on gun crime in the uk - how civil order breaks down | politics news at abelard.org
abelard's home latest changes & additions at abelard.org link to document abstracts link to short briefings documents quotations at abelard.org, with source document where relevant click for abelard's child education zone economics and money zone at abelard.org - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone
socialism, sociology, supporting documents described Loud music and hearing damage Architectural wonders and joys at abelard.org about abelard and abelard.org visit abelard's gallery Energy - beyond fossil fuels France zone at abelard.org - another France

news and comment

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone topic archives: politics

for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)

New translation, the Magna Carta

site map

This page helpful?
Share it ! Like it !

on gun crime in the uk - how civil order breaks down

The general population being allowed to have arms is an equaliser against criminals, but the great Clown has determined that only crims may carry guns.

The current situation is much more than merely owning a gun to show off, or to hurt someone at a distance. Having a gun is very serious initiation.

Having a gun ties the individual to the gangs, who can always threaten exposure. It proves the scroat is prepared to kill ‘them’ - the society upon which the scroats intend to prey.

This is the route to a socialist society where the black market rules.

This is the breaking of the real market, soon the Yakuza instead of a politician, soon going to the Mafia for protection instead of the police.

These people are set to be the rulers of Britain, if the Clown is not stopped.

Removing guns from the public in the UK just made the country safe for the crims prepared to carry them. It also insured the police would steadily be armed.

Next, the police state, which in my view is the real socialist objective, as ever.

Post this item - click on this link,
then click on your preferred service/s in the list.
More about posting to social bookmarks


the web address for the article above is




on fossil media reporting

Much that is ‘reported’ as fact is fiction, and the falsehoods go much beyond spin.

I have seen ‘quotes’ invented, attributed to individuals, and then claimed as ‘denied’ by those same individuals during ‘interviews’ which I have witnessed.
I have seen TV ‘interviews’ cobbled together with answers fitted to different questions, to which the ‘answers’ were unconnected.
I have seen film deliberately cut mid-expression to suggest an entirely different facial expression than if you saw a few seconds more of the uncut film.

The main ‘scandal’ rags sculpt their pieces to say totally, false things, and then work with lawyers to change them in such a way that a reader will get the lying impression, without actually saying what a unaware reader comes to believe it says.

On asking a TV team leader why they were behaving in an obviously dishonest manner during a ‘story’, I was told, ‘The first thing we are told is to identify the baddy’. The media, as a whole, sells emotion not reason, let alone facts. Never ever let the facts get in the way of a ‘good story’.

On almost every piece on individuals or court cases; you should be highly suspicious that ‘the facts’ are as they are presented. While pieces presented as ‘science’ are often no such thing, just pieces designed to sell you Brooklyn Bridge.

More specifically, Rupert Murdoch is now in the pocket of the Clown, or vice versa. Regarding reporting by Murdoch’s empire on David Cameron, each action of Cameron is being deliberately and systematically misrepresented; for instance by changing the subject half way through a piece and by exaggerating alleged ‘errors’, thus making each piece, in fact, a hatchet job.

Post this item - click on this link,
then click on your preferred service/s in the list.
More about posting to social bookmarks

the web address for the article above is

george bush’s speech on iraq [link to full transcript]

Some exerpts from President Bush’s excellent speech:

“I stand before you as a wartime President. I wish I didn't have to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, declared war on the United States of America. And war is what we're engaged in. The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater scale.”

“Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty, or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Others believe that America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians would no longer threaten us. Today I'm going to address these arguments. I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the fact we'll be successful.”

“I want to open today's speech with a story that begins on a sunny morning, when thousands of Americans were murdered in a surprise attack -- and our nation was propelled into a conflict that would take us to every corner of the globe.

“The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region. And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence and give up the fight.

“If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing. The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not 9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia.

“Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom.

“The lesson from Asia's development is that the heart's desire for liberty will not be denied. Once people even get a small taste of liberty, they're not going to rest until they're free. Today's dynamic and hopeful Asia -- a region that brings us countless benefits -- would not have been possible without America's presence and perseverance.”

“Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields." ”

“Today the violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or the Soviet communists were of theirs. They are destined for the same fate. (Applause.)

“The greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the desire for liberty written into the human heart by our Creator. So long as we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will help those countries' peoples stand up functioning democracies in the heart of the broader Middle East. And when that hard work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and the American people will be safer.”

