find me feeding beef to my family. This has to be one of the most terrible ways to watch your children die."

BBC News quote: Human BSE cases higher than thought - November 2002
Scientists have evidence BSE may also be responsible for cases of "sporadic" CJD. BBC Newsnight: Susan Watts (Science Editor) "But perhaps the most chilling aspects of today's research has had the least attention... worrying implications for the safety of Britain's national blood supply." John Collinge (Institute of Neurology) confirmed that potentially ten times the number of CJD carriers exist.

First Canadian man dies of mad cow: August 2002
He contracted the disease while visiting Britain.

First Italian woman dies of mad cow: February 2002
This 22 year olds death appears to be from imported cattle.

Definition of RISK (O.E.D):
To hazard, endanger; to expose to the chance of injury or loss.

Keyword in that phrase is 'CHANCE'. Fact - the level of risk was UNKNOWN - guessed at, lied about and then proven wrong. It is a lie to say it was calculated risk - they had nothing directly comparable to calculate against. Calculated risk is only with something known e.g. russian roulette - 6 chambers 1 bullet. They took a CHANCE with everyone's life. Ignore semantics and spin they use to protect themselves, "How were we to know this terrible disease that crossed species into cows would kill humans." - They might not have known this for definite - but they knew there was a CHANCE - a RISK to public health.

Overriding fact: put peoples lives in danger, *whatever the level of risk*, you take responsibility if you kill them. Decisions were entirely financially motivated. As for the spin of preventing public alarm; hogwash - nobody died of alarm in egg scare, it saved lives (although it should have been handled better).

They gamble with our lives, to save cost of replacing cattle stocks.

Rubbish has been spoken about risk being in most we do. Yes, but this is informed risk, we choose. Or essential - like 'crossing the road' - the pathetic example heard more than once. This is part of the diversionary tactics of spin - to misdirect with obvious truths e.g. in BSE Inquiry (26 Oct 2000) said, "Any who have come to our report hoping to find VILLAINS or SCAPEGOATS should go away disappointed." Of course nobody wants scapegoat, they want those RESPONSIBLE.

Risk is not just about probability - which is what government spin would have you believe. Risk has two main elements: 1) the probability that something will go wrong 2) the seriousness of consequences if it does.

What has to be appreciated, what has been downplayed - most important is the *seriousness of consequences*. In this case, the most dreadful imaginable. Not simple food poisoning, this is far more serious. It is a long suffering death for the victim and hell for their family.

Which is worse - a 1 in 10 chance your child gets 'tummy bug' sickness for a week OR having 1 in 1000 chance your child has year long lingering deteriorative death?

It is most important to note - whilst it is true that government did not know the odds - they certainly knew the serious consequences.

They took this risk with entire population of the UK. Could the seriousness of consequence be any worse? Risk should also be fully informed, absolutely understood, voluntary, a benefit for undertaking, and avoided if unnecessary.

Same again with GM?

Will Government risk the lives of ENTIRE UK population again?

Michael Meacher was likely sacked from Cabinet as environment minister for raising legitimate concerns about GM food. Blair could hardly have gone for GM with him in Cabinet - what with pro-GM Lord Sainsbury donations and various big business interests involved.

Meacher said the tests that had been done were "scientifically vacuous". Government had "rubbished" one report that warned of possible negative effects.

Quotes from BBC News: He told the paper the only human GM trial commissioned by the Food Standards Agency found genetically modified DNA did transfer to bacteria in the human gut. Many scientists had denied this was possible. Some substances produced by GM technology had already been found to cause allergic reactions, he said.

Mr Meacher said although it was claimed GM products were rigorously tested, in fact it only amounted to considering whether a crop was similar in composition to a non-GM crop. This is justified under the rubric of `substantial equivalence', which was originally a marketing term, and is scientifically vacuous," Mr Meacher said. "It wholly misses the point that health concerns are focused, not on known compounds, but on the effects of the GM technology which are unpredictable." He said it was "really extraordinary" there had so far been virtually no independent studies of the health effects of GM.

Should another disaster happen - Blair will use the feeble excuse, "GM foods were rigorously tested and we used the best scientific advice available".

Proven: New Labour

SPIN

At the same time as blood warning (August 2000) I noted New Labour using the word 'investment' instead of 'spending' - the same corrupt deception, revealed two years later, as WorldCom and Arthur Andersen. This is quite apart from the false accounting for billions of pounds worth of liabilities.

