Ahh well her majesty outta luck ...... only one that even recognise as leader is Emporer of Japan .....  all the rest I give international two finger gesture of greeting to ......

The hell with rehabilitation ..... execute all pedophiles ....

(02-28-2017, 04:04 PM)Daitengu Wrote: The hell with rehabilitation ..... execute all pedophiles ....

That would leave the Catholic Church with very few Priest to serve the Masses that still Believe.

guohua

(02-28-2017, 04:04 PM)Daitengu Wrote: The hell with rehabilitation ..... execute all pedophiles ....

That would leave the Catholic Church with very few Priest to serve the Masses that still Believe.

And thats a good thing ..... see thats one more good reason to execute em ...... erm .... hang on ..... somewhere round here got edict from first shogun ordering all catholics executed ..... heh .... two birds with one stone ......

Wow! I wonder which people who poorly-researched these claims were involved in getting these
alleged 'false' claims out? Oh wait... it was the mainstream media.
But heh, you've got to fill the pages with something, haven't you? Let's just hope this isn't one of
those times.

Exposed, the truth behind the great health myths:
From the five-a-day rule to eating oily fish once a week, experts reveal the common mantras
that were completely made up.

*Most of us follow common health tips, thinking they're based on proper research
*But recently a U.S. scientist said the target of 10,000 steps a day is actually false
*Here, we reveal which well-known examples can really be backed up with facts

'Eat five portions of fruit and veg a day, take 10,000 steps, drink eight glasses of water, brush your
teeth twice and then sleep for eight hours. They're the mantras many of us follow in the belief they're
based on proper research.

But are they? Recently a U.S. scientist revealed that the target of 10,000 steps a day, recommended
by the NHS, [National Health Service of the UK] isn't based on science at all. 
In fact, the number of steps seems to have been picked at random.



(Bland image that's in most articles and the irony is that the media treat us as vegetables!)

Dig deeper and you'll find quite a bit of the health advice churned out by health authorities is based on
flimsy science, if any. 'The overall message is that many recommendations aren't proven outright, so
don't beat yourself up or feel anxious if you don't achieve them,' says Martin Caraher, a professor of
food and health policy at City, University of London.

'Even the evidence-based findings should be adapted to your own needs as they will be based on
general trends, not individual lifestyles. It is broad guidance.'
Here, we scrutinise the best-known examples to separate the mantras you should follow from the
myths you need not worry about...'

You're going to scrutinise now?! How dare you!
Are you telling us that these past claims that may have convinced people into buying a particular
food item may have been done in the name of promoting that item?

'...You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the five-a-day rule — a government 
recommendation since 2003.
The phrase 'five-a-day' was dreamt up by the California Department of Health Services in 1988
as a marketing tool to increase fruit and veg consumption. The number wasn't based on specific
studies — it was just catchy...'

And you reported that back in 1988, yes...? You announced to your readers that this was just a fake-out
in the hopes it would persuade the masses to purchase more specific foods from California?
And these specific products that not grown in the United Kingdom... the same United Kingdom exported
them from California? I think not.

Anyway, I'm ranting. Please continue with I'm to assume is the truth now.

'...The campaign was adopted as a national initiative by the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. in 1991
after a meeting with the Produce for Better Health Foundation (which represents the fruit and veg industry).

The UK's five-a-day advice follows a recommendation from the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1990
based on studies that show an association between the consumption of more than 400g of fruit and
vegetables and lower risk of heart disease, stroke and some cancers...'

Woooah...! wait a moment!
Someone -and you haven't researched into who it was exactly, 'dreamt up' a way of selling more fruit and
vegetables in another country and the UK National Health Service take it as gospel that since the World
Health Organisation said it was a good idea? That's the outcome?!

Mother of Go... what's next? Some guy passes me in the street and says something and I'm supposed to
just accept it as fact?!
I'm seriously beginning to think the mainstream media and these established institutions can't be trusted.


'...In its report the WHO conceded that 'nutrient goals have been set judgmentally rather than on the basis
of specific evidence'. Nonetheless, the five-a-day campaign was launched based on chopping up this 400g
recommendation into five 80g portions.
But no studies have ever found that 400g is the magic number...'

I think Daitengu's way of life may have as much validity than these charlatans in suits and the people wearing
white lab coats. More and more, we can see that "You've been living in a dream world, Neo' and the constant
conditioning of those we've been conditioned to believe are our superiors is being exposed every day.

The fact that mainstream media have been complicit in this social controlling should also be remembered.