And, as usual, much else.

Post this item - click on this link,
then click on your preferred service/s in the list.
More about posting to social bookmarks

the web address for the article above is

trust us, we’re the fossil media - the auroran sunset

The fossil media’s dishonesty, bias and incompetence is long established. The difference today is that - with the internet, blogs, podcasts and videocasts - the fossil media increasingly no longer controls what is seen by the people, and so their ‘reporting’ is starting to be seen more realistically. These are the results with only a quarter of the population using uncensored sources:

  overall people whose main new source is the internet
politically biased: 55% 64%
stories often inaccurate: 53% 59%
do not care about the people they report on: 53% 68%
too critical of America: 43% 53%

“The internet news audience - roughly a quarter of all Americans - tends to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole.”

Unsurprisingly Democrats tend to have less of a problem with the fossil media than Republicans. Democrats are twice as likely to have a favourable opinion of national newspapers (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post, etc.):
Democrats 79% / Republicans 41%.

Marker at abelard.org

“Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center.”

“[...] the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares to 51 percent of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, another 93 contributed to Kerry’s campaign.”
[Quoted from A Measure of Media Bias]

Post this item - click on this link,
then click on your preferred service/s in the list.
More about posting to social bookmarks

the web address for the article above is

giuliani’s foreign policy - the auroran sunset

Seven-page foreign policy review from the only serious presidential candidate out there. The article contains concrete actions as well as the general principles quoted below. Worth reading in full.

On the ‘Democrat’ policy of “surrender quick before the public see that we are winning”:

“America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War. Then, as now, we fought a war with the wrong strategy for several years. And then, as now, we corrected course and began to show real progress. Many historians today believe that by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in setting South Vietnam on a path to political self-sufficiency. But America then withdrew its support, allowing the communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire, and not only in Vietnam: numerous deaths in places such as the killing fields of Cambodia, a newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America. The consequences of abandoning Iraq would be worse.”

On military strength:

“For 15 years, the de facto policy of both Republicans and Democrats has been to ask the U.S. military to do increasingly more with increasingly less. The idea of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" was a serious mistake - -- the product of wishful thinking and the opposite of true realism. As a result of taking this dividend, our military is too small to meet its current commitments or shoulder the burden of any additional challenges that might arise. We must rebuild a military force that can deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future challenges. When America appears bogged down and unready to face aggressors, it invites conflict.”

On diplomacy:

“Iran is a case in point. The Islamic Republic has been determined to attack the international system throughout its entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in between supported terrorism and murder. But Tehran invokes the protections of the international system when doing so suits it, hiding behind the principle of sovereignty to stave off the consequences of its actions. This is not to say that talks with Iran cannot possibly work. They could -- but only if we came to the table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted.

“The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan's actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík in 1986: he was open to the possibility of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere. The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate -- whether ally or adversary -- must know that America has other options. The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure.”

On international order:

“U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for the foreseeable future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions of the Cold War or to launch a new one. We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our differences with these two countries. Like America, they have a fundamental stake in the health of the international system. But too often, their governments act shortsightedly, undermining their long-term interest in international norms for the sake of near-term gains. Even as we work with these countries on economic and security issues, the U.S. government should not be silent about their unhelpful behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities available in the world today.”

On own duty:

“In this decade, for the first time in human history, half of the world's population will live in cities. I know from personal experience that when security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs. Disorder in the world's bad neighborhoods tends to spread. Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior. But concerted action to uphold international standards will help peoples, economies, and states to thrive. Civil society can triumph over chaos if it is backed by determined action.”

Post this item - click on this link,
then click on your preferred service/s in the list.
More about posting to social bookmarks

the web address for the article above is

carving up the oceans

“A Russian flag on the seabed beneath the ice of the North Pole is among the few signs that states are waking up to a 2009 deadline for what may be the last big carve-up of maritime territory in history.

“By some estimates, about 7 million sq km (2.7 million sq miles) -- the size of Australia -- could be divided up around the world with so far unknown riches ranging from oil and gas to seabed marine organisms at stake.

“Only eight claims have been made although about 50 coastal states are bound by a May 13, 2009, deadline for submissions under a UN drive to set the now vague outer limits of each country's sea floor rights under a 1982 convention.”

“Russia, Australia, France and Brazil are among the few to have made claims. Most spectacularly, Moscow announced this month that explorers had planted a rust-free Russian tricolour beneath the North Pole in waters 4,261 metres (13,980) deep.

“Under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, coastal states own the seabed beyond existing 200 nautical mile zones if it is part of a continental shelf of shallower waters.

“Some shelves stretch hundreds of miles before reaching the deep ocean floor, which is owned by no state. The rules aim to fix clear geological limits for shelves' outer limits but are likely to lead to a tangle of overlapping claims.

“ "This will probably be the last big shift in ownership of territory in the history of the earth," said Lars Kullerud, who advises developing states on submissions at the GRID-Arendal foundation, run by the UN Environment Programme and Norway.”

related material
The tragedy of the commons

the web address for the article above is

libya - yes we torture, yes we blackmail,but it‘s your fault

“Less than a month after the Libyans freed the five Bulgarian nurses and one Palestinian doctor accused of infecting children with HIV/AIDS, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam announced on Al Jazeera Wednesday that the medics had been tortured and acknowledged their innocence. Though Saif Qaddafi promises democratic elections after the elder Gadhafi steps down, many observers believe that he will likely succeed his father. His latest move has been seen by many as an attempt to show the West a new, more open Libya.”

“ [Q:] What do you say to people who say this was blackmail and it worked?

“ [A:] Blackmail? Maybe. It is blackmail, but the Europeans also blackmailed us. Yeah, it's an immoral game, but they set the rules of the game, the Europeans, and now they are paying the price[...] Everyone tries to play with this card to advance his own interest back home.”

the web address for the article above is

‘new’ labour putting uk troops and iraq at increasing risk for political considerations

While the United States is increasing control in Baghdad, the UK socialist government is running in Basra.

The socialist UK government is showing a lack of judgement by steadily lowering force presence in their own areas. This is leading to a breakdown of control and increasing casualties in UK forces. In turn, this is increasing terror gangs’ confidence to attack.

Of course, the south of Iraq was under considerable control, before the socialist Labour government started withdrawing in order to serve political pandering at home.

As I have said from the start, there is only one thing that concerns me in Iraq - a lack of will.

It is sad to see the difference in will between the UK and the USA. No wonder the UK has become a poor relation, increasingly distrusted by America.

“Britain is hoping to reduce the number of its troops in southern Iraq to 5,000 within weeks before assessing the withdrawal of its remaining forces, according to Defence Secretary Des Browne.”

“Over the last six months, Britain's deployment has gradually been reduced from 8,000 to 5,500 troops while handing over three of the four provinces it is responsible for in southern Iraq. This compares with some 45,000 deployed during the initial invasion in 2003.” [Quoted from irna.ir]

Marker at abelard.org

“British troops are in the process of withdrawing from the centre of Basra city and are planning to consolidate their forces at their large airport base.

“The number of troops has already been reduced from 44,000 to 5,500. They are now almost exclusively based at Basra airport amid preparations for control to be handed to Iraqi authorities.

“Despite the casualties, the UK military have rejected suggestions from America that the UK had effectively lost control of the southern city.”[Quoted from 24dash.com]

Graph of increasing UK death and injuries in Iraq. Credit: British Casualty Monitor
graph of increasing UK death and injury rates in Iraq

Remember that these casualty increases are occuring on a steadily reducing number of troops. Further, around 30 deaths are attributed to accidents, illness and other non-battle causes. Naturally, that rate is relative to the numbers in Iraq.

For more see craigmurrayfriends.

the web address for the article above is

‘democrat’s’ and other socialists’ increasing desperation to lose in iraq

“If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.

“One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus’s September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate congressional mandate to pull the troops out.

“Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?

“The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure - and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.”

Marker at abelard.org

Neat little summary here:

“[...] Meanwhile, Democrats, who have been pandering to their antiwar base, will increasingly see that they have--as the third-ranking Democrat in the House, James Clyburn, acknowledged last week--"a problem." If Petraeus reports progress, Clyburn acknowledged, then "I think there would be enough support" among moderate Democrats "to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." ”
[Quoted from weeklystandard.com, page 2]

the web address for the article above is

You are here: politics news from August 2007 < News < Home

latest abstracts briefings information   hearing damage memory France zone

email abelard email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

© abelard, 2007, 06 august
all rights reserved

variable words
prints as increasing A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)