A Russian fighter aircraft has caused a major alert over the skies of Europe as tension mounts in the so-called radar wars.
In a statement, President Putin said that the plane was flying in international airspace looking for Turkey but got lost over the Bay of Biscay.
NATO has replied with it’s own version in which their track definitely shows the pilot making defensive manoeuvres all over Europe.
To counter this, Belgian officials say the plane stayed within international airspace which is now defined as being three and a half leagues inside geographical borders and never once touched Belgian airspace.
To date, it has been confirmed that newspaper sales have not suffered and that no news presenters have lost their jobs.
Prime Minister Cameron has pledged to ask the Daily Mail and Sun exactly what he should say next.
Beryl, of Saffron Walden (42) said,
I was checking the gutters for drips and saw a strange plane in the sky which looked at me in a funny way. I was glad to get back inside. You can’t be too careful in this day and age what with them radar tracks and all.
For months I have endured a deluge of facts and lies, all leading up to yesterday’s election. (I voted Green – there were only European elections in my area, so no local stuff). Mostly, it’s all been around UKIP. They really have stoked the fires, first lit by this government that wasn’t elected and that has done a raft of nasty things never included in their 2010 manifestos. But the fires against the disadvantaged are really aflame now.
UKIP’s backers are some of the sharpest, wealthiest people in the land.
UKIP’s tactics however, have been to take on all crackpots of all kinds, then, when the fuckwit says something beyond the pale, they evict them.
This has the effect of being news-worthy, and as we in entertainment know, all news is good news. The normal triumvirate of red, blue and orange have had a few gobshite moments, but UKIP beats them hands down.
The litany of UKIP’s tactics is strewn across the web, but a fairly recent summary and discourse on them can be found on Another Angry Voice (AAV).
Fact Checks #1
As Tom at AAV noted in the link above, UKIP-ers are not fond of reading anything beyond the first few lines of anything and have a raft of weird ideas all the stuff headed up and analysed with examples, summarised neatly here:
Denial of reality
Just making stuff up
Talking in absolutes
This is a “Hate group”
The Censorship fallacy
You called us racist
Right, I’m definitely voting UKIP now!
It’s all very “lowest common denominator” (LCD) stuff. Confirmation Bias rules, okay!
Fact Checks #2
Though I despise UKIP and parties like them, I do try to check facts, from all over and presented by anyone. Even those that I support get it wrong sometimes. Question everything!
UKIP’s Suzanne Evans on Radio 4
I heard that Evans had been quoted as saying that UKIP ” had difficulty appealing to the educated, cultured and young” with regard to the voting in London. It was on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme. You can listen to the whole thing here for the next few days. If you do a Google search for the phrase, “difficulty appealing to the “educated, cultured and young”” a whole raft of websites, news organisations, social media and news agregation websites are all reporting this very same thing. The search produced >1000 – here are 3.
This Reddit chat is a notable exception to the broadcast-info-with-impunity-or-checks brigade and also has a link to the interview. They say she never said it and provide a textual view of the interview.
The trouble is, she never actually said it! This is my recording of the show, editted down to Suzanne Evans’ interview and compressed for audio clarity before MP3-ing it.
It’s True – She Never Said It!
So why are all the news sites and almost every Google search result saying that she did? ( Well almost all – a Reddit chat also says that she never said it. ) The Independent report even has a nicely forlorn UKIP blokey.
In the interview, then interviewer actually says that it was a colleague in London (not known, not named) who, she said, UKIP “had difficulty appealing to the educated, cultured and young”
The truth of the matter is that people hardly ever check anything nowadays.
The deluge of information is too great.
Everyone expects reputable news providers to do properly journalistic background checks.
The BBC interviewer never checked.
The truth of the matter is that all news providers are in collusion with the establishment to maintain the neoliberal status quo.
The UKIP freaks who commented on AAV are correct in that it is a conspiracy.
UKIP freaks are right in that the BBC shows anti-UKIP left-wing bias.
The trouble with #2 is that UKIP contains part of the powerful establishment elite.