This section to include more examples.

Government Surveillance

Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?

Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.

It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?

Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!

Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.

INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.

It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".

This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).

This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.

So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.

As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.

Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.

The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.

They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.

The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.

e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".

Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?

Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?

No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?

They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.

Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?

Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.

In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.

Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?

Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."

The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).

It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.

Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece, wrote by another who did a better job of explaining than I could:

Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.

The government will be watching all you do.

You will be good people now - won't you?

Or else!

I know what is possible. I also know from my own experience with a government department that they will abuse personal information. In my last job (at one of the largest food manufacturing plants in Europe) my responsibilities included stand-alone and networked data capture systems (not solely) - and the automation of turning large amounts of data into information. These were reports on analysis of the data for all levels of management - to any amount of detail. I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

New Labour Censorship & Democracy

Government had several public forums for UKonline.gov.uk site. I stopped posting to them long ago. So-called 'moderation' was increasing; most of my posts were removed, some with an apparent made-up excuse, the rest with no excuse at all. It became total waste of time. Other people had messages removed also. My posts were always focussed on the subject and never violated over restrictive rules. I was not best pleased to be unfairly censored.

Government have undemocratically removed all the forums (perhaps to stop public debate about possible Iraq war), replacing them with one subject - strangely enough, promoting Democracy on the Internet. The e-Democracy team from Hansard Society are moderators. So, given their job title, they certainly want this to work, as would we all. However, removing reasoned and rational opinions - being unable to truthfully explain why (and perhaps on payroll), could you call them impartial or democratic?

It is reasonable to assume from these actions that the government wish to disengage critics from the process of democracy. Richard Deverell, Head of BBC News Interactive said on this eDemocracy forum, "People need to feel their contributions can make a difference. Otherwise, they will rapidly lose interest and eDemocracy will come to nothing.". LoyalBrit affirmed, "Once people feel their contributions can make a difference, they will participate.". It is equally true that once people feel their contributions are being ignored, they will disengage - like I had. Kestrel answered LoyalBrits post, saying, "E-democracy can only work if there is genuine responsiveness from the government.". Stephen Coleman, Director e-Democracy team, admitted, "I agree." - so he fully understands this matter.

Incidentally, no official excuse for removal of forums is given; just language of spin, saying "it is now time to move on" - even though they admit people want forums back. The phrase "time to move on" means, "embarrassing, don't want to talk about it". Before you "move on" - you should fully address all outstanding issues.

Do you think it strange that they do not keep the other forums whilst debating next step? I certainly do; adding one more about e-Democracy is no hardship - the 4 posts a day average is extremely poor - especially being the only government forum. They suppress debate about all other problems (A-Level mess, Iraq etc. etc.) - how democratic is that?

Due to this past experience of blatant censorship, I sent a post. Subject "You call THIS Democracy" - it was a critical evaluation of Government moderation - or censorship, to give its proper name. Giving reasoned argument about the need for facilitators not moderators (censors) - it goes to the root of Democracy. It contained related points (e.g. Actions SHOULD speak louder than words. As Prime Minister, Mr Blair’s actions are hardly Democratic). Presumably that is 'Third Way' - spin, misdirection and deception. It is certainly my belief that the "Third Way" is based on nothing but spin. There is only one way to do things - the "Right Way".

This first post was removed after a couple of days - perhaps because it had started receiving support from people. I tried to reply to these people, but the moderators will not put up any more of my posts - even the most innocuous. So - things have not changed - it is still a total waste of time. No Democracy from e-Democracy team. Perhaps the e stands for Excluded (for those with tough questions to government) or Exclusive (for those that praise government or have easier questions).

I believe good honest and honourable people run the Hansard Society, but this team of theirs appear blind to objective criticism.

What good is Democracy if your voice is 'moderated' out?

Is that not a true statement of fact? Therefore the complaint about this abuse of Democracy was most valid. Contrary to rules, the e-Democracy team do not explain why my posts were removed. They do not answer emails. Which do you think true:

1. The many logical points I gave were all wrong and it is okay for censors to remove peoples valid opinion - especially if giving good argument contrary to government policy or actions.

2. They consider their position so weak, that it cannot withstand debate. They are not stupid - why would they debate when knowing they will lose. So they feign indignity - How dare I suggest that they they would pervert course of Democracy?

