I remember reading an article about the journey of London's tap water, from it's source to the lower reaches. The statistics might make those of a more squeamish disposition think twice about visiting a tea house, especially further downriver.
By the way, maybe Tap would like to explain where he thinks methane comes from in the first place. It might be illuminating (not to say highly amusing) to see how he thinks it becomes a DNA and endocrine disruptor given its origins.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon. If you read The Times article I referred you to, you would see that people are being made deaf, blind and sick in all manner of ways, apart from dying. It attacks the nervous system which collapses all manner of bodily functions. Now here's the kicker. The Queens Speech has been leaked and guess what - fracking's being given the green light everywhere. Property ownership in Britain no longer exists. This is Agenda 21 as feared. The landowner has no rights. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/queens-speech-leaked-fracking-to-be.html
If UKIP wants a chance in any election, they have to change sides on fracking and property seizure by the state. If Farage has made a deal with Murdoch (and he has), did he realise that the State was about to impose compulsory fracking, and property seizure with no right of appeal? If UKIP counts for anything, it has to stand here. Murdoch deals have to be a thing of the past. UKIP has to stand without such corrupting influences, and with no media support. Recent weeks have shown that UKIP support holds up better without media support. Such is the distrust of the main media in Britain. It's time to break free.
Of course genetics are passed on, just in a more complex way than some would have you believe. One thing that is indisputable though is that interbreeding tends to increase genetic faults. God Bless the Queen and her diverse roots.
By the way, maybe Tap would like to explain where he thinks methane comes from in the first place. It might be illuminating (not to say highly amusing) to see how he thinks it becomes a DNA and endocrine disruptor given its origins.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon. If you read The Times article I referred you to, you would see that people are being made deaf, blind and sick in all manner of ways, apart from dying. It attacks the nervous system which collapses all manner of bodily functions. Now here's the kicker. The Queens Speech has been leaked and guess what - fracking's being given the green light everywhere. Property ownership in Britain no longer exists. This is Agenda 21 as feared. The landowner has no rights. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/queens-speech-leaked-fracking-to-be.html
You didn't answer my question. Where do you think it comes from? How did it get in the ground in the first place? If you knew the answer to that you would know how utterly ridiculous your claims about its toxicity are.
By the way, maybe Tap would like to explain where he thinks methane comes from in the first place. It might be illuminating (not to say highly amusing) to see how he thinks it becomes a DNA and endocrine disruptor given its origins.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon. If you read The Times article I referred you to, you would see that people are being made deaf, blind and sick in all manner of ways, apart from dying. It attacks the nervous system which collapses all manner of bodily functions. Now here's the kicker. The Queens Speech has been leaked and guess what - fracking's being given the green light everywhere. Property ownership in Britain no longer exists. This is Agenda 21 as feared. The landowner has no rights. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/queens-speech-leaked-fracking-to-be.html
If UKIP wants a chance in any election, they have to change sides on fracking and property seizure by the state. If Farage has made a deal with Murdoch (and he has), did he realise that the State was about to impose compulsory fracking, and property seizure with no right of appeal? If UKIP counts for anything, it has to stand here. Murdoch deals have to be a thing of the past. UKIP has to stand without such corrupting influences, and with no media support. Recent weeks have shown that UKIP support holds up better without media support. Such is the distrust of the main media in Britain. It's time to break free.
They oppose HS2, which has compulsory purchase attached.
People are individuals. Being black no more makes you stupid than being Romanian makes you a criminal.
Well, only admit individuals then, as opposed to mass entry which is what EU membership compels.
Also, characteristics of a population cannot be attributed to individual members of that group. That doesn't mean it is not true of the group as a whole.
Babies are reported being born with defects in fracking areas, Richard. That's DNA disruption. See The Times of 29th April 2014, page 30 and all the ailments catalogued by the Perry family in Texas. Methane not toxic? Now really. You'll be laughing it all off with stories of cows farting next. It will be interesting to see if the Green vote at Newark exceeds expectations. I merely pass on what's in your local paper.
No you don't you repeat the rubbish the Greens are saying and add some of your own. Funny how people have been working and living around methane for hundreds of years and it is only now and with no scientific evidence, that we suddenly hear of it being a DNA disruptor. Sorry Tap but you are talking rubbish.
And no, methane is not toxic any more than fresh water. But both will still kill you if you stick your head in them for 20 minutes.
I take it that's a No. You're not willing to breathe methane despite its being mixed with oxygen to ensure no suffocation. The sources I gave give you that picture too. Methane is a killer other wise than suffocating people. The people saying this are not Greens but former oil industry personnel who decided to break the true story of fracking to the public as they could see a massive deception taking place, as per your output, Richard.
And no, no one in the oil industry or in science is claiming that methane is toxic. It is a stupid and completely false claim
If methane is so dangerous, what the feck are we doing piping it into people's homes?
Of all the objections to fracking, this must be one of the dumbest.....oh, and only a teeny tiny percentage of people in Britain get their water from private wells - the source of concern in the US - the overwhelming majority in the UK are on the water mains.....
Though to be fair the water that gets into those mains often comes from underground aquifers. If we did end up polluting them (with the chemicals not the methane of course which is already there in many of our aquifers) then it would be an issue.
It's then processed and treated - plenty of time for the methane to escape into the atmosphere - the issue in the US is domestic wells using raw water - tho other pollutants as has been observed are much more likely to be problematic.
As for methane being supplied into peoples' houses, the amount being absorbed is tiny as the stenching agent forces people to react. Methane without a stenching agent being absorbed twenty four hours a day day in day out is killing/making sick tens of thousands of people, as is not being reported by the trusty media. Nor are the fracking battles taking place in Australia. The Bentley Blockade is seeing a camp of three thousand people seeing off one thousand police trying to get the frack drills into site in New South Wales. This isn't making TV coverage even in Australia, let alone here. Check out Ian Crane's weekly reports on UK Column. The subject is being hidden from the public in all its aspects so that no one knows the truth of this attack on our way of life.