'..The recommendations for fruit and vegetables are based on observational studies which showed that people
who ate a lot of fruit and veg had a lower risk of cancer,' says Thomas Sanders, an emeritus professor of
nutrition and dietetics at King's College London. 
'It was a ballpark figure at first, thought to be a reasonable target.'

So what are we to make of a new study by Imperial College London which concluded ten portions is the goal? 
This amount was found to reduce risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer much more significantly than five
portions...'

Utter garbage. A marketing ploy from an organisation that wishes to promote it's products is taken and used
as a health-action by other organisations. This article now announces that the endorsement from the World
Health Organisation was erroneous and without a pause for breath, this report will now walk it back in favour
of not making waves with the Establishment.

But to do this, it must rationalise with the reader. First: Tell them that 'A Professor' says the findings are dubious
and then blanket-cover the article with comments that will seem fair.
Example: Drink water, eat different foods and keep active.

'...Professor Sanders says it is 'ridiculous' and 'unrealistic'.
This study just shows that people who eat ten-a-day will have healthier lifestyles generally — i.e. not smoke, be
more active — and not that this amount of fruit and veg improves health this much,' he says.

This has been a regular criticism of studies into the benefits of fruit and veg — while they can show a link that these
foods are good, the conclusions can't be used to suggest what the desired number to eat a day is.

A 2013 study by the authoritative Cochrane Review concluded there was no strong evidence to support the effect
of fruit and veg intake on heart risks. 
Furthermore, few studies provided evidence of the specific amount of fruit and veg needed...'

There's more of this rubbish in the link.
SOURCE:


I see this every single day. The masses are bombarded with stories that say 'a source said this' and 'academics
said that' and yet in reality, even if these unknown connections are valid, there's rarely any any positive substance
to them.

Of course we should eat different things and it's obvious we should drink liquids, but I'm sure that if a large segment
of a country decided that a manufactured and tax-generating item was no longer desired for consumption, the powers
-that-be will march out men and women in white coats and sporting spectacles and clipboards, to assure the public
that this embargoed item is good for you!
And it will do this from assistance of television and newspapers.

Granted, the internet is a place where you can be arguing or agreeing with strangers that may have agendas that
counter your own, but at least it individualistic on websites such as Rogue Nation.

I'm of an age that tends to frown at catchphrases and buzzwords, but I believe 'Woke' is the appropriate term for
myself.

One of many flavors I forgot about when it comes to abstaining the Blue Pill is that as one adjusts into in a
non-European Market world, familiar story lines begin to become visible again.

When the United Kingdom was sucking the EU's big-one accepting it's toothless role in allowing Germany and
France to gather their powers, the mainstream press barely mentioned any reports of strikes and industrial
protests in the UK.

Personally, I believe this happened just after the Wapping Strikes when Rupert Murdoch retained the members of
the  Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU) that installed his computer networks
for his newspapers without the need for the traditional compositors. It was 

After the Journalists moved from Fleet Street to the Wapping facilities, the cries of the industrially oppressed went
away. True, Liverpool Dockers and the Fire Brigade took industrial action in 98' and 2002 respectively, but the days
of powerful Union forces had died after Margaret Thatcher killed the Miners dispute of the mid-eighties.

The final call before the National Health Service began quietly hoping for better pay, were the Teachers. But still, it
was another facet of the public sector that had also grown tired of the indifference of their overlords from Westminster.
It lasted one day.

So, the years rolled on with the confidence in employment being eroded in the UK by the threat that a fellow-European
would do the job for less money and poorer conditions. Bargaining-power dissipated as Unions became nothing more
than fairy-stories for young employees to look astounded about.
Then someone said 'Bexit'

British Airways went on strike.We had a sprinkle of Postal protests, railways sections that once belonged to the
country and now under the remains of Thatcher's long-ago clique, demanded that no more job-cutting and hours
-extending continued and The City didn't like it.

The Teachers threw more chalk at the political blackboard and Junior Doctors call off a five-day strike because
of patient concerns. More and more workers complained after the 'Leave' vote was announced... it seemed the old
days were rolling back in.

But what else were the concerns of these 'One-Out-All-Out' days when industrial warfare was the norm in the UK?
Air pollution was a major complaint and petrol vehicles were frowned upon in favour of diesel-fueled ones.
After a few years, the media never mentioned it again.
Until after Brexit.

Pollution warning as London air quality alerts are issued.

'Air quality alerts have been issued by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan - with moderate pollution
expected until the weekend across 17 London boroughs.

The problem is expected to peak on Thursday in Westminster, City of London, Hammersmith,
Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston and Wandsworth.
Pollution warnings will be displayed at bus stops, Tube stations and roadsides.