Like stated, the complaint about abuse of Democracy was most valid - Do good honest and honourable people not reply to valid complaints?

More to be uploaded

S.O.S. = Sick of Spin

Spin is not just presentation or their viewpoint on a subject if they use it to deceive or give legitimacy to iniquitous actions - is it?

Spin is false representation made with intent to induce a person to act in reliance upon it.

Spin is deliberate violation of Truth - used for subterfuge or deception.

It is more malicious - because those using spin profess and defend this dissembling, using any link with truth to do so.

It is worse than a lie because they actually pervert the meaning of truth itself.

It is corrupt or dishonest people using half-truths to deceive you or to justify their wrongful actions.

Test Yourself

When arguments are placed side by side - intelligent people can tell which is the basic Truth, without spin.

Even the apparent dichotomy of the half full / half empty glass of water can be reduced to basic Truth.

Choose the one statement without spin:
a) The glass is half full.
b) The glass is half empty.
c) The glass contains half water and half air.

HEALTH WARNING - Is your operation really necessary?

THIS COULD BE YOU
This was me a couple of days after an emergency operation. A second op - the first was for normal everyday hiatus hernia. The surgeon said he did not know what went wrong. I have since had third non-emergency op. The tubes are a lot worse under the covers. I was trying to smile for my 11 year old daughter, Faye, taking the picture.

I was thinking this is going to be the last time she saw me.

This is a personal attempt to warn the true danger of elective surgery. In the UK it is unlikely to be as safe as you are told. I know - the operation that led to the above was, even after this, recorded as successful (seen documentation), because I have no reflux. This second op went wrong also. Amongst other things, it damaged nerve bundles. I would imagine that was also recorded as success - as my life was saved.

Since started, years ago, my warning has been proven true in a report published in the British Medical Journal. Also, the recent World Health Organization report published October 2002 is further proof and was quite damning. The figures on problems are still under estimated more...

Boycott the Pumps

Remember the public uproar when government tried to put up VAT on gas and electricity?

Ask any reasonable, just and fair minded person: "Is it right to put 100 percent tax on ESSENTIAL products, like gas and electricity?"

They will almost certainly reply: "NO - it is tantamount to extortion."

Yet, we pay 3 times that amount - 300 percent - on petrol. For every £1 of actual petrol product you buy, £3 of tax is added.

You want £5 worth of petrol? Pay an extra £15 tax on top.

Government say petrol is 75% tax, 75 pence in the pound, to make sound less. This is, of course, spin and deception. This is an expenditure, were tax can only be added. They show as tax on income, were tax is taken away, as proportion of amount e.g. 22% basic rate - 22 pence in the pound.

Essential? Try without car, living anywhere smaller than a city.

Quote from statistics.gov.uk: "Indirect taxes have the opposite effect to direct taxes, taking a higher proportion of income from those with lower incomes."

Government know they unfairly tax and attack the poorer of society.

Quote from Sunday Telegraph August 2000: "Cars now more costly to run than homes - official."

Those on low wages are paying more petrol tax than they are income tax.

Petrol tax should be lowered to extortionate 100 percent.

The BtP group use the best strategy of a full time boycott of one single supplier. I was advocate of this strategy. It only works if everyone boycotts the same supplier. BP was the consensus decision of BtP group.

Government want billions more from us - they waste more of our money on bureaucracy and incompetent management of the countries finances.

What about their answer to congestion problems?

Politicians and the rich want to get you off the road - so that they can drive.

The right to travel, or the right of free movement on public paid for highways, is essential in every free society.

You may have heard the expression "Road to Riches" - Government now promote "Roads for Rich" with new congestion charges. They believe only those on high income should be allowed to use the roads and streets we have all paid taxes for. The right to freedom of our roads is based on your ability to pay - this from a labour government.

Family Photographs

Faye - loves Drama - would like to be Actress.

Well - as my youngest daughter, I think she can do it.