By the way, maybe Tap would like to explain where he thinks methane comes from in the first place. It might be illuminating (not to say highly amusing) to see how he thinks it becomes a DNA and endocrine disruptor given its origins.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon.
That's like saying "water is a mix of hydrogen and oxygen" - I think you'll find water has rather different properties.......
I should add, that the buck toothed "English Lord" stereotype, while based on observation to hold true, was not in the main genetic.
You appear to be drunk. I am fairly sure that even when sober you are noticeably less clever than upper class twits like the third Earl Russell, even when allowances are made for your education.
The Bentley Blockade is seeing a camp of three thousand people seeing off one thousand police trying to get the frack drills into site in New South Wales. This isn't making TV coverage even in Australia, let alone here.
Prince Charles is slacking.....it made the ABC Australia website:
Inhalation Simple asphyxiant. May cause suffocation by displacing the oxygen in the air. Exposure to oxygen-deficient atmosphere (<19.5%) may cause dizziness,drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, excess salivation,diminished mental alertness, lossof consciousness and death. Exposure to atmospheres containing 8-10% or less oxygen will bring about unconsciousness without warning and so quickly that the individuals cannot help or protect themselves. Lack of sufficient oxygen may cause serious injury or death.
The same will happen with excess nitrogen or carbon dioxide.
If you are worried about extremely dilute inhalation of methane, I suggest you ban all use of domestic gas cooking and gas heating and ban all importation of such gas and gas terminals and tank farms where boil off can be a problem.
By the way, maybe Tap would like to explain where he thinks methane comes from in the first place. It might be illuminating (not to say highly amusing) to see how he thinks it becomes a DNA and endocrine disruptor given its origins.
Go look up the reason for "receding chins" and the increased prevalence in modern society. Your knowledge could do with improvement it would seem.
And for your general information, I usually stop posting when drunk. Verifying facts becomes harder when you go past more than a couple of glasses, and all you oh so clever people might feel able to answer awkward questions without fear of having a web link shoved in your face.
Go look up the reason for "receding chins" and the increased prevalence in modern society. Your knowledge could do with improvement it would seem.
And for your general information, I usually stop posting when drunk. Verifying facts becomes harder when you go past more than a couple of glasses, and all you oh so clever people might feel able to answer awkward questions without fear of having a web link shoved in your face.
I had an interesting chat with one of our Greek Doctors on this subject. He made a fairly convincing case that Greek society was permanently damaged by Ottoman rule, For centuries paying taxes was unpatriotic, in that it was supporting the oppressors. Tax dodging as patriotic duty!
and from this other forms of subverting financial behaviour became the norm.
Greek doctors took bribes to expedite treatment long before the current crisis. Greece has been a deeply corrupt country - probably the most so in Europe - for a long time.
Greek doctors took bribes to expedite treatment long before the current crisis. Greece has been a deeply corrupt country - probably the most so in Europe - for a long time.
People living next to landfill sites have similar consequent health problems. Early onset Alzheimers and the same catalogue of other illness. Thanks for all the amusing comments. They've been fracking in the USA for twenty years and the health effects are better known there than here, though still they are kept out of the main media. The fact that methane is used for delivery into the home might suggest that the other toxic health effects are kept out of mind deliberately, and paid for science can be found to state that methane isn't as toxic as it is. (as with fluoride, aspartame and so on)
As with diesel fuel. This was promoted as it was supposedly a better greenhouse fuel (less CO2) than petrol/gas. Yet it's created a health catastrophe by polluting London's air, having twenty times the particulate pollution of petrol. Nothing or little of that can be found in the media of course.
I'm pleased ABC in Australia have seen fit to report the Bentley blockade at last. It's been going on a while unreported, except by UK Column weekly world fracking report. The fracking wars will be deciding elections, and could be having an impact in Newark right now. Nigel Farage's 'earthquake in Britain's politics' might not be overtaken by a Green one, but could be undercut by one. Or indeed if Farage doesn't side with homeowners and landowners against frackers, he will miss out. I repeat the leak from The Queen's Speech on RT reveals that frackers will be allowed to frack anywhere without the need to obtain landowner permission first. Private property is no more. UKIP has to make a stand or fade into irrelevance.
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
Off topic, but you pays your money and you take your choice.
G'dn front page: Cameron accused of blackmail over threat to leave EU T'graph front page: Cameron winning major allies to prevent federalist leading EU
Two very different views and interpretations of the latest showdown. Or maybe they are both right, and the blackmail is working by getting more allies.
Off topic, but you pays your money and you take your choice.
G'dn front page: Cameron accused of blackmail over threat to leave EU T'graph front page: Cameron winning major allies to prevent federalist leading EU
Two very different views and interpretations of the latest showdown. Or maybe they are both right, and the blackmail is working by getting more allies.
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
I think the Telegraph motoring correspondent, honestjohn.co.uk has a letter / approach which deals with these scoundrels effectively, should be on that web site somewhere, I expect.
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
I think the Telegraph motoring correspondent, honestjohn.co.uk has a letter / approach which deals with these scoundrels effectively, should be on that web site somewhere, I expect.
Off topic, but you pays your money and you take your choice.
G'dn front page: Cameron accused of blackmail over threat to leave EU T'graph front page: Cameron winning major allies to prevent federalist leading EU
Two very different views and interpretations of the latest showdown. Or maybe they are both right, and the blackmail is working by getting more allies.
I assume that as Merkel has backed Junker it is almost certain he will get the job, and that Cameron is just trying to sound tough, and of course he was never alone in being opposed to Junker being the president of the Commission, but if he could manage to prevent it I guess he could get a boost for awhile, though I cannot see 'preventing major Federalist from being Commission President' drawing back in many Cameron doubters. In fact, not succeeding might well in the short term be better, as I presume any other candidate proposed for the job would hold pretty much identical views as Junker on the EU anyway, so better for Cameron to just complain about it.