London breached its legal limits for toxic air for the entire year in the first five days of 2017.
Notices will be displayed at bus stops, river pier stops, Tube stations and on signs on London's
busiest roads...'
SOURCE:

Before:
A major shake-up in political parties occurred with leaders of their respective parties resigning.
Margaret Thatcher was still the Prime Minister, but Labour and the Social Democratic Party changed their
leaders with Thatcher hanging in there until 1990.

After:
Post-Brexit found the Prime Minister David Cameron resigning the day after the vote and the other political
sections floundering without a real drive for power. Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour Party is constantly at odds
with his people and a Lib-Dems, a merger of the Liberal and Social Democrats, have a chirpy-chap called
Tim Farron who appears on television once in a while to say he's not a happy bunny.

Before:
The Provisional Irish Republican Army were still plotting against the English Government to free Northern
Ireland from the United Kingdom and create an independent republic. From 1969 up to the late nineties, the
mainstream media regularly reported their exploits, then strangely, the vicious narrative melted away.

Now...?
Warning over ferry link terror risk.

'There is a "real" threat of terrorists crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland by ferry, one of the
UK's leading terrorism experts has said.

David Anderson QC gave the warning in a report written before he stood down as the UK
independent terrorism reviewer.
Officers at Scottish ports told him they had "incomplete and unreliable" information from the
ferry companies.

Police Scotland this month launched a campaign urging the public to help defeat terrorism.
Mr Anderson said: "The threat of terrorists crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland is a
real and substantiated one.

"The Canary Wharf truck bomb of 1996, manufactured by the IRA in South Armagh, killed two
people, injured more than 100 and caused £150m worth of damage.
"It was transported from Larne to Stranraer on a Stena Lines ferry, then driven to London."..'
SOURCE:

British Rail began life in 1965 with nationalisation bringing the four large rail networks under
one umbrella. Deisel engines were common sight and full electrification of the trackways
only occurred during the privatisation peroid where the focus became profits after the concerns
of large subsidies fom the Government had helped to keep ticket prices down.

As privatisation  took hold, the British public seemed to lose faith in the railway services as prices
soared and seating became a rarity. Recently,  re-nationalisation of the railways of Britain has begun
to have popular support. A poll in 2012 showed 70% support for re-nationalisation.

Now...?
Train Strike Guide: When is the next Southern Railway strike, what are the strike dates
for 2017 and which routes are affected?

'Southern Railway users are to face fresh travel woes on Monday as RMT union members
stage yet another 24-hour strike.

The walk-out is part of a long-running dispute between the union and rail bosses and sees 
commuters hit again from early morning right into the evening and will be the 30th strike
carried out.
Southern said it will run as many trains as possible despite the “pointless” strike...'
SOURCE:

'Rail strikes hit northern passengers as Southern dispute spreads...'
SOURCE:

................................
So why is it that industrial actions and old ghosts assumedly laid to rest before the European Union
was embraced, have come back to haunt us in our daily newspapers? Had these disgruntled workers
really stopped their complaints regarding low pay and long hours or was the mainstream media just
not listening?

Something's changed and the Blue Pill's effects are wearing off.

Pffffffffffttttthhhh ..... the muzzie problem far worse then the irish problem ever was or is ...... kick the fucking eu supporters out of uk .... or better .... hang the globalist bastards .....

Being in the habit of playing the moaning old man who's natural stance is presumed to be the opposite
of whatever Journalists write (which isn't true in my defence!) -this little ditty caught my eye on how the
mainstream media offer their indignant musings of the world we find ourselves in today.

This is merely my opinion. My opinion is based on the circumstances I am in at the time of writing and
and any facts I may offer would be beyond refute regardless of how I attempt to 'slant' those facts.
Any tampering with the fact in favour of giving the impression that the whole opinion must have merit,
could lead the reader to believe I was attempting to dupe that reader for my own ends.

Simply put, facts are facts and my opinion is open to interpretation.
If my vocation is to report information with a commentary or explanation, the article should be set out in
a manner that shows this so the reader can be confident that no 'weaseling' is in play.
It's about trust.

Sky Views: Even the weather is fake news in Trump's America.
By Hannah Thomas-Peter.

'In New York, winter storm Stella pulled her forecasted punch.
America's largest city had battened down the hatches, prepared for 18-24 inches of snow and blizzard conditions.
Flights were cancelled, shelves were emptied, trains stopped running, schools closed and shops shut.
But although the massive weather system caused serious disruption and damage further inland, her predicted
impact on the big population centres along the coast failed to materialise.