Please visit Dramatical.com

Her sister, Camille, is on Ecstatical.com

To be updated:

DOGS: Do you find the DOGs on TV annoying? Not the hairy pet variety - these Dogs are Digitally Originated Graphic(s) - the totally unnecessary logos obstructing the corner of screen on the satellite channels. I support Edmund Wheeler's Campaign for LOGO FREE TV. The BBC admit they KNOWINGLY niggle, annoy or aggravate 22% of viewers. It is hardly quality broadcasting with logos plastered on screen - so I sent them these emails ..more

ID CARDS: The Telegraph newspaper said in the Leader (12 Nov 03), "Opinion polls show that a majority of the public supports ID cards, as long as they are paid for by somebody else". The main problem is that people's opinions are being shaped by the false distorted view, that ID cards would solve our ills of illegal immigration, crime and terrorism. The carrying of these biometric ID cards is a red herring - there is no need to carry a card - you carry your data on you at all times. Your eye scan and/or fingerprint data will be on a national database. FACT: it will be very simple to identify you anywhere with a portable scanner. Once data is transmitted to base - they can have your identity within seconds - ask Blunkett to deny that fact. The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end. Just as the Nazi's did to the Jews in 1942 - the New Labour government have your number branded to you. The analogy is correct - does anybody deny that you can be read like some barcode on the till at Tesco? Even without being scanned, the 'stop and search' will be a dehumanising experience for those undergoing it. More trouble ahead. With this and RIP Act - it is clear to me that the New Labour Government wants a surveillance society.

TERRORISM: We have heard some truly pathetic statements from Bush on this ("Either with us or against us" etc.). To solve any problem you have to correctly determine the root cause of it. For example, any idiot knows that when you have water pouring from the ceiling in your home, there is little point in just bailing out the water forever - you have to fix the cause of leak. Bush and Blair attacking Iraq will do little to plug the leak - indeed, it may make matters worse. Tip: Duh - Very unlikely September 11 attack was because of envy or hatred of American Freedom - resentment of western culture - or any other silly poppycock. Do you not think it a lot more likely it was in response to American Foreign Policy? Though the term "American Foreign Policy" sounds innocuous and inoffensive, it is actually responsible for many deaths in other countries.

WMD: Likely will eventually be found (even if US/UK has to plant them). This will be used as proof that they were right to invade Iraq. This is red herring. The fact is, it does not matter if weapons are found (even if they are Saddams) - intelligence admitted; these were to be used for defensive purposes. Iraqi scientists will be paid to back up this story.

Anti-Americanism is the lie that pro-war war lobby use to lessen the anti-war lobby argument - to make them look bigots. People are actually against immoral American Foreign Policy. The United States of America, like the United Kingdom, has a lot to be proud of - they also both have things to be ashamed. For example - "intercepting telephone calls and emails of foreign delegates to the UN security council." Quotes from Guardian newspaper: "It [memo by Frank Koza, NSA] makes it clear that home telephones of UN delegates should be tapped." The article indicates that UK GCHQ was somehow involved (no surprise there). "France and other European countries have long claimed that the system [Echelon], which links the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is a privileged Anglo-Saxon club which has been put to improper use. The British government has always vigorously denied this, insisting it is only used to monitor genuine threats to national security, hostile powers, and to help fight terrorism." Yeah, we truly believe the British government - don't we folks?

Afghanistan and Blair: The invasion of Afghanistan, for not releasing Bin Laden, was morally wrong. It is a fact that Blair would also not have released him to America either - for reasons of morality and humanity. Although spin doctors will twist that fact - that is the whole truth of the matter. Also Bin Laden was a war hero - Blair would not have released one of our war heroes to an unfriendly country, without a deportation agreement with that country, nor without seeing all the evidence - neither would Bush. This is double standards of the worse possible kind. How the heck can we invade a country for responding as we would?

Collateral Damage: More than 3000 civillians killed in Afghanistan is nothing but collateral damage. Yet - less than 3000 civillians killed in America is justification for invading other countries and killing more civillians. It can be seen these innocents do not matter all that much to Bush - although they try to limit numbers - they will keep on killing them until their objective is achieved. Bush and Blair are really sorry about these deaths - so that makes things okay then - doesn't it?

Iraq: Nearly everything about this was deception by governments. Abuse of UN 1441 to justify invasion etc. "All necessary force" was removed from 1441 - Bush and Blair bypassed item 12, making their action illegal. It is clear to me that Blair got false legal advice - item 12 was the ESSENTIAL joint UN decision. They also falsely stated the French position on the second resolution - when France wanted UN inspection to happen before invasion was considered.