People living next to landfill sites have similar consequent health problems. Early onset Alzheimers and the same catalogue of other illness. Thanks for all the amusing comments. They've been fracking in the USA for twenty years and the health effects are better known there than here, though still they are kept out of the main media. The fact that methane is used for delivery into the home might suggest that the other toxic health effects are kept out of mind deliberately, and paid for science can be found to state that methane isn't as toxic as it is. (as with fluoride, aspartame and so on)
As with diesel fuel. This was promoted as it was supposedly a better greenhouse fuel (less CO2) than petrol/gas. Yet it's created a health catastrophe by polluting London's air, having twenty times the particulate pollution of petrol. Nothing or little of that can be found in the media of course.
I'm pleased ABC in Australia have seen fit to report the Bentley blockade at last. It's been going on a while unreported, except by UK Column weekly world fracking report. The fracking wars will be deciding elections, and could be having an impact in Newark right now. Nigel Farage's 'earthquake in Britain's politics' might not be overtaken by a Green one, but could be undercut by one. Or indeed if Farage doesn't side with homeowners and landowners against frackers, he will miss out. I repeat the leak from The Queen's Speech on RT reveals that frackers will be allowed to frack anywhere without the need to obtain landowner permission first. Private property is no more. UKIP has to make a stand.
@Tapestry - you are talking a lot of nonsense. Diesel is better than rhe combustion of petrol in that usually it produces less NOXs. Carbon particulates are produced by the incomplete combustion of diesel - especially by trains, buses and lorries. I suggest you campaign for the banning of all transport that has inefficient and incomplete combustion of fuel and insist on only electrical powered transport.
Go look up the reason for "receding chins" and the increased prevalence in modern society. Your knowledge could do with improvement it would seem.
And for your general information, I usually stop posting when drunk. Verifying facts becomes harder when you go past more than a couple of glasses, and all you oh so clever people might feel able to answer awkward questions without fear of having a web link shoved in your face.
So shove a web link in my face, if you think you're 'ard enough. The first thing Google offers me is a forum post headed "Why do so many lower class white people have poorly defined chins?" which I don't think bears out whatever point you are trying to make.
Tap, I do worry about the knowledge of many of the Greens/Conspiracy theorists but they're always interesting.
I am happy to discuss the existence of conspiracies. But so much of what is called conspiracy is fact. The role of Prince Charles, for example, in the management of the world is totally misunderstood and not even mentioned in the main media. Please read what his actual job is here. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sustainable-development-agenda-21-and.html
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
Well, you were an MP on the government side when the DVLA changed their procedures to give out addresses to private debt collectors, so perhaps you should have given the principle of the matter a bit more attention at the time!
However, on the practical issue, the first question to ask is whether it's a privately-owned car park or a Council one. If the latter, normally you can appeal to the Council (assuming that it was a council-owned car park). I believe in the former case too there is supposed to be an appeals procedure.
It's not a good idea to just do nothing and let them send in the bailiffs.
Tap, I do worry about the knowledge of many of the Greens/Conspiracy theorists but they're always interesting.
I am happy to discuss the existence of conspiracies. But so much of what is called conspiracy is fact.
I think you may be underestimating how many conspiracy theories exist in the world, and especially on the Internet. A great great many could be entirely factual, and still be but a drop in the ocean.
Go look up the reason for "receding chins" and the increased prevalence in modern society. Your knowledge could do with improvement it would seem.
And for your general information, I usually stop posting when drunk. Verifying facts becomes harder when you go past more than a couple of glasses, and all you oh so clever people might feel able to answer awkward questions without fear of having a web link shoved in your face.
So shove a web link in my face, if you think you're 'ard enough. The first thing Google offers me is a forum post headed "Why do so many lower class white people have poorly defined chins?" which I don't think bears out whatever point you are trying to make.
Those naughty Lords, Earls, Viscounts and Gentry getting the serving wenches pregnant, abandoning them the life of a pauper and condemning future generations of the poor to a chinless existence.
Tap, I do worry about the knowledge of many of the Greens/Conspiracy theorists but they're always interesting.
I am happy to discuss the existence of conspiracies. But so much of what is called conspiracy is fact. The role of Prince Charles, for example, in the management of the world is totally misunderstood and not even mentioned in the main media. Please read what his actual job is here. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sustainable-development-agenda-21-and.html
In defence of Tapestry, I think he does have a kernel of a point as to the political impact of fracking. Maybe not in Newark, but across a large swathe of Kent, E Sussex, W Sussex, Hampshire, and parts of Surrey, this has the potential to become a significant political issue, and currently the only party in a position to hoover up the anti-fracking vote is the Green Party. That could change.
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
Well, you were an MP on the government side when the DVLA changed their procedures to give out addresses to private debt collectors, so perhaps you should have given the principle of the matter a bit more attention at the time!
However, on the practical issue, the first question to ask is whether it's a privately-owned car park or a Council one. If the latter, normally you can appeal to the Council (assuming that it was a council-owned car park). I believe in the former case too there is supposed to be an appeals procedure.
It's not a good idea to just do nothing and let them send in the bailiffs.
Best advice is probably to go the CAB.
Based on the above, the best advice would appear to be: Don't vote Labour
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
Think that happened on your watch...
I think the football chant "You don't know what you're doing" applies to Nick Palmer, it's frightening to think he was once and may again be an MP.
Scientists never say never but it's difficult to hide real problems. Lead in petrol was one such. My experience is that pressure groups seize on subjects that are fashionable rather than really scientifically valid. But it keeps them off street corners and just occasionally, there's an element of truth.
In defence of Tapestry, I think he does have a kernel of a point as to the political impact of fracking. Maybe not in Newark, but across a large swathe of Kent, E Sussex, W Sussex, Hampshire, and parts of Surrey, this has the potential to become a significant political issue, and currently the only party in a position to hoover up the anti-fracking vote is the Green Party. That could change.
Could they have finally found an issue which could garner them significant support in more than one or two areas? Everyone will get their turn I guess.
Based on the above, the best advice ould appear to be: Don't vote Labour
That is of course invariably the best advice, but unfortunately millions of people did, and quite a few of them inexplicably don't seem to have learnt from experience.
Tap, I do worry about the knowledge of many of the Greens/Conspiracy theorists but they're always interesting.