Farage is a former banker and apart from a host of wealthy backers, the normal tory paper (Daily Telegraph – torygraph in common parlance) is now swapping sides since the tories are not right-wing enough for it’s wealthy owners, the reclusive, island-owning, tax-avoiding, feudalistic, Sark-criticising (because it won’t allow them to set up a tax haven), Barclay Brothers.
Many other establishment papers likewise share a divisive, right wing, xenophobic stance.
The BBC has had rafts of governement enforced right wing management changes (government plants is the phrase).
The BBC has given more airtime to Farage than any other panellist on “Question Time” except for Dimbleby.
Far from being chemtrail pollution, the Boeing 757 is landing at Gatwick on a typically humid British day. Morris has captured the plane in low sun and emphasised the colours produced in the air from the London vehicle pollution for effect, IMHO.
Morris’s page 2 has some fantastic images, none of which are chemtrail proof, but could of course be used as such – he actually has hundreds of images. A busy, skilled, dawn and dusk photographer.
WorldTruth TV seems more like place to generate visits to further their financial gains from advertising, since the site is plastered with adverts, many, what I’d call very dubious in nature, gambling and big tit adverts for instance. It is typical of the genre, much like the Daily mail’s website.
Doing a Google image search shows hundreds of so-called chemtrail images as some sort of proof. Similarly as a standard page search.
But I’m an old guy now and I’ve seen a lot of sky.
I’m also a scientist with a physics and polictical background. I understand fears and have witnessed government corruption and wheeler-dealing for decades now.
Despite that, I cannot see how chemtrailing is at all cost-effective and no clear reason for doing it has ever been eschewed. It is all, guesswork.
The atmospheric proof is nothing. I’ve seen many, many weird skies ever since I was very young and I have grown up and witnessed a phenomenal growth in:
motor vehicle usage,
rain forest destruction,
changing agricultural methods
…..on a global scale.
All of these influence the atmosphere and its water-particulate balance with water in each of its triple states. See this link on the triple point of water. Both water and carbon dioxide (both highly important greenhouse gases) have unusual triple points and triple states of matter.
The state of the atmosphere can produce very weird effects, especially when combined with the global air corridors that planes must use, many criss-crossing the jet-streams several times. Undoubtedly, high altitude cirrus has increased and would be expected to increase from increased jet travel, along with the natural aerosol injections from volcanoes and forest fires. This cirrus is one of the components that naturally modifies global climate. So stop air travel? Yeah, that’ll happen.
If you cannot understand triple points then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft.
I you cannot understand that an aircraft flies by the vacuum sucking it into the sky then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft.
If you cannot understand how photographers can use light and technology to take and process images then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft. Check out Steve Morris’s photos for more “examples” of chemtrail…. http://www.airteamimages.com/steve-morris_pid1507.html – he has hundreds! LOL.
It’s not my fault that you are allowing yourself to be deceived by the chemtrail theory if you cannot understand the above.
What we need is proof. If you understand aircraft flight, photography and physics, then please supply some proof of chemtrails, the reasons for doing it and how and why any government in collusion with others would do such a thing.
The lowest common denominator mentality is alive and well in Glorious Britain. “Most people” (according to a man-in-the-street soundbite on the BBC News yesterday, so it must be true) now think benefit scroungers are the ruin of the nation and treated like dogs. Truly – the news article used this man to justify the April 1st cuts.
Also, at the last count, over 58,000 would be quite happy for the couple in this screenshot to be strung up, bashed to death in prison, hung drawn and quartered, dumped in the streets of Derby – you get the idea.
Deeply Disturbing Doubts
But this looks really bad to me.
Q. Oh! How so? You saw the telly last night, didn’t you?
Well actually, that’s part of the point.
How is it that just a few hours after the three convictions for parents Mick and Mairead Philpott, and their friend Paul Mosley, how is it that three main TV channels are running in-depth full length investigations into the three and the deaths?
How is it they all have recorded interviews with witnesses and others that knew the threesome?
How is it that the police, weeks ago, released secretly recorded audio of the threesome while the trial was in progress?
How is it that the Daily Mail ties the child deaths and lifestyles of the threesome to the benefit scrounging ethos of the recently introduced welfare cuts?