It is obvious that Bush and Blair are in contempt of UN 1441 - this was an illegal invasion and occupation. They rape the countries resources to feed US businesses in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Never mind the diversionary copying of thesis - exact word for word - then changing key phrases to give more motivation for war. Intent to mislead the public is made obvious from the fact that they said Saddam would use WMD within 45 minutes "if cornered". This was not stated in case for war by government, they made out he would use WMD for attack, not defence.

No mention is made of why they allowed uncorroborated evidence of 45 minute WMD to be used in dossier either - or whom involved in making the decision. Campbell complained about single uncorroborated Gilligan source - yet it is infinitely more important that government evidence is corroborated when the invasion of country and many lives are involved - is it not?

Therefore, the dossier was 'sexed up'.

This supposed use of WMD for Iraqi defence was also PROVEN wrong. Saddam could not be forced to use it, even under the threat of destruction of empire.

They cannot find ONE Weapon of Mass Destruction - let alone enough for Saddam to use for waging war - making a viable attack on western nations within 45 minutes of the decision. So now US/UK now search for 'programmes'. An easy target - everybody knew he wanted WMD beforehand - so everybody already knew 'programmes' existed

On Gilligan - isn't BBC's current problem entirely of their own making? They (along with all news media) allowed deception by government as acceptable behaviour.

Contempt for Iraqi people: The Iraq war was greatly dumbed down to lower public opposition - here is some of the suffering they hid from you:

Link to hundreds more (+full size pictures).

Many thousands Iraqi civillians were were killed and maimed in this war - as was tens of thousands Iraqi soldiers and conscripts for defending their country. Guess why no official figures.

Quote: Bush administration and Pentagon officials have made it clear they have no intention of providing an official estimate of the number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians who were killed or wounded by US and British forces during the three-week war. According to the military brass, the US no longer does �body counts,� a reference to the often-inflated battlefield reports that contributed to galvanizing international and domestic opposition to the Vietnam War. In line with its efforts to sanitize the image of the US military, the Pentagon and the US news media have decided to conceal from the world and the American public the extent of the massacre that has occurred in Iraq. The military is following the precedent established by then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, who declared after the first Gulf War that he was �not terribly interested� in establishing how many Iraqi soldiers had been killed. This undisguised indifference to the human cost of the US invasion, and contempt for world public opinion, reflects the real thinking that predominates in the White House and the top echelons of the US military, where the Iraqi masses are looked upon as barely human."

Iraq sanctions: 12 May 1996, Lesley Stahl (CBS television) asked Madeleine Albright (US Secretary of State), "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" - Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

Bush did not try to go down the UN route - he tried to drag the UN down his.

Appeasement: Talk of this by pro-war crowd is rubbish - nobody was appeasing Afghanistan - nobody was appeasing Iraq.

Conning the People: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials.

Government figures: Most figures are spin - either not comparing like with like - or Worldcom and Enron creative accountancy - using Arthur Andersen to audit. For example, take the cost of food basket. To quote Zac Goldsmith in Telegraph: "So Lord Haskins's talk of "cheap" food is Orwellian double-speak. We merely pay twice for it; over the counter, and through our taxes."

Further to my New Labour Censorship & Democracy bit above, from The Register - quote: The damning report, conducted by Porter Research - asks: "What is the point of the Prime Minister...having a site, which announces the opportunity for foreign journalists to ask him questions, yet gives no opportunity for members of the British Public to do so?" "It leads one to ask what is the point of spending all that money with the aim of bringing Government closer to the people, if the end result is the same forbidding 'closed' mentality of officialdom writ larger than ever before?"

Britain accused of human rights abuses by EU parliament, 13 Jan 2003 - Quote: "the erosion of civil liberties after September 11 and even press censorship." "Subsequently, Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman appealed to the media in November to 'make a distinction between good and evil' by not putting the 'Taliban's lies' on the same level as statements by the coalition when reporting on the war in Afghanistan," the report said.

Privatization: Get rid of all inefficiencies, slash bureaucracies - remove the damn poor mismanagement and there is no need for the public to pay extra cash as profits - no need for any greedy fat cats to steal from the public purse. It is the governments fault that these problems still persist.

Red Dwarf - reading wall posters. Lister: "Vote Fascist for a third glorious decade of Total Law Enforcement"? Kryten: "Be a government informer. Betray your family and friends. Fabulous prizes to be won."