I am happy to discuss the existence of conspiracies. But so much of what is called conspiracy is fact. The role of Prince Charles, for example, in the management of the world is totally misunderstood and not even mentioned in the main media. Please read what his actual job is here. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sustainable-development-agenda-21-and.html
Tap:
You cannot give as a reference your own blog - it must contain independent references.
You may not know that sustainability reports are part of the publications of most FTSE companies as well as most EU and US companies.
Have you spoken to Prince Charles and discussed such matters with him?
Could they have finally found an issue which could garner them significant support in more than one or two areas? Everyone will get their turn I guess.
The politics of it are rather odd. The anti-fracking movement is largely a collection of true grass-roots local groups - I know lots of people, not normally politically active, who are putting serious effort into opposing fracking. However, these are not at all the kind of people who will be attracted by the Caroline Lucas anti-prosperity,anti-capitalist, far-left style of Greenism. Meanwhile UKIP, which ought to be in an ideal position to capitalise on anti-fracking protest votes in leafy Tory strongholds, is strongly pro-fracking.
I don't think this is politically stable. Someone other than the Greens will break ranks in order to harvest this low-hanging political fruit. I expect it to be UKIP.
Something about UKIP's Newark candidate scares me. Never mind his political views, it's his moustache which looks it's come straight from 1980s gay porn that disturbs me.
Could they have finally found an issue which could garner them significant support in more than one or two areas? Everyone will get their turn I guess.
The politics of it are rather odd. The anti-fracking movement is largely a true grass-roots local movement - I know lots of people, not normally politically active, who are putting serious effort into opposing fracking. However, these are not at all the kind of people who will be attracted by the Caroline Lucas anti-prosperity,anti-capitalist, far-left style of Greenism. Meanwhile UKIP, which ought to be in an ideal position to capitalise on anti-fracking protest votes in leafy Tory strongholds, is strongly pro-fracking.
I don't think this is politically stable. Someone other than the Greens will break ranks in order to harvest this low-hanging political fruit. I expect it to be UKIP.
Interesting. The most intense and locally organised spontaneous resistence to development of any kind I've seen has been opposition to solar farms of all things, so I can easily see some party eventually managing to tap into the same sort of thing with fracking, which has even better potential to be politically divisive even in safe party areas. The Greens must be desperate to be the ones to do so, but I think you may be right about their appeal being limited. A wasted opportunity for them if they can't pick on this issue though.
Something about UKIP's Newark candidate scares me. Never mind his political views, it's his moustache which looks it's come straight from 1980s gay porn that disturbs me.
Something about UKIP's Newark candidate scares me. Never mind his political views, it's his moustache which looks it's come straight from 1980s gay porn that disturbs me.
I'm not an expert on 80's gay porn. Feel free to share your knowledge!
In defence of Tapestry, I think he does have a kernel of a point as to the political impact of fracking. Maybe not in Newark, but across a large swathe of Kent, E Sussex, W Sussex, Hampshire, and parts of Surrey, this has the potential to become a significant political issue, and currently the only party in a position to hoover up the anti-fracking vote is the Green Party. That could change.
I remember when the first fracking rigs were boring in Lancashire, many Tories were all for it. Suddenly, when it is close to home..........
Something about UKIP's Newark candidate scares me. Never mind his political views, it's his moustache which looks it's come straight from 1980s gay porn that disturbs me.
Homophobe
Comrade Sunilsky
Why is the background to your Avatar purple on PB and red on twitter?
Could they have finally found an issue which could garner them significant support in more than one or two areas? Everyone will get their turn I guess.
The politics of it are rather odd. The anti-fracking movement is largely a collection of true grass-roots local groups - I know lots of people, not normally politically active, who are putting serious effort into opposing fracking. However, these are not at all the kind of people who will be attracted by the Caroline Lucas anti-prosperity,anti-capitalist, far-left style of Greenism. Meanwhile UKIP, which ought to be in an ideal position to capitalise on anti-fracking protest votes in leafy Tory strongholds, is strongly pro-fracking.
I don't think this is politically stable. Someone other than the Greens will break ranks in order to harvest this low-hanging political fruit. I expect it to be UKIP.
I think we might well see the Greens back off a bit from some of the more leftwing economic policies (a bit like some of the more centrist Green parties in the likes of Germany), precisely so that they can make in-roads into the Tory shires which are exercised by fracking.
Meanwhile, at the same time, UKIP are going in the opposite direction and becoming more left-wing economically, as I've long been predicting, because they know most of their voters are vehemently anti-business and anti-rich, and do not want neverending austerity.
You cannot give as a reference your own blog - it must contain independent references.
You may not know that sustainability reports are part of the publications of most FTSE companies as well as most EU and US companies.
Have you spoken to Prince Charles and discussed such matters with him?
I quote The Tap Blog URL as that is where independent references are to be found. I only edit. I am not the original source. The researcher who uncovered Charles' UN role was called Joan Veon, for example, and her piece is where I referred you. Charles called me only last week. He wants the world's population reduced by about 90%. Inserting poisons into our environment through various means out of sight seems the best way to achieve this objective. It was decided at The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to use these methods to achieve 'sustainable development'. Fracking is his latest ruse to get as many people moved out of the countryside as he can manage, killing a good number in the process. The International Business Leaders Forum at the UN, formerly known as The Prince's Business Leaders Forum, coordinates the work of the largest corporations in the world to achieve the sustainability targets reducing the human population and clearing the countryside, ending private property and the nation state. Charles is a Rothschild of course. Descended from Queen Victoria on both sides. She was Nathan Mayer Rothschild's illegitimate daughter. Check out Agenda 21 to see what is and what is not suatainable. Head for Youtube and listen for ten minutes to Agenda 21 For Dummies. That sums it all up very nicely. When he made that speech last week at the Inclusive Capitalism conference, stating that humanity must undergo some unpleasant things for the sake of the longterm, that is what he was on about, in case you wondered what he meant.
That sounds like a political position dressed up in no more than a theological mankini to make it a religious position rather than political.
Ridiculous use of Church resources, time and prayer.
Time to disestablish the Church of England.