Just seven inches of snow fell in Central Park.
"Snowmaggedon," according to various righteous commentators, became "nomaggedon".
It has since emerged that America's National Weather Service knew by Monday evening that the snow fall total
would likely be lower, but decided "out of extreme caution" to stick with the higher forecasted amount.
The reason; to avoid confusing the public.

Chief of Forecast Operations Greg Carbin told the Associated Press news agency that "The nature of the beast
is that there's always uncertainty in every forecast and we have to get better at describing that,"
Despite Carbin's admirable honesty after the fact, this incident worries me.

Not because the prediction wasn't perfect (which prediction ever is?), but that important information was withheld.
That's because I think that anything that reduces the likelihood of people heeding future warnings is a very bad thing.

The weather in North America can be savage...'

Nothing wrong there and even though I know that Hannah Thomas-Peter began her piece with 'Sky Views'
I would -as a reader, agree with the above information as it seems, although this Journalist has hinted that
something 'worries' her.
Maybe that will appear later.

If the debate is that an agreed organisation who monitors weather decided that a warning level was originally
correct and then after realising a storm was abating in certain areas, that warning wasn't required, then surely
a rational mind would accept that to change a warning for a general area for the sake of a specific area could
lead to confusion.

In the old days, we'd say it's what what our parents taught us.
It's actually refreshing for a change to read that there are men and women looking out for our best interests
and making sound, mature decisions based on rational perceptions of outcome.
I would dare to salute Mr. Greg Carbin and his people for their principled judgements.

'...In the aftermath of superstorm Sandy I still remember wandering around downtown Manhattan, eerily quiet
without any power or mobile phone coverage. I remember the National Guard rolling down Second Avenue in
armoured vehicles and how quickly that part of the city started to feel isolated and frightening.
And we had it easy compared to other parts of the North East where whole communities were devastated...'

I recall lots of things and I don't live in that country. I have sympathies for those who endure such terrible
weather conditions and if possible, I would assist to make sure fellow human-beings could survive those
elements of life that we have no control over.

This may seem harsh, but since the article has 'Trump's America' in it's heading, I'm dubious on how the
Reporter can make the leap from a natural climatic function of the world to a human elected to lead other
humans.

And remember, this is an opinion piece and should be treated so. That doesn't mean I disrespect Hannah
Thomas-Peter's article or herself, it just that when these opinion-pieces are given, my experience tends to
make me prepare for the other shoe to drop.

But we're assessing a natural force's effects on civilisation and since the majority of adults have been involved
with weather in some form or another, recollections are like assholes... everyone has one.

'...In extreme weather, trust in public services and institutions can make the difference between life and death,
between heeding an evacuation order or staying, stockpiling fresh water and medication, or winging it.
It is the only currency that matters.

But there is also something else at stake.
America's new commander in chief rode to power on a populist's disdain for "the establishment"...'

Are you going to suggest that Donald Trump should wear a coat when out in such inclement weather...?
I'm guessing that somehow, your continuing article will be able to connect your memories of a desolate
Manhattan and the rumbling armoured vehicles of Second Avenue to President Trump's time in the White
House.

It's only a guess, but I'd suggest those worries you mentioned are something that are negative to this current
President and as little relation to snow storms and bottled water.

'...In practice what that meant was the questioning of climate change, hinting at a distrust of vaccinations,
accusing journalists and intelligence agencies of inaccuracy, bias and sabotage, and the rubbishing of
employment figures and other economic indicators.

President Trump's approach has, I think, contributed to a creeping and toxic distrust of so many pillars of
American society.

It is an atmosphere in which his counsellor Kellyanne Conway used the phrase "alternative facts" on live television
and invented a terror attack on US soil without losing her job.

It is an atmosphere in which the term "fake news" has become a caustic, commonplace dismissal of any set of
facts or opinion that one doesn't like or agree with.
There is a battle going on in this country for control of what is true...'

And there it is... the complacency. A corporate platform to give one's opinion and the first thing this Journalist
does is put the reader at ease with a nice story about hunkering down in a storm and memories of weather
-forced loneliness in the city that never sleeps.

She extols the virtues of the US National Weather Service and how it's decision-making tends to lean on
over-caution. Nothing nefarious went on in regards of relaying information to the public, the Weather Service
merely decided that confusion could cause more problems than it solved.

In a cartoon world, I believe we would see the reader nodding in agreement with the above comment.
And that's what she wanted. That's what all Journalists look for with their prose. A straight-forward account
with a sensible no-nonsense outcome, which tends to make the reader absorb the positives and hopefully
re-use them in the real point the Journalist is trying to convey.