I’ve Seen It All Before
The media hysteria and manipulation of facts we’ve all seen before. How do the 58k Facebook lynch mob so easily forget this?
Daily Mail Headline Change After Vile Benefits Murder Comments Backlash
Like the cowards that the Daily Mail is, it punches up nasty headlines to get the sales, gets a backlash, then can’t stand by its own words – so changes them. Here’s how:
Initial Headline and URL
The URL for this page is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303120/Mick-Philpott-vile-product-Welfare-UK-Derby-man-bred-17-babies-milk-benefits-GUILTY-killing-six.html- but just try clicking it!
You’ll find that you are redirected to a wholly different page, similarly designed but with a different headline. Click Here to try. The original page that you should go to is on the right.
Redirected page with New Headline
If you clicked the link you’ll be taken here, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303120/Mick-Philpott-Judge-hears-good-father-awaits-sentencing-killing-SIX-children-house-blaze.html which looks like this image on the left.
But let’s thank goodness that Facebook wasn’t around in 2002 so that dishy doll psychos like Michelle Keegan couldn’t spill their vile venom under the disguise of public comment. She now has a more recent one saying “This cunt needs hanging share if you agree”
Obviously. I’m a Buddhist.
Also obviously, the man as presented and as I see him, and the others likewise, are the pits. But this does not deserve a witch hunt with thousands up and down the country baying for their private parts to be burnt in oil. Those doing so should better beware.
Faulty Convictions Abound
Because British justice has a long running habit of throwing curved balls. For the last few decades we’ve seen a continuous stream of high profile murders and atrocities, where;
Philpott et al certainly appear as scum, guilty of the deaths of their children.
But give it time. The spotlight glare into which the case has been placed coupled to the hysterical benefit-loaded media commentary give good grounds for a flawed judicial process.
At the time of Timothy Evans conviction, a similar media frenzy was in place.
Similarly for the Birmingham Pub (not) Bombers
and Judith Ward the M62 (not) bomber
All of these (and more) have had long drawn out media frenzies where the hang ’em and flog ’em brigade appeared, just as now, like a syphilis from the sewers of unclean thoughts. They should be better than that, better than a killer.
Folks should learn from history. Getting hot and bothered now will not resurrect the dead children.
Public Breast-beating Over Middleton Paparazzi Photos
You must understand that there is no news today.
Everything is celebrity, sport and royal in the UK.
Everyone has a media correspondent, a sports correspondent and a royal correspondent.
Reporters just report on the latest twitter feed. No-one searches.
There are several aspects to this boob photos media blizzard.
There’s the mass media almost to a man, fawning and groping at half truths.
There are many ordinary people wondering what’s going on.
We now have several (mainly establishment types) people making exaggerated claims about the camera location. Well, I’ve checked.
The photos were NOT taken “over a mile and a half away”, nor “well over a mile” away, nor “about a mile away”, nor “from a long way off, in private woods”, but about half a mile away. The house is clearly visible, along with the windows, railings and garden stuff that appear in the photos on Google Maps Streetview.
I’ve chosen a point ~ 900m from the building as one of many good vantage points. Go down now to see it.
If I used my hand-held camera taking a shot, I could see the whites of the eyes…. Yes really! To demonstrate — here are two pictures that show the capability of my hand-held Panasonic Lumix, DMC-TZ30.
Be careful when clicking as I’ve uploaded the shots at full resolution. Once loaded, click the little green arrow to see the pictures in all their full-size glory – you will need to scroll both vertically and horizontally to find the yacht when on full-size.
They are hand-held, on a normal day, just like many of my recent shots from my recent French vacation. I have many high-res scenic shots – I’ll have to check them through – who knows what I’ll find LOL.
If someone was on the yacht, I could see them. The boat is several miles offshore – nearly on the horizon actually! So don’t let the Streetview shot below fool you – the house is a lot closer than it looks, even from the position I’ve chosen here. It is only 900 metres away!
The house is dead centre in this link. So it is a private house visible in public, much like me in my bedroom at night with the curtains open, okay? My camera could have easily shown them doing anything. Easily. Yet if I can be easily seen in my bedroom at night (i.e. clearly a private place as they keep repeating) I can get done for indecent exposure? Right?