I thought you weren't really in favour of HS2?
I'm not.
But some Arch-Druid should not be getting involved in major policy decisions.
When I become Directly Elected Dictator, I will pass a law that if the Archbishop/Church of England want to talk about something other than religion, all their speeches must include a full extract of Ezekiel 23:20
I had an interesting chat with one of our Greek Doctors on this subject. He made a fairly convincing case that Greek society was permanently damaged by Ottoman rule, For centuries paying taxes was unpatriotic, in that it was supporting the oppressors. Tax dodging as patriotic duty!
and from this other forms of subverting financial behaviour became the norm.
Greek doctors took bribes to expedite treatment long before the current crisis. Greece has been a deeply corrupt country - probably the most so in Europe - for a long time.
Greek doctors took bribes to expedite treatment long before the current crisis. Greece has been a deeply corrupt country - probably the most so in Europe - for a long time.
Funny, I take the same attitude to not paying my BBC Licence Fee.
O/T: a friend's elderly aunt has been issued a parking fine by a private firm that she believes is wrong (she was careful to return within the allotted time). She disagreed, and they have now doubled the fine. They have bought her address from the DVLA and are pursuing her for payment. She can't prove they're wrong, they can't (she says) prove they're right, but she is scared of the bill escalating if she lets it go to county court. She lives on very limited means and merely paying the fine would be a serious issue.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
Well, you were an MP on the government side when the DVLA changed their procedures to give out addresses to private debt collectors, so perhaps you should have given the principle of the matter a bit more attention at the time!
However, on the practical issue, the first question to ask is whether it's a privately-owned car park or a Council one. If the latter, normally you can appeal to the Council (assuming that it was a council-owned car park). I believe in the former case too there is supposed to be an appeals procedure.
It's not a good idea to just do nothing and let them send in the bailiffs.
Best advice is probably to go the CAB.
I've had one of those 'tickets' from a private car park. They are able to buy the address of the registered keeper of the car, but not the keeper's name. My 'ticket' looked officially - it imitated those issued by councils and police. But it was nothing of the sort. When I read it carefully I could see it was a just a request for money, not a fine backed by law. So I ignored it. They sent one more. I ignored that too. That was six months ago and I've heard nothing since. I think if I had written to them and given them my name they would have considered it worth their while to carry on hassling me. Just ignore and don't tell them your name is my advice.
Something about UKIP's Newark candidate scares me. Never mind his political views, it's his moustache which looks it's come straight from 1980s gay porn that disturbs me.
I'm not an expert on 80's gay porn. Feel free to share your knowledge!
If you're feeling adventurous, google "Ron Jeremy's moustache"
This is NSFW and should only be done with caution and not a family or work laptop.
Could they have finally found an issue which could garner them significant support in more than one or two areas? Everyone will get their turn I guess.
The politics of it are rather odd. The anti-fracking movement is largely a collection of true grass-roots local groups - I know lots of people, not normally politically active, who are putting serious effort into opposing fracking. However, these are not at all the kind of people who will be attracted by the Caroline Lucas anti-prosperity,anti-capitalist, far-left style of Greenism. Meanwhile UKIP, which ought to be in an ideal position to capitalise on anti-fracking protest votes in leafy Tory strongholds, is strongly pro-fracking.
I don't think this is politically stable. Someone other than the Greens will break ranks in order to harvest this low-hanging political fruit. I expect it to be UKIP.
Tap, I do worry about the knowledge of many of the Greens/Conspiracy theorists but they're always interesting.
I am happy to discuss the existence of conspiracies. But so much of what is called conspiracy is fact. The role of Prince Charles, for example, in the management of the world is totally misunderstood and not even mentioned in the main media. Please read what his actual job is here. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sustainable-development-agenda-21-and.html
Something about UKIP's Newark candidate scares me. Never mind his political views, it's his moustache which looks it's come straight from 1980s gay porn that disturbs me.
I'm not an expert on 80's gay porn. Feel free to share your knowledge!
If you're feeling adventurous, google "Ron Jeremy's moustache"
This is NSFW and should only be done with caution and not a family or work laptop.
I'm always adventurous, but sometimes not when it is time to go to bed!
That sounds like a political position dressed up in no more than a theological mankini to make it a religious position rather than political.
Ridiculous use of Church resources, time and prayer.
Time to disestablish the Church of England.
I thought you weren't really in favour of HS2?
I'm not.
But some Arch-Druid should not be getting involved in major policy decisions.
When I become Directly Elected Dictator, I will pass a law that if the Archbishop/Church of England want to talk about something other than religion, all their speeches must include a full extract of Ezekiel 23:20
Church of England clergy have the same rights to participate in the political process as the rest of us.
Collectively, the have the same right to represent their members as any other interest group.
You don't have to be against HS2 to be against the Church of England taking a position on transport infrastructure decisions.
Their reasoning for taking such a strong position does seem awfully weak to me, particularly as they state 'the Church of England is not opposing HS2 per se, rather we are petitioning for a technical change to the Bill.', a technical change which the government would say is unnecessary because the concern has already been addressed:
'We understand that the removal of human remains to enable HS2 to progress is a sensitive and emotive issue, which is why this issue is specifically dealt with in the Hybrid Bill and why HS2 Ltd recently published a paper setting out how it would deal with affected burial sites along the route'
That may or may not be enough for some people, but given that the provision is in there already, the CoE asking for a 'technical change' which they cannot possibly not know will be used as an example of being opposed to the whole project, does, as philliph says, lean more toward the theological mankini than fundamental principle. It seems like it was literally the only way they could present opposition and claim it was not political.
And as far as I can see the whole thing is a huge waste of money so normally I'd welcome opposition to it, but they've got to try harder than that.
That sounds like a political position dressed up in no more than a theological mankini to make it a religious position rather than political.
Ridiculous use of Church resources, time and prayer.
Time to disestablish the Church of England.
I thought you weren't really in favour of HS2?
I'm not.
But some Arch-Druid should not be getting involved in major policy decisions.