The suddenly, like a rabbit out of a hat, the Journalist lists the subjects that the President has voiced his
doubts about and in her umbrage that someone could actually hesitate in believing the mainstream media,
she forgets that she had to lead the reader down a pathway of pragmatic -yet soft writing to get to the real
point of this article.
She basically tricked that reader.

For the jaded subject of such a formulaic, deliberately manipulative exercise  it's another example of how
'The Establishment' has become so self-righteous due to it's longevity. Facts are facts and have no bearing
on the reporter of those facts.

The responsibility that's taken in reporting the facts is immense and the trust goes hand-in-hand with that
responsibility is sacred, so hallowed that to even treat it lightly could cause damage that may never be
repaired. Trust is something every human-being needs and it must never be trifled with.

But due to the complacent attitude gathered over many years, the reporting of news is seen by those
reporting it as mere fodder to be pushed through their own agenda-filters. Agendas that benefit either the
writer or those who hold the reins of that writer.

The facts become chess pieces to add weight to the biased accounts and the tired reader or viewer accepts
that one is ultimately connected to the other. I think it's called 'infotainment'

'...Anything that contributes to more distrust, cynicism or weariness in ordinary people weakens their ability to
demand it from elected representatives and those in public life.

In this regard, I think the National Weather Service's decision to withhold information from the public has done
more damage than it will have intended to.'
SOURCE:

And finally, the insincere judgement that any reader/viewer/listener would not have the ability to appreciate the
nuances of the Weather Service's decision to not confuse the public in this instance and within this journalist's
comment, knowingly promotes her own profession to a loftier position of trust.

There are scandals, crimes and acts that the public would frown upon that the mainstream media deliberately
turn a blind-eye to. Police Forces and Journalists have colluded in telephone-hacking for reasons that are still
not truly revealed. Rupert Murdoch's 'The News Of The World' newspaper was primarily closed down because
of this reason.

Countless people come forward and report sexual abuse at the hands of certain political figures and after
years of pressure, a British Government decided to hold an investigation into this subject. The inquiry is
dogged with resignations, deaths and other problems... yet investigative journalists never ask the question
why.

Those of high-rank in 'The Establishment' have preformed deeds that involve -not only having mainstream
media ignore victims, they have demanded that a narrative is formed to condemn their particular problem
and any of the future.

If I'm supposed to doubt someone who says something that doesn't go with the established line, why would
I naturally accept someone who tells me tales of snowstorms and Second Avenue when their true motive
is to insult someone because they don't 'like' him?

You're not above anyone, Journalists... that's what's supposed to make you trustworthy.

Just as a bit of assistance in seeing how parts of the mainstream media collude to
maintain a narrative, here's a couple of links to what was a hangouts and a posting
on their meetings.

SOURCE:

SOURCE 2:

@"BIAD" 
I found where he said "Including almost half of the British Voters wishes we would stay together and not drift apart." 
In the video at the very end at the 55 second mark.
Here is the video source: Source

Is these what you where talking about, or I'm just to tried from being up all night and Totally Just Screwed Up. 

(03-30-2017, 01:14 PM)guohua Wrote: ...Is these what you where talking about, or I'm just to tired from being up all night
and Totally Just Screwed Up. 

No... you're correct. I have deleted my posting and thank you for your diligence.

(03-30-2017, 01:17 PM)BIAD Wrote:

(03-30-2017, 01:14 PM)guohua Wrote: ...Is these what you where talking about, or I'm just to tired from being up all night
and Totally Just Screwed Up. 

No... you're correct. I have deleted my posting and thank you for your diligence.

No, No, No, don't delete your post,,,,, you still made a valid point, the MSM tells us what they want us to hear more often than people know.

(03-30-2017, 01:36 PM)guohua Wrote:

(03-30-2017, 01:17 PM)BIAD Wrote: No... you're correct. I have deleted my posting and thank you for your diligence.

No, No, No, don't delete your post,,,,, you still made a valid point, the MSM tells us what they want us to hear more often than people know.

Thank you and I believe the MSM do have an agenda to relate their own narrative
for whatever reasons, but my posting was incorrect and it's only appropriate to
delete the information because of the general implication that I was proposing
was wrong due to incorrect details.

It as nothing to do with the fact that I hadn't saved it elsewhere.
*red-faced*!!

With the recent development of Gordi's fine advertisement of Rogue Nation on a YouTube video, I made a
comment in the Shout Box that our reasearch should be more diligent and disciplined when proposing a
topic to discuss and providing valid sources.