Hopefully, by seeing the capability of my own camera in conjunction with a normal Streetview of the area, you can now see how incongruous the claims that this is a private place actually are?
The firstworldwar.com website shows the standard issue British rifle in WW1 as having guaranteed accuracy up to 600m. This had no optical scope, just sights to be used by a normal man. This means a kill shot at 600m, not just wounding, which shows the hand/eye/gun precision easily possible from anyone. 900 metres doesn’t look so far now, eh?
I also remember reading in “With a Machine Gun to Cambrai”, the author George Coppard saying that he picked off men at a similar range with just one or two rounds from his heavy machine gun. This is despite the juddery nature of a heavy machine gun.
At that time, Diana and Fergie had caused much embarrassment with their girlie antics. Charlie’s behaviour outside the public face of marital fidelity was well known and became ever-more detailed as time passed. Phil the Greek was his usual self and scandal after scandal built up until the Castle burnt down. So that was that – then.
Now we have Harry getting his kit off to the amusement of the world (in a €6000 a night hotel suite on a serviceman’s salary, note), but being dismissed as “just letting off steam but must be more careful in future”. And almost synchronously in time with Harry, it now appears, Kate & Wills feel so assured in their new-found popularity that they can do anything. They certainly have the money for it.
But you know – they can’t.
If they want the esteemed position that they publicly project and behind which the combined forces of a fawning mass media enforce, then they must behave like it. They cannot behave like normal holidaymakers and not expect a come-back no matter how “ordinary” Kate was supposed to have been. You can’t be a “highness” and not expect attention? They cannot say and do anything – for one thing, our constitution forbids it!
For another, the public will hate it and they need the public much more than we need them.
Why don’t they all just go away? I won’t mind a bit. Maybe this’ll be a turning point as the penny drops?
Privacy – What Privacy? – added 18/9/2012
The BBC has now leapt onto my referencing Google Streetview as an aid to showing relative privacy. Of course, the devil-in-the-detail of this is not mentioned as I’ve done above.
But that’s not my point here, is it? Neither is my point that criminal proceedings are now starting. My point is that for all of us….
Our Own Privacy is Zilch.
We are (or will be):
Subjected to full intimate body scans at airports by faceless private “agencies”
Have our emails and web activity saved and analysed at leisure by faceless private “agencies”
Followed down every street, across every junction, inside every shop by CCTV “security” cameras run by faceless private “agencies”
Have our phones tapped by faceless private “agencies”
Have our shopping habits monitored by faceless private “businesses”
Have our finances, credit cards, driving licences all cross-referenced ad infinitum with our passports, our insurances, our taxes and more – by faceless private “agencies”
…and all of this is done to us while the few that own these “agencies” and “businesses” flaunt their wealth, hide their money, holiday in their tax havens, pay no taxes, are as secret and private as they choose to be, collude to manage information and the law, and then have the audacity to tell us how to behave. Royalty is just the icing on top of a very rich cake…..
And here’s where more hypocrisy creeps in as those reversions to type are conveniently forgotten.
As we all know, Charles, William’s dad, was knocking off Camilla his mistress both before and during his marriage to Diana, Wills’ mother. Much like Edward VII & Langtry. All of the UK knows this. Now Camilla is supposed to be “accepted”, according to our fawning press. A few grannies during the jubilee said she looked nice….well that’s it then!
Yet in France, for years the hobbled press kept secret the facts of former President Mitterrand’s mistress and his second family….a bit like secret polygamy, but in a Catholic country….? Yet millions get their kit off in summer all over France?
Clearly, French privacy is wholly different to the British version. I can get done for undressing while forgetting to shut the curtains, but in France my privacy to do this is upheld?
Ye-es I hear Paxman saying again.
Media Guff and Fawn
So how can we accept protestations about “rightness” from these people when nothing is said about actions and happenings either then or now which go clearly against their public statements and media view of their lifestyle?
If the next likely Prince of Wales, Wills, turns out like other former Princes of Wales’, do we wash it away but say that sensationalistic reporting of public/private sunbathing “hotties” is wrong?