When I become Directly Elected Dictator, I will pass a law that if the Archbishop/Church of England want to talk about something other than religion, all their speeches must include a full extract of Ezekiel 23:20
Church of England clergy have the same rights to participate in the political process as the rest of us.
Collectively, the have the same right to represent their members as any other interest group.
A thoroughly bigoted comment, if I may say so.
You know you've hit rock bottom, when you get called a bigot by you.
Something about UKIP's Newark candidate scares me. Never mind his political views, it's his moustache which looks it's come straight from 1980s gay porn that disturbs me.
HA! I knew we would get to this eventually. This site has long been a hangout of moustachephobes and, once Helmer was nominated as candidate for Newarl, sooner or later one had to break cover. English gentlemen have for centuries worn the moustache, the fact that you relate this noble tradition to 1980s gay porn says more about you than perhaps your would acre to admit.
Off topic, but you pays your money and you take your choice.
G'dn front page: Cameron accused of blackmail over threat to leave EU T'graph front page: Cameron winning major allies to prevent federalist leading EU
Two very different views and interpretations of the latest showdown. Or maybe they are both right, and the blackmail is working by getting more allies.
I assume that as Merkel has backed Junker it is almost certain he will get the job, and that Cameron is just trying to sound tough, and of course he was never alone in being opposed to Junker being the president of the Commission, but if he could manage to prevent it I guess he could get a boost for awhile, though I cannot see 'preventing major Federalist from being Commission President' drawing back in many Cameron doubters. In fact, not succeeding might well in the short term be better, as I presume any other candidate proposed for the job would hold pretty much identical views as Junker on the EU anyway, so better for Cameron to just complain about it.
Wasn't there a TV debate between the candidates? I don't see how Cameron can possibly get his way on this.
That sounds like a political position dressed up in no more than a theological mankini to make it a religious position rather than political.
Ridiculous use of Church resources, time and prayer.
Time to disestablish the Church of England.
I thought you weren't really in favour of HS2?
I'm not.
But some Arch-Druid should not be getting involved in major policy decisions.
When I become Directly Elected Dictator, I will pass a law that if the Archbishop/Church of England want to talk about something other than religion, all their speeches must include a full extract of Ezekiel 23:20
If you read the article, their complaint is about the treatment of graves, and the distance of the proposed route to church buildings.
Research, finds that the use of cutlery (or chopsticks in Asia) exacerbates the genetic component. The "better diet" of the more wealthy, and a horror of children using their hands to eat made it more pronounced in the top percentile. This is not the case nowadays, as processed foods become more common. The study used family portraits to track the changes over several generations. Edit to add:-That is not the actual study itself, but gives the general reasoning, if it bothers you I will find the study later, but I have visitors.
You cannot give as a reference your own blog - it must contain independent references.
You may not know that sustainability reports are part of the publications of most FTSE companies as well as most EU and US companies.
Have you spoken to Prince Charles and discussed such matters with him?
I quote The Tap Blog URL as that is where independent references are to be found. I only edit. I am not the original source. The researcher who uncovered Charles' UN role was called Joan Veon, for example, and her piece is where I referred you. Charles called me only last week. He wants the world's population reduced by about 90%. Inserting poisons into our environment through various means out of sight seems the best way to achieve this objective. It was decided at The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to use these methods to achieve 'sustainable development'. Fracking is his latest ruse to get as many people moved out of the countryside as he can manage, killing a good number in the process. The International Business Leaders Forum at the UN, formerly known as The Prince's Business Leaders Forum, coordinates the work of the largest corporations in the world to achieve the sustainability targets reducing the human population and clearing the countryside, ending private property and the nation state. Charles is a Rothschild of course. Descended from Queen Victoria on both sides. She was Nathan Mayer Rothschild's illegitimate daughter. Check out Agenda 21 to see what is and what is not suatainable. Head for Youtube and listen for ten minutes to Agenda 21 For Dummies. That sums it all up very nicely. When he made that speech last week at the Inclusive Capitalism conference, stating that humanity must undergo some unpleasant things for the sake of the longterm, that is what he was on about, in case you wondered what he meant.
Tap:
No verifiable references are given on your url.
Please give me the exact time and date of your call from Prince Charles and the number he was calling from and I will contact him to verify that conversation.
The rest of your unverifiable assertions will be ignored.
That sounds like a political position dressed up in no more than a theological mankini to make it a religious position rather than political.
Ridiculous use of Church resources, time and prayer.
Time to disestablish the Church of England.
I thought you weren't really in favour of HS2?
I'm not.
But some Arch-Druid should not be getting involved in major policy decisions.
When I become Directly Elected Dictator, I will pass a law that if the Archbishop/Church of England want to talk about something other than religion, all their speeches must include a full extract of Ezekiel 23:20
Which version of Ezekiel 23:20? A quick google search reveals to me that some of the non King James Versions simply lack genuine class.
That sounds like a political position dressed up in no more than a theological mankini to make it a religious position rather than political.
Ridiculous use of Church resources, time and prayer.
Time to disestablish the Church of England.
I thought you weren't really in favour of HS2?
I'm not.
But some Arch-Druid should not be getting involved in major policy decisions.
When I become Directly Elected Dictator, I will pass a law that if the Archbishop/Church of England want to talk about something other than religion, all their speeches must include a full extract of Ezekiel 23:20
Which version of Ezekiel 23:20? A quick google search reveals to me that some of the non King James Versions simply lack genuine class.
New Living Translation
She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse.
Danny565 The Greens may emphasise issues like organic foods and fracking in the Tory shires rather than pacifism and redistribution. As for UKIP, they may have abandoned the flat tax, but they are still the only party committed to an immediate restoration of the 40% top tax rate as Farage emphasised this morning
Comments
India 94
I remember reading an article about the journey of London's tap water, from it's source to the lower reaches.