Many of us were concerned that even though this a is deemed a conspiracy website, subjects brought by
our members shouldn't be supported by dubious proponents of the theory based on obvious CGI or biased
commentary.

So if a member of RN posted an article that was untrue because the evidence that is false was written within
the article, I'm sure fellow-members would say that the poster of that piece should really try harder, to say the
least!!

Meanwhile, on the mainland...

UK passport could turn dark blue after Brexit under £490m contract.

'Passport routinely redesigned every five years and Eurosceptics say burgundy EU
passport is a ‘humiliation’...'



Old-style British passport. The Home Office said no decision had been made about the colour
of the passport under the new contract. Photograph: C Squared Studios/Getty Images.

Great Scott...! and I don't mean Gordi this time!
After only one sentence of this Guardian article, the reality of what is filling this web page is
announced as false! The Home Office of the United Kingdom has stated there's no decision on
the colour of future passports, so let's wander towards the water-dispensor and gossip.
No..? There's more?!

'...The UK passport could turn dark blue again after Brexit under a £490m contract to redesign
and produce a new version of the document. The passport is routinely redesigned every five years
and Eurosceptics view the new contract as a way to ditch the EU burgundy cover in favour of a
return to the colour of the past.

The current contract expires in 2019, the year the UK is set to leave the European Union after
Theresa May began the formal two-year withdrawal process last week...'

Oh, so we're using the word 'could' in the context of 'maybe' the Home Office -who hasn't proposed
the change of colour. Maybe we could do an article on how extraterrestrials can obtain a passport
if they exist...? Or would that come-off as too click-baity?

'...Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell said the burgundy passport had been a source of national
“humiliation”. He told the Press Association: “The restoration of our own British passport is a clear
statement to the world that Britain is back.
Our British identity was slowly but surely being submerged into an artificial European one that most
Brits felt increasingly unhappy about.

“The humiliation of having a pink European Union passport will now soon be over and the United
Kingdom nationals can once again feel pride and self-confidence in their own nationality when travelling,
just as the Swiss and Americans can do...'

Is this assistance in promoting a patriotic feeling for the reason of displaying a national confidence
in the hopes it enhances business links outside of the EU...?! It certainly sounds it. Remember, we're
only talking about the possible colour of a document for travelling here... the contents of that small
book is far-more important than it's colour.
And to be frank, more important than this article.

'...National identity matters and there is no better way of demonstrating this today than by bringing back
this much-loved national symbol when travelling overseas.” Fellow Tory Michael Fabricant said: “You keep
your passport until it expires. If you renew after Brexit, I am hoping we’ll have new navy blue passports.”...'

Oh I'm sure Prime Minister May will pat you -Mr Rosindell and your colleague Micheal Fabricant on the
head for your strong comments that shows Britain is resolute in it's EU withdrawal. The oddity is that this
newspaper is all for diversity and free movement of people from all races.

This article seems to lean towards nationalism and the knee-jerk reaction to that word is to scream 'NAZI!'
At this moment and after perusing this story again, I'm wondering if The Guardian doesn't really hold these
views dearly and is actually in the business of opportunism.

One of the main reasons I suggest that this newspaper is moving slightly to the right with this article is the
comment '...The humiliation of having a pink European Union passport'.
It was okay to endorse pink hats at a womens protest and this 'humiliation' wasn't commented on when
describing Eddie Izzard's beret that was stolen.
Just sayin'

'...The Home Office said no decision had been made about the colour of the passport under the new contract.

A spokesman said: “The UK passport is routinely redesigned every five years to guard against counterfeiting.
We are launching the procurement process now to ensure there is sufficient time to produce and design UK
passports from 2019 when the current contract ends.

The timing of any potential changes to the passport after the UK has left the European Union has not been set.”'
SOURCE:
Crap! That was a waste of time!

But seriously, the benchmark we are aspiring to reach on this website is important and if we're to be seen as
a serious -yet non-despotic, open-minded forum where mature discussions can be generated, isn't it ironic
that we looked at getting our act together because of bettering our place and a established news outlet like
The Guardian is conceitedly shovelling this kind of fluff-sh*t under the banner of established true news?

Pssst... wanna see the other side of the television screen?
Just watch it and then forget it, because I wouldn't want you to think these bastards
professional people couldn't be trusted.

Remember, these people are impartial and there's no agenda to keep you in the dark.

Ninurta commented in another thread -and agreed with by Daitengu, that what is actually
happening in Syria is not what factions the mainstream media want you to believe.

This video from December 2016 may offer more evidence for their assertions.

As the strange taste of the Blue Pill fades and many of us begin to come out from under the cloud of
fuzzy 'Let's-Overreact' media-frenzy, there may still be some who struggle to come to terms with what
the supposed crazy people call 'reality'

Brexit vote site may have been hacked, MPs say in report.

'A voter registration site that crashed in the run-up to last year's EU referendum could have been
targeted by a foreign cyber attack, MPs say...'



Oh my word, the BBC are informing it's readers that unknown parties did just what some of what
the rest of the mainstream media have been crowing on about! Though the words 'may' and 'could'
are in their first sentences, I'm sure the evidence of such a claim is only moments way in the editorial
below.

'...The "register to vote" site crashed on 7 June last year just before the deadline for people to sign up to vote.
The UK government and electoral administrators blamed a surge in demand after a TV debate...'

You say crashed... It crashed because the hackers forced it to crash, huh...? I'm not up on the buzzwords
used in the computer world, but a 'demand' I'll assume is something that indicates these pesky hackers
were in the Registration site doing what they do and this caused the 'crash'
That must be it.

'...But MPs on the parliamentary Public Administration Committee say a foreign cyber attack could not
be ruled out...'

Oh I see... er, it only might have been a hack. But let's not get bogged down with semantics, I'm sure the
PCA will shed light on why this article exists.

'...The suggestion came in their report at the end of their inquiry into Lessons learned from the EU Referendum.
The report, and published evidence with the report, does not appear to quote anyone saying that the voter
registration site had been targeted...'

So nobody mentioned a targeted hack and by doing so, implied a hacking could have taken place.
Maybe it was a dragon of some sort, because they didn't mention that either. Still... it's the British Broadcasting
Company we're dealing with here and being such an established, worthy conduit to the public, I feel confident that
the heading above will be borne out.

'...And the Cabinet Office, who commissioned its own report into the website crash, said: "We have been very
clear about the cause of the website outage in June 2016.
It was due to a spike in users just before the registration deadline.

"There is no evidence to suggest malign intervention. We conducted a full review into the outage and have applied
the lessons learned. We will ensure these are applied for all future polls and online services."..'

Silly-billy Cabinet Office! This piece has hinted that it was targeted by unknown hackers, but just hasn't provided
the evidence yet. Surely the BBC wouldn't write a whole article full of imagined scenarios?

'...The website crashed at about 10.15pm on 7 June, 2016,, shortly after a televised debate and amid social
media campaigns to get people to register to vote ahead of the midnight deadline.
Official figures suggest 525.000 people applied to register to vote that day.



The Public Administration Committee's chairman, Leave-supporting Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, told
BBC News there was no "hard and fast" evidence the registration site had been targeted.
But he said the committee's report had included the possibility that the crash "may have been caused by a
DDoS (distributed denial of service attack) using botnets" in its report "on advice".
He declined to elaborate further...'

So there's not only no evidence of a targeted hacking with malevolent intentions of changing the EU referendum
outcome, there's actual suggestions that botnets full of maleware were responsible for the website not working.
Could these sent-cyber menaces be the culprits..? Oh, he declined to elaborate further.
My money is still on the dragon.

'...At the time of the website crash the then Prime Minister David Cameron extended the deadline by 48 hours
for registering to vote in the referendum - 430,000 people applied to register to vote during that extension period.

According to evidence submitted to the committee from the Association of Electoral Administrators the electoral
registration system "could not cope with the demand... and any contingency measures were wholly inadequate".
It says: "This concern had been raised on a number of occasions... reassurances had been given that what actually
occurred could never happen."...'

So the botnet hackers caused the failure to cope with the demand then...? The 'contingency measures' were unable
to halt the onslaught of these hacker-owned vius carriers and ergo, this is the evidence that the Government website
was hacked. I see now.

'Analysis by Chris Baraniuk, Technology reporter
That foreign parties might have tried to crash a government website in the lead up to a key poll is a serious suggestion,
but does it hold much weight? Cybersecurity experts are sceptical.

"I think there's lots of conjecture," says Ollie Whitehouse at NCC Group. "It appears to be one committee's opinion
but with no supporting evidence."...'

Oh well, that's put the kybosh on my explanation! Someone on the Committee said it, but we don't know who
and those well-versed in cyber-security are sceptical... this article doesn't seem to be as exciting as the headline
first implied.
In fact... dare I use the word 'fake'?!

'...He also pointed out that government websites were known to suffer during periods of unusually high demand,
though their robustness had improved in recent years.

The wording of the report is, indeed, "very vague", notes John Graham-Cumming at networking firm Cloudflare
 In order to really know what happened, traffic to the website prior to the downtime would have to be analysed.
That is only possible if adequate records have been kept, Mr Graham-Cumming adds.
"Most websites don't store very detailed information," he notes. But if logs show traffic from a large number of
sources around the world, that might indicate that a botnet - a system of enslaved computers - was used to
attack the site. "That could be interesting," he says...'

I'm sure it would be interesting to the computer boffins and regardless of the 'very vague' analysis from the
Association of Electoral Administrators, is there any evidence for this article actually implying such an offence?

'...It said that civil servants should be required to prepare for both possible outcomes in future referendums
- such as a second vote on Scottish independence - something they had been prevented from doing in the
run-up to the Brexit vote...'

So next time, the civil servants should load software to guard against malware...? Is that what you're saying?!
Or is this wildly-partisan article merely a vehicle to suggest that the Governement needs to put a plan in place
in case a referendum doesn't go the way the established upper-middle class want? 
Or would that be too outlandish? -unlike this whole article. (smirk!)

...The committee called on the government to set up a new Cyber Security Centre to monitor and contain
potential attacks on UK elections and referendums - particularly foreign attempts to influence public opinion
and disrupt the democratic process.

"The US and UK understanding of 'cyber' is predominantly technical and computer-network based," said the report.
"For example, Russia and China use a cognitive approach based on understanding of mass psychology and of
how to exploit individuals.

"The implications of this different understanding of cyber-attack, as purely technical or as reaching beyond the
digital to influence public opinion, for the interference in elections and referendums are clear," the report added...'
The BBC.

Phew...! For a moment there I thought you weren't going to get the word 'Russia' in!
Well done BBC and very informative.


Edit: Just like freakin' seagulls, The Guardian follows with their 'suspicious' point of view.
SOURCE:

It's the one thing I enjoy about the mainstream media, the continuing narrative that is supposed
to keep the reader or viewer in the magical world of 'Aaawww' Traditionally, there's the man-bites
-dog story where a tale of reverse is offered and everyone smiles at the ironical outcome.

Then there's the 'Things are better now' yarn, a story that usually shows young people who've
endured some terrible tragedy in their lives and now live in better times. The customer to such
articles can retire to bed knowing that goodness still prevails in the world because the Kronkite
-wannabe behind the desk reading from a tele-prompter told them so.

But there''s also the other narrative, the darker one where the need to conceal certain facts is
paramount so as not to alarm the reader or viewer into forming a link from one report to another.

Like the account below, the reason why the people mentioned in the article were involved in such
terrible activity is never stated or offered. Why...? why were these young females subjected to
this foul ritual?

Here's the article from the BBC:

FGM charge for Detroit doctor Jumana Nagarwala in US first. (Strangely constructed title?!)

'A doctor in the US city of Detroit has been charged with carrying out female genital mutilation
(FGM) on young girls in what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the country.



Prosecutors said Jumana Nagarwala had been performing the practice on girls aged between
six and eight for 12 years. She was investigated after the authorities received a tip-off.
If found guilty, she faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

FGM was made illegal in the US in 1996.
In a voluntary interview with investigators earlier this week Dr Nagarwala denied being involved
in any such procedure, local media reported.
But prosecutors said she had performed "horrifying acts of brutality on the most vulnerable victims".

Some travelled to her practise from outside the state of Michigan and were told not to talk about
the procedure, they added. Dr Nagarwala appeared in a federal court in Detroit and was remanded
in custody.

"Female genital mutilation constitutes a particularly brutal form of violence against women and girls.
It is also a serious federal felony in the United States," acting US attorney Daniel Lemisch said.

"The practice has no place in modern society and those who perform FGM on minors will be held
accountable under federal law."

The first recorded case of FGM in the US was in 2006, when an Ethiopian immigrant was jailed for
10 years for aggravated battery and cruelty to children for mutilating his two-year-old daughte
 five years earlier with a pair of scissors.

In 2012 the US authorities said more than 500,000 women and girls in the country had either been
subjected to FGM or were at risk of it.
About 200 million girls and women around the world have suffered some form of FGM, the UN says,
with half living in Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia...'
SOURCE:

So why did the Doctor do it?

Quote:The first recorded case of FGM in the US was in 2006, when an Ethiopian immigrant was jailed for
10 years for aggravated battery and cruelty to children for mutilating his two-year-old daughte
 five years earlier with a pair of scissors.

OMG!    

This practice is sick, sick, sick! 

I hope she gets life... for each child's life she ruined!    BITCH!!!!!  

As we who resist the dosage of the Blue Pill would say, Phew...! nearly!
A must-watch video.