Because a “hottie” is what Kate is – she’s smart, apparently intelligent, elegant and (most importantly for the press), hot in a swimsuit – as earlier photos revealed. (Remember the debate in all the papers about who was hotter, Kate or Pippa? Of course you do, but you’d forgotten, hadn’t you?).
The success of the Daily Mail website hangs on her and other sensationalist voyeuristic shots of hundreds of “hotties” – here’s today’s Kate article; note the HUGE list down the right for articles, near half of which are for scantily clad women.
The comments at the bottom, like I said, for the most part, go totally against the fawning theme of the piece. One repeats the mile and a half lie so that mud has stuck again.
Indeed, for those with long memories, the video at the bottom harps on about Berlesconi’s ownership of the magazines and his publication of Diana’s car photos “minutes after the accident”.
Now, maybe you remember that following Diana’s crash, The Daily Mail solemnly pledged never to use paparazzi photos again?
Yet virtually all the links down the right of any Mail page are paparazzi pictures! They have to be – they’ve sacked nearly everyone and the paper would fold without them.
Porn Baron Protests and Threatens to Close Magazine!
It’s the Irish one that’s interesting! It’s co-owned by Richard (Dirty) Desmond, who besides running UK TV’s Channel 5 and publishing the Daily Express and tit paper The Daily Star, also runs porn channels Red Hot TV and Television X. This growth was part financed by selling off his earlier publishing business which included such salubrious titles as Asian Babes and Readers Wives. Notably, his celebrity magazines of OK! and New! are full of paparazzi photos……. like, dah?
Now, to top it all, Desmond has said he wants the Irish paper closed….. – 17 Sep – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19621188 He must be after a knighthood or something because his history shows that prurient disapproval is not one of his strong-points. It’s laughable.
The lady (and Desmond) doth protest too much, methinks. – Hamlet
Mass Media Princely Support, Public Split
Checking the comments following news reporting, I note a two-thirds majority telling Kate to keep her kit on if she doesn’t want to be rumbled. This is despite the media claiming “over-whelming condemnation” or whatever.
It’s just simply not there. Most of the public aren’t swallowing it.
Sooner or later there will be a backlash against the Royals if they keep this up. Let well alone, it’d have blown over, much like Harry’s knob-tastic exposures. But keeping it going, on and on, using their inherited and publicly provided wealth to pursue legal redress shows them seriously out of touch with the common mood, no matter how much the mass media are beefing them up.
The recent Hilsborough revelations show that media collusion is not a new thing.
Tits and Bums
A lot of people are behaving like bums or making a tit of themselves.
Those in “the establishment” are doing what those in the establishment normally do, which is to fawn and whine, pontificate and lie, all to keep ranks under the firm expectation of a gong at some point.
Then there are the “granny types” who all think she’s lovely and that the queen does a marvellous job.
There’s a few who see it as an attack on women, part of the objectification of women that’s happened for millenia and has now gone past saucy postcards, through Page 3 and porn mags (like Dirty Desmond’s) to full on ubiquitous internet porn and the gyrating phone girls on Freeview. (All very valid, but not my gist)
Then there’s everyone else!
These are in two camps, I think;
those that don’t care either way but think the royals should think themselves lucky to get free holidays and trips and well looked after for the whole of their lives
BEE DIGITAL MEDIA LIMITED (also has website bee-digital.co.uk)
Apart from that, there are loads of others. One that caught my eye was a website called Divided States, a US political site. They had a web-page here, http://www.dividedstates.com/kate-middleton-topless-photos-prince-william-and-kate-suing-publication/ which they’ve now pulled. How coy.
Fortunately, the Google Cache shows us this – the full copy of their original posting – click here or the screenshot for the cache. (full image available on request)
So am I a tit or a bum?
Is Oliver above?
Is Berlesconi? Berlesconi certainly has gripes with the UK following his latin faux-pas with the queen and others….? Maybe he’s publishing just for revenge?
Wills, with his experience, has behaved like a knob. He should have known better. He slipped up, which is a possible explanation for the rapid response unit being thrown into action. It was notably absent following the Harry incident.
But really, what everyone has totally forgotten, is the old adage:
Don’t throw stones when you live in a greenhouse.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. – Hamlet