The statistics might make those of a more squeamish disposition think twice about visiting a tea house, especially further downriver.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPpy5YrhMp4<
If UKIP wants a chance in any election, they have to change sides on fracking and property seizure by the state. If Farage has made a deal with Murdoch (and he has), did he realise that the State was about to impose compulsory fracking, and property seizure with no right of appeal? If UKIP counts for anything, it has to stand here. Murdoch deals have to be a thing of the past. UKIP has to stand without such corrupting influences, and with no media support. Recent weeks have shown that UKIP support holds up better without media support. Such is the distrust of the main media in Britain. It's time to break free.
Of course genetics are passed on, just in a more complex way than some would have you believe.
One thing that is indisputable though is that interbreeding tends to increase genetic faults.
God Bless the Queen and her diverse roots.
I should add, that the buck toothed "English Lord" stereotype, while based on observation to hold true, was not in the main genetic.
One demographic turning to UKIP is self-employed tradesmen.
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/self-employment-and-flight-to-ukip.html
Also, characteristics of a population cannot be attributed to individual members of that group. That doesn't mean it is not true of the group as a whole.
As for methane being supplied into peoples' houses, the amount being absorbed is tiny as the stenching agent forces people to react. Methane without a stenching agent being absorbed twenty four hours a day day in day out is killing/making sick tens of thousands of people, as is not being reported by the trusty media. Nor are the fracking battles taking place in Australia. The Bentley Blockade is seeing a camp of three thousand people seeing off one thousand police trying to get the frack drills into site in New South Wales. This isn't making TV coverage even in Australia, let alone here. Check out Ian Crane's weekly reports on UK Column. The subject is being hidden from the public in all its aspects so that no one knows the truth of this attack on our way of life.
Did they ask for "cash in hand" to fill in the survey?
;-)
I felt tired. Inhaled too much. Hadn't had much sleep lately. So went to bed and dozed off.
For 3 hours !
Now,
Tapestry is going on and on about methane .....
http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2014/05/15/4005224.htm
Extract from a MSDS on methane:
Inhalation
Simple asphyxiant. May cause suffocation by displacing the oxygen in the air. Exposure to oxygen-deficient atmosphere (<19.5%) may cause dizziness,drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, excess salivation,diminished mental alertness, lossof consciousness and death. Exposure to atmospheres containing 8-10% or less oxygen will bring about unconsciousness without warning and so quickly that the individuals cannot help or protect themselves. Lack
of sufficient oxygen may cause serious injury or death.
The same will happen with excess nitrogen or carbon dioxide.
If you are worried about extremely dilute inhalation of methane, I suggest you ban all use of domestic gas cooking and gas heating and ban all importation of such gas and gas terminals and tank farms where boil off can be a problem.
Go look up the reason for "receding chins" and the increased prevalence in modern society.
Your knowledge could do with improvement it would seem.
And for your general information, I usually stop posting when drunk. Verifying facts becomes harder when you go past more than a couple of glasses, and all you oh so clever people might feel able to answer awkward questions without fear of having a web link shoved in your face.
http://beta.betfair.com/politics/market?id=1.113986228
and from this other forms of subverting financial behaviour became the norm.
As with diesel fuel. This was promoted as it was supposedly a better greenhouse fuel (less CO2) than petrol/gas. Yet it's created a health catastrophe by polluting London's air, having twenty times the particulate pollution of petrol. Nothing or little of that can be found in the media of course.
I'm pleased ABC in Australia have seen fit to report the Bentley blockade at last. It's been going on a while unreported, except by UK Column weekly world fracking report. The fracking wars will be deciding elections, and could be having an impact in Newark right now. Nigel Farage's 'earthquake in Britain's politics' might not be overtaken by a Green one, but could be undercut by one. Or indeed if Farage doesn't side with homeowners and landowners against frackers, he will miss out. I repeat the leak from The Queen's Speech on RT reveals that frackers will be allowed to frack anywhere without the need to obtain landowner permission first. Private property is no more. UKIP has to make a stand or fade into irrelevance.
Obviously I have no knowledge of the facts. But her question is: how come the DVLA is allowed to sell private details to all and sundry? Doesn't data protection arise? And what advice should I offer? My provisional inclination is to say "Let them sue" if she's absolutely 100 sure they don't have a case, but that's easy for me to say.
G'dn front page: Cameron accused of blackmail over threat to leave EU
T'graph front page: Cameron winning major allies to prevent federalist leading EU
Two very different views and interpretations of the latest showdown. Or maybe they are both right, and the blackmail is working by getting more allies.
All substances are poisons. The dose makes the poison (Paracelsus). It's because they are chemicals. You are made of chemicals.
Therefore ... I do worry about the knowledge of many of the Greens/Conspiracy theorists but they're always interesting.
G'dn front page: Cameron accused of blackmail over threat to leave EU
T'graph front page: Cameron winning major allies to prevent federalist leading EU
Two very different views and interpretations of the latest showdown. Or maybe they are both right, and the blackmail is working by getting more allies.
I assume that as Merkel has backed Junker it is almost certain he will get the job, and that Cameron is just trying to sound tough, and of course he was never alone in being opposed to Junker being the president of the Commission, but if he could manage to prevent it I guess he could get a boost for awhile, though I cannot see 'preventing major Federalist from being Commission President' drawing back in many Cameron doubters. In fact, not succeeding might well in the short term be better, as I presume any other candidate proposed for the job would hold pretty much identical views as Junker on the EU anyway, so better for Cameron to just complain about it.
Clearly it should be about the Queen's Speech and the plot by the government to poison to the population.
Labour landslide nailed on next year.
Think that happened on your watch...
However, on the practical issue, the first question to ask is whether it's a privately-owned car park or a Council one. If the latter, normally you can appeal to the Council (assuming that it was a council-owned car park). I believe in the former case too there is supposed to be an appeals procedure.
It's not a good idea to just do nothing and let them send in the bailiffs.
Best advice is probably to go the CAB.
Is that how it goes?
This Daily Mail story is absolute tosh: http://is.gd/eATHEK . I said no such thing (and I'm not a retired colonel).
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_driving_and_parking_e/consumer_parking_tickets_e/consumer_parking_tickets_on_private_land_e/parking_on_private_land_if_you_are_taken_to_court.htm
and
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/apr/18/how-challenge-parking-ticket
Scientists never say never but it's difficult to hide real problems. Lead in petrol was one such. My experience is that pressure groups seize on subjects that are fashionable rather than really scientifically valid. But it keeps them off street corners and just occasionally, there's an element of truth.
Church of England to pray that HS2 will be halted
The Church of England has announced its opposition to HS2 - saying the high speed rail line will desecrate graves and shatter peace
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/hs2/10868907/Church-of-England-to-pray-that-HS2-will-be-halted.html
You cannot give as a reference your own blog - it must contain independent references.
You may not know that sustainability reports are part of the publications of most FTSE companies as well as most EU and US companies.
Have you spoken to Prince Charles and discussed such matters with him?
Ridiculous use of Church resources, time and prayer.
I don't think this is politically stable. Someone other than the Greens will break ranks in order to harvest this low-hanging political fruit. I expect it to be UKIP.
The story of a Scot named Brown:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10868101/The-Extraordinary-Story-of-Captain-Winkle-Brown-BBC-Two-review.html
What a guy!
Also, RIP Mary Soames, the last of Churchill's children
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27655894
Looks like UKIP has dropped its flat tax policy, and instead will simply cut the top rate back to 40% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27654958
Why is the background to your Avatar purple on PB and red on twitter?
Is this duplicity?
Shouldn't it be pure sunil?
Meanwhile, at the same time, UKIP are going in the opposite direction and becoming more left-wing economically, as I've long been predicting, because they know most of their voters are vehemently anti-business and anti-rich, and do not want neverending austerity.
You cannot give as a reference your own blog - it must contain independent references.
You may not know that sustainability reports are part of the publications of most FTSE companies as well as most EU and US companies.
Have you spoken to Prince Charles and discussed such matters with him?
I quote The Tap Blog URL as that is where independent references are to be found. I only edit. I am not the original source. The researcher who uncovered Charles' UN role was called Joan Veon, for example, and her piece is where I referred you.
Charles called me only last week. He wants the world's population reduced by about 90%. Inserting poisons
into our environment through various means out of sight seems the best way to achieve this objective. It was decided at The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to use these methods to achieve 'sustainable development'.
Fracking is his latest ruse to get as many people moved out of the countryside as he can manage, killing a good number in the process. The International Business Leaders Forum at the UN, formerly known as The Prince's Business Leaders Forum, coordinates the work of the largest corporations in the world to achieve the sustainability targets reducing the human population and clearing the countryside, ending private property and the nation state. Charles is a Rothschild of course. Descended from Queen Victoria on both sides. She was Nathan Mayer Rothschild's illegitimate daughter. Check out Agenda 21 to see what is and what is not suatainable. Head for Youtube and listen for ten minutes to Agenda 21 For Dummies. That sums it all up very nicely. When he made that speech last week at the Inclusive Capitalism conference, stating that humanity must undergo some unpleasant things for the sake of the longterm, that is what he was on about, in case you wondered what he meant.
But some Arch-Druid should not be getting involved in major policy decisions.
When I become Directly Elected Dictator, I will pass a law that if the Archbishop/Church of England want to talk about something other than religion, all their speeches must include a full extract of Ezekiel 23:20
This is NSFW and should only be done with caution and not a family or work laptop.
http://leonduveen.mycouncillor.org.uk/2014/02/23/east-midlands-lib-dems-pass-policy-motion-calling-for-a-halt-to-fracking-ansd-other-extreme-gas-extraction/
Vote LibDem in Newark this Thursday...
You take yourself quite seriously.
Collectively, the have the same right to represent their members as any other interest group.
A thoroughly bigoted comment, if I may say so.
'We understand that the removal of human remains to enable HS2 to progress is a sensitive and emotive issue, which is why this issue is specifically dealt with in the Hybrid Bill and why HS2 Ltd recently published a paper setting out how it would deal with affected burial sites along the route'
That may or may not be enough for some people, but given that the provision is in there already, the CoE asking for a 'technical change' which they cannot possibly not know will be used as an example of being opposed to the whole project, does, as philliph says, lean more toward the theological mankini than fundamental principle. It seems like it was literally the only way they could present opposition and claim it was not political.
And as far as I can see the whole thing is a huge waste of money so normally I'd welcome opposition to it, but they've got to try harder than that.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet_2.html
Research, finds that the use of cutlery (or chopsticks in Asia) exacerbates the genetic component.
The "better diet" of the more wealthy, and a horror of children using their hands to eat made it more pronounced in the top percentile.
This is not the case nowadays, as processed foods become more common.
The study used family portraits to track the changes over several generations.
Edit to add:-That is not the actual study itself, but gives the general reasoning, if it bothers you I will find the study later, but I have visitors.
Charles called me only last week. He wants the world's population reduced by about 90%. Inserting poisons
into our environment through various means out of sight seems the best way to achieve this objective. It was decided at The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to use these methods to achieve 'sustainable development'.
Fracking is his latest ruse to get as many people moved out of the countryside as he can manage, killing a good number in the process. The International Business Leaders Forum at the UN, formerly known as The Prince's Business Leaders Forum, coordinates the work of the largest corporations in the world to achieve the sustainability targets reducing the human population and clearing the countryside, ending private property and the nation state. Charles is a Rothschild of course. Descended from Queen Victoria on both sides. She was Nathan Mayer Rothschild's illegitimate daughter. Check out Agenda 21 to see what is and what is not suatainable. Head for Youtube and listen for ten minutes to Agenda 21 For Dummies. That sums it all up very nicely. When he made that speech last week at the Inclusive Capitalism conference, stating that humanity must undergo some unpleasant things for the sake of the longterm, that is what he was on about, in case you wondered what he meant.
Tap:
No verifiable references are given on your url.
Please give me the exact time and date of your call from Prince Charles and the number he was calling from and I will contact him to verify that conversation.
The rest of your unverifiable assertions will be ignored.
Is the graph in the thread header correct?
These are the figures from last Sundays poll
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net):
Con: +1 (+63)
Lab: +25 (+61)
LD: +50 (+75)
UKIP: -55 (+16)
Big differences
She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse.