News Round Up

I’m sure everyone has heard of the psy op Rich List, a publication from the Sunday Times, released each year listing the moderately wealthy of the country. I say moderately because the real wealth will never be on there. You know who I mean. The first line is…

A little-known model has entered the ranks of Britain’s super-rich…

How?

… by marrying into a £5.6billion fortune.

Ah. Let’s look at the top 10 ‘Richest’ Women.

Kirsty Bertarelli – Married a rich guy.

Lady Green – Married a rich guy.

Charlene de Carvalho – Inherited it and married a rich guy.

Kirsten Rausing – Family inheritance.

Slavica Ecclestone – Married a rich guy.

Baroness Howard de Walden – Family wealth.

Lady Grantchester – Family wealth.

Hourieh Perama – Married a wealth medical student, but still did most of it herself.

Ruth Parasol – Earnt it together with her hubby.

Ann Gloag – Earnt it with her bro.

Three out of ten did it themselves (more or less). Girl power at its finest. Speaking of girl power, how about 50,000 volts?

Taser parties – for all your zapping needs

The Arizona entrepreneur deployed her sales patter and folksy western charm as she praised the merits of the palm-sized C2 stun gun – available for $350 in a variety of fashionable colours, including the best-selling “hot pink”.

Hmm.

The U.N. has declared: “TASER electronic stun guns are a form of torture that can kill.

The problem isn’t people having devices for self-defence, it’s the false sense of safety that a taser creates. This encourages people (like cops) to use it on a whim because they have been told it is acceptable (and doesn’t kill, although it obviously does).

For insurance and practical reasons, Miss Shafman does not allow live target practice (nor does she permit guests to wash down the sandwiches with alcohol that might affect their judgment). Instead, the women lined up to blast away at the outline of a bad guy on aluminium foil.

Oh really. Wouldn’t want someone dying at the party would they, not a good selling point. Also, alcohol is not allowed at these parties, as opposed to at any other time these women are out. One drinks leads to another, man dies. It is also a charming way of attracting their perfect man…

What women REALLY want

Her boyfriend may not have a clue but today’s young woman knows exactly what she wants.

To be specific, she’d like to marry a man called James, who earns at least £25,000, by the time she’s 25.

Perhaps it doesn’t sound like much to ask. But according to a poll, eight out of ten women worry that they will never find their soulmate.

Sorry, but don’t expect to find sympathy from men. It because of the attitude of these women and the laws pushed by feminist politicians that has led to this situation.

While the survey showed that young women notch up as many sexual conquests as men, the survey found that they are really looking for a “romantic, hard-working man who is not afraid to commit”.

Bullshit. What they want is EVERYTHING. This article is saying something else. Women by 25 are starting to realise that their whoring about doesn’t seem to be getting them anywhere. Those men who are ignored by these young women end up going off and earning lots of dosh, partially because their energy and dedication isn’t wasted on self-entitled post-feminist tabloid loving emotional trainwrecks. These women start learning the error of their ways by 25.

Lisa Smosarski, editor of More magazine, which commissioned the survey, said: “The idea that women want an endless string of serial relationships which never end in commitment is way off the mark.

“By the age of 25, what young women really want is a soulmate with a view to marriage.

Well by then, the men they suddenly decide they want are busy shagging 20 year olds. The article then goes on to (somehow) blame this on men.

“Unfortunately, men have had it so good for so long they’ve become commitment-phobic, drifting from one long-term relationship into another.

“However, young women today have watched their mothers’ floundering relationship history and realised that getting a man to commit is important for their future happiness and family security. Young women are starting to expect far more from men.”

Men can be commitment-phobic. They fear marriage. Why? One of the comments sums it up nicely;

I’m pleased to see that women are looking for hard-working men who will commit in a relationship. Unfortunately, they will become increasingly difficult to find. If a man is stupid enough to marry, then with the law as it stands he could lose his home, half his pension and be required to financially support his children whilst being denied any significant access to them if the marriage breaks up. Even if he doesn’t marry, the law is now moving to establish the same discriminatory practices against men who are co-habiting with their partners. Faced with this, it is a mystery why any man would want a long term relationship with a woman. If his partner decides to run off with somebody else, the man is financially ruined and usually denied access to any of his children. So, I would advise my two sons against any long term relationships. The law is against you. And I speak as a man who has been very happily married to the same fantastic woman for the last 35 years.

- Ordinaryguy, Wolverhampton, UK

Although more women seem to be settling down in their thirties or later, those polled thought 25 was the “perfect age” to get married, preferably to a man who earns £25,000 or more.

LOL.

Eight out of ten said they would prefer to marry a “good, all-round, hard-working bloke” than the glitz and glamour of a “celebrity-style relationship”.

How hard will these women be willing to work I wonder? They probably have difficulty thinking about that between demanding xyz from a man, before divorcing him and taking everything off him anyway. They’re problem with celebrity relationships is the attention the man would be getting from other, younger, prettier, more fertile women.

Let’s see an article about what men want. Not that anyone seems to fucking care these days.

Emerging Hotties of 2008

I feel like pissing off feminists. You know those ‘men make women into sexual objects and therefore oppress them’ crowd. I’m also tired of reading the narcissistic ramblings of those haggard, crusty, old, weak, socialist scum hiding under the banner of ‘Women’s Rights’ but are much more interested in ‘Re-shaping Society to suit out Communist Goals’.

But seriously, the right women are as great as the bitches are evil. Good women are now in the minority, so don’t hold your breath in regards to finding a decent one. Concentrate on honing your mind and your abilities, at least then you know you’re investing in something that will definitely benefit you.

Anyways, it’s the weekend and I’m tired of ranting. I want to prove something.

That men adore women.

Also, as you look through the list, try and explain how they are ‘oppressed’ by these images. Feel free to look over them again to try and clarify your thoughts LOL. Gemma Atkinson and Odette Yustman will do nicely. And Jessica Lucas. And Kate Mara… Anything but this.

COED Presents: Emerging Hotties of 2008

By the way, I suggest watching Shooter if you can. It’s a class movie.

Have a good weekend, folks.

Sláinte!

Co-habiting couples must split assets

… As if they were married, a court rules today.

Socialist Labours attack on male-female relationships just went up a gear.

Daily Mail

A man was yesterday ordered to sell his home and give his ex-partner half the proceeds – even though they aren’t married.

Carl Barron lived with Lynne Fowler for 17 years in the home where they raised their two children. But despite the fact that he paid for the mortgage, the Court of Appeal decided she is entitled to half of the £150,000 property.

Granted, both names were on the register for the home. He paid the deposit, the mortgage and the bills. She paid for family holidays, food and looking after the children.’

Still, was there some attempt to quantify her financial contributions to his?

When the couple split in 2005 Mr Barron was declared the ‘beneficial’ owner in a county court ruling.

Yesterday, however, Lady Justice Arden, and two other Appeal Court judges, overturned that decision.

The judge said the joint name registry was a deliberate choice and it must be legally presumed that ownership was equal.

Well I guess he shouldn’t have put her name on it, although I have a feeling the ex-wife could have still fought for and won a share of the assets anyway. It isn’t like pre-nups are worth anything in the UK, I have no reason to think this would be any different.

Here comes the double-standard.

A previous ruling at The House of Lords, however, came to the exact opposite conclusion.

In April last year five Law Lords ruled that a father of four was not entitled to half of the family home he had shared with his girlfriend of 20 years because she had contributed more money to buy it.

Hmm, this reveals that this father of four actually paid into the mortgage as opposed to this more recent case where the woman paid nothing at all. It seems the theoretical ’50/50′ only applies when women stand to gain. Sounds like standard feminist methodology to me.

If you are wondering how long you would have to be with the ‘live-in’ girlfriend before this comes into effect, you don’t have to wait twenty years.

A live-in partner would also be liable for compensation once the couple had lived together for more than two years.

The reforms are currently on hold while ministers investigate how much it will cost in legal aid.

Ah, additional (illegal) burdens on the taxpayer.

One in six couples living together are unmarried, 67 per cent more than ten years ago. This is expected to rise to one in four by 2031.

Makes it much easier for communism to flourish.

1) Turn churches into ideology-driven political clubs.

2) Replace genuine education with a dumbed down and politically correct curriculum.

3) Fashion the mass media into instruments for mass manipulation and for harassing and discrediting traditional institutions and their spokesman.

4) Ridicule morality, decency, and age old virtues without respite.

5) Present the youth, not with heroic examples, but with aggressively degenerate behavioral models.

6) Attack the very building blocks of a moral society: attack marriage and family in order to subvert the social order

- Antonio Gramsci

EU Map deletes England, replaces it with Regions

Conspiracy? What conspiracy?

From The Telegraph;

England has been wiped off a map of Europe drawn up by Brussels bureaucrats as part of a scheme that the Tories claim threatens to undermine the country’s national identity.

The new European plan splits England into three zones that are joined with areas in other countries.

The “Manche” region covers part of southern England and northern France while the Atlantic region includes western parts of England, Portugal, Spain and Wales.

The North Sea region includes eastern England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and parts of Germany.

The goal of the EU is nothing less than the eradication of national borders and sovereign identity.

German ministers claimed that the plan was about “underlying the goal of a united Europe” to “permanently overcome old borders” at a time when the “Constitution for Europe needs to regain momentum”.

As time goes on and these elites get closer to their goal of an communist super state, more of these issues will start coming to light. These issues are not new however, it is just people are thick and cannot see the forest for the trees, too busy coming up with excuses to not have to get off of their arses and do something.

People really do not understand the gravity of the situation. If the Lisbon Treaty Constitution is ratified none of these other issues (10p tax, NHS, immigration etc) will matter.

It is a Constitution. It does contain all of the elements of the previous Constitution. Pro-EU shills like to simple dismiss this as ‘anti-EU propaganda’ but what else is one to think when the man responsible for the original Constitution admits the following about the Reform Treaty;

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the abandoned European Constitution, has admitted that the document has been rewritten by EU leaders in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.

“Looking at the content,” he wrote “the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty….are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties..”

He made clear that the purpose of the rewritten Treaty (now called the Lisbon Treaty) was to make people think the new version did not merit being put to the people in referendums.

Got that? More evidence for this can be found within an great article in The Spectator.

Germany
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, Telegraph, 29 June 2007)

Spain
“We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
(Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, speech, 27 June 2007)

Ireland
“90 per cent of it is still there… these changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
(Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007)

Czech Republic
“Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.”
(Vaclav Klaus, Czech President, Guardian, 13 June 2007)

Finland
“There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.”
(Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister, TV-Nytt, 23 June 2007)

Denmark
“The good thing is…that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.”
(Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007)

Austria
“The original Treaty for a Constitution was maintained in substance.”
(Austrian government website, 25 June 2007)

Belgium
The new treaty “takes up the most important elements of the Constitutional Treaty project.”
(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Agence Europe, 24 June 2007)

Italy
“As for our conditions… I outlined four red lines with respect to the text of the Constitution: to keep a permanent president of the EU, to keep the single overseer for foreign policy and a common diplomatic service, to keep the extension of majority voting, to keep the single legal personality of the Union. All of this has stayed.”
(Romano Prodi, Italian Prime Minister, La Repubblica, 24 June 2007)

Lithuania
Lithuania has “100 percent fulfilled the tasks set forth before the meeting, including the primary objective of preserving the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.”
(Office of the President of Lithuania, official press release)

Luxembourg
“The substance has been preserved from Luxembourg’s point of view.”
(Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister, Agence Europe, 24 June)

Slovenia
With the new treaty, the EU gets “content that is not essentially different from the Constitutional Treaty… All key institutional solutions remain… Some symbolic elements will be cleared up and some formulations toned down.”
(Janez Jansa, Slovenian Prime Minister, Government Communication Office, 23
June 2007)

The author of the EU Constitution
“This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.” (Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Telegraph, 27 June 2007)

European Parliament
The European Parliament “welcomes the fact that the mandate safeguards the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.”
(European Parliament resolution, 10 July 2007)

The European Commission
“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”
(Margot Wallstrom, EU Commissioner, Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007)

A detailed analysis of the constitional treaty can be found on OpenEurope.co.uk (downloaded here). Please visit these sites for lots of additional information.

Speaking of additional info, Lord Christoper Monckton, the former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher has written an article titled;

“EU’s Lisbon Treaty Means Dictatorship”.

I strongly suggest you read it in its entirety as it offers an insight in to the legal functioning of the EU. I shall post a quote to offer you a little example of the ‘rights’ you will have under the ‘New World Order‘ regime (my emphasis).

As of this year, under the pretext of compliance with a European anti-terrorist Directive, the right to a fair trial before a properly-constituted and impartial court was abolished in the UK for any criminal case defined as “serious”: and even offences as trivial as dropping litter in public places are now treated by the regional gauleiters as serious. Without a hearing, without the right of legal representation, the gauleiters can imprison any UK citizen for five years at a time, confiscate his house, freeze his bank accounts, close or compulsorily take over any business which he may own, or extradite him to any overseas country (including the most unspeakable dictatorships) even in the absence of any prima facie evidence whatsoever against him.

With the EU’s exponentially growing list of ‘regulations’ you can imagine it being impossible not to find yourself breaking them. Point 9 from EU Truth explains further;

9. Businesses closing under EU regulation
The EU’s 111,000 regulations, when fully enforced, will transform Britain from a free market economy into a Soviet style command economy, closing hundreds of thousands more businesses. They will also control our personal lives far more closely than were those of Soviet citizens. (In a Parliamentary answer to Lord Stoddart in January 2003, the government admitted there were 101,811 EU regulations, growing at 3,500 pa).

The cost of Britain’s 8,500 quangoes is £124 billion a year, and they raise an additional £40 billion from us in charges, according to the Cabinet Office. The Public Bodies Directory 2006 describes only 882 of them. Most exist to enforce EU regulations; nearly all should be closed.

Membership of the communist regime doesn’t come cheap either. Annual Cost of the EU = £275bn or 20% of GDP, and let us not forget that The auditors for the EU have refused to sign off the bloc’s financial accounts – for the 13th year in a row.

MEPs vote for pay increase and then to cover up European Parliament fraud

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I cannot stress the importance enough of NOT voting for Labour/ Conservative or Liberal Democrat and not being distracted by fluff entertainment and irrevelent stories about bulemic politicians and the latest lies pouring forth from Gordon Brown’s treasonous cakehole. Use your vote while you still have one.

I will be voting UKIP.

More information regarding the darstardly European Union:

WEBSITES:

THE PUBLIC DEFENDER – NO to the Police State

Treaty of Lisbon: This Could Be a Treaty of Death for Nations

The end of freedom

Polls say 88% want EU referendum

Do you know the truth about the EU?

www.wearechange.org.uk

Open Europe

Expansion of the EU

Abstract from the Barcelona – Euro Mediterranean Declaration of 1995

The Lisbon Treaty “Legalizes” EU-Dictatorship with Death Penalty

EURO-Med

VIDEO:

The Real Face of the European Union – 42 min

End of Nations – EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty – 82 min

No EU – Common Purpose Government Infiltrators 9-15-07 – 115 min

Ms V – The EU Crippling & Destroying a Nation – Update and Fate of UK – 78 min

Remote Control – 21 min

Taking Liberties (Since 1997) – 101 min

If you have any links or videos not listed here, please let me know.

Single Women More Likely Than Single Men to Own a House

Albany Times Union

TROY, N.Y. – Three years ago, Cherie Clark bought a home overlooking Troy’s Washington Park. The building was a mess, she says, and the responsibility of owning alone can be daunting. But she doesn’t regret the decision. “I like the idea of owning this house and being able to do what I want.”

Many single women agree.

Uh huh…

So much so that they now account for 27 percent of the nation’s first-time home buyers, according to the National Association of Realtors, and 21 percent of home buyers overall – more than double the rate of 20 years ago.

Single men, meanwhile, account for just 9 percent of home buyers, the same percentage as 20 years ago.

Buying a house in my book means paying cash, in total, for the full value of the house. Otherwise they mean mortgages.

Rising homeownership rates among single women reflect much- discussed societal changes: Americans are more likely to marry later and often divorce when they do. And women are earning more than ever before.

The Greater Capital Association of Realtors Inc., an Albany- based trade group that keeps data on home sales and prices, doesn’t track local home-buyer patterns. But its executive director, James Ader, points out that as recently as the 1970s single women had trouble obtaining a home loan.

“As that’s become more fair and equal, women have bought more,” he said.

A home loan. Long term debt. I’m not sure on the lengths of home loans in the States, but they frequently reach into the decades in the UK. Do these women realise they have to be working for a long time to pay that mortgage off, or are they expecting to meet a guy on a whim, ‘settle down’ and have him pay off the rest while she decides she wants to be a mum all of a sudden?

Evil bosses put logic before women

More than half of UK bosses assess the chances of a member of staff falling pregnant before employing them, a survey suggests.

And 76% of managers admitted that they would not hire a new recruit if they knew they were going to fall pregnant within six months of starting the job.

And why wouldn’t they? There are two points of view to consider here, that of the woman, and that of the business. The woman is obviously looking out for herself, so why can’t the business?

Employment Law Advisory Services (ELAS) said discrimination was prevalent, despite legislation to outlaw it.

There had been a rise in cases over pregnancy and new starters, ELAS added.

About 52% of those surveyed said that they considered the chances of a candidate getting pregnant taking into account age and whether they have just got married.

Legally, a direct question to a potential employee cannot be asked.

That’s helpful. So now women cannot even defend themselves in an interview, the business has to decide without that additional information. Naturally, they will err on the side of caution, because getting it wrong could get very expensive as well as disruptive. By the way, if women are so strong and empowered, why do they need additional legislation to ‘protect’ them? I’m sure they can handle it on their own?

More Globalist Conditioning – World Police Toy

Further to the article on Infowars.com about the toys with the All Seeing Eye on them.

Toys Bear All-Seeing Eye Logo

I present to you, the World Police toy!

Click the image for a bigger version.

Let’s see. Note the dashing black gloves with matching jet black NWO-thug outfit. Two guns, handcuffs (why handcuff when you can taser?) I can’t make out some of the weapons, I may pay another visit to this crap shop because there were other toys like this in it. Oh yeah, note the gold grenades on his left leg. The explosion on the label, along with the two other henchmen characters. I guess they plaster ‘Police’ on their chest so you don’t confuse them with sadistic psychopaths. Well not until it’s too late at least. Won’t matter when you’re already on the 3:10 to FEMA Camp #108

Oh well, gives the next generation of slaves something to relate to, I guess.

On a final note, I would have pointed this out to the store workers, but it is one of those shops where 95% only speak broken English (customers and staff).

Women in their 40s earn 20 per cent less than men the same age, study claims

Every couple of months another one pops up. Just like clockwork!

Women in their forties are the biggest losers in the pay divide between male and female colleagues.

I’m sure you can guess its content.

This comment puts the article in its place:

The politically correct truth is that women are paid less than men because of sexual discrimination whereas the factual truth, as hard as it is to accept, is that the pay gap is an inevitable consequence of different lifestyle choices and different legal entitlements to retirement and parental leave.

Men’s legal retirement age is five years older then women’s, encouraging them to work longer careers which lifts their average earnings. Women get far more extensive parental leave than men, encouraging career breaks and limiting their lifetime work experience, thus depressing their average wages.

On average, each week, men work nearly twice as many hours of paid employment as women, building up considerably more experience in their careers, which in a meritocracy would be reflected in greater pay. In addition, women tend to opt for more socially rewarding or emotionally fulfilling jobs, while men men put a higher priority on higher wages at any cost.

- Charles, UK

Brussels’ elite rule Britain. World elites rule Brussels.

As Britains’ sovereign laws are stripped by treasonous scum like Gordon Brown and the Queen, to be replaced by a Pan-European Communist Dictatorship. You may notice that I stated the Queen. Ignorant serfs would like to believe that the parasitic Royal Family only works in the interests of Great Britain. They are elitists, and therefore they work in the interests of themselves and their superiors, like the Rothschilds.

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”- Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836)

Read Rothschilds, LBMA, and Gold and Secrets of the Bank of England. You can also watch The Money Masters and other finance documentaries on my Video page.

Anyway, my point is that the Royals have no alliegence to Britain as a sovereign state. Deal with it. This is a picture of Buckingham Palace.

Which flag flies above the building? Why would such a building why the flag of another state? (The Lisbon Treaty which was recently signed essentially sets up the EU as its own state, with its own laws and citizenship. It will create a dual citizenship for everyone within it tentacled grip. However, the status and laws of the EU shall have authority over the citizenship and laws of member states). Read These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You for a summary.

People seem to be adamant that the EU is goooood and the Treaties are gooooood and everything is goooood (I mean, the TV still works doesn’t it?). Except the economy is collapsing, mass immigration is crippling taxpayer-funded services like housing, youth crime is rising, record numbers of broken homes, lowest marriage rates in history, highest taxes in history, cultural marxism destroying towns and communities, government refusing the People the vote (dictatorship already then) and directly attempting to disenfranchise white men, religious imperialism, a growing police state, illegal surveillance of the population, criminalisation of the children and the coming abolition of Britain and subjugation of Westminster to a foreign power. Oh, and the EU (which costs Britain over £200 billion a year) is so riddled with corruption that its auditors have refused to sign off its accounts for the 13th year in a row.

If you’re wondering why, read The End of Freedom.

If you’re not, what are you here for?

Fuck off and stick your head back in the sand and don’t come back, because you’re just part of the problem.

Police officers to be microchipped and the plan to chip YOU

The banking/ old money elites want you ‘chipped’. This means inserting an RFID tracking chip in your arm so they can watch you, along with a cashless money supply which will then be on the chip, enabling these elites absolute control over the money supply.

It is part of their plan, as is detailed by Aaron Russo when he talks about Nick Rockefeller, of the infamous Rockefeller banking dynasty.

Russo: “I used to say to him, what’s the point of all this? You have all the money in the world, you need all the power you need, what’s the point? What’s the end goal?

And he said (Nick Rockefeller) the end goal is to get everyone chipped, to control the whole society. So the bankers, the elite people, can control the world….”

Watch the video for the rest. Don’t want to believe it, do you?

Every single Metropolitan police officer will be ‘microchipped’ so top brass can monitor their movements on a Big Brother style tracking scheme, it can be revealed today.

Some officers are concerned that the system – which will be able to pinpoint any of the 31,000 officers in the Met to within a few feet of their location – will put a complete end to community policing and leave officers purely at the beck and call of control room staff rather than reacting to members of the public on the ground

These chips are designed to centralise control of a large number of individuals (us) by a minority of individuals (government). Which is the plan all along.

One officer, working in Peckham, south London, said: “They are keeping the exact workings of the system very hush-hush at the moment – although it will be similar to the way criminals are electronically tagged. There will not be any choice about wearing one.

“We depend on our own ability and local knowledge to react to situations accordingly.

“Obviously we need the back up and information from control, but a lot of us feel that we will simply be used as machines, or robots, to do what we are told with little or no chance to put in anything ourselves.”

This has already started happening in Mexico. In 2004.

OFFICAL: IPCC computer model is WRONG

Ground-breaking admission by member of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change: major contributing factor to the balance of the climate not taken into account.

It would appear that, as many of us right-thinking people have known for some time, global warming caused by CO2 output is, at best, sensationalist fantasy.

It seems that everal facts have now come to light that debunk the idea that we’re killing the environment with CO2 emissions:

The predicted tropospheric hotspots that had been predicted by the IPCC failed to appear. When climatologist Dr David Evans and Christopher Monckton found an error in the way that the IPCC had interpreted the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and applied a revised (corrected) factor to the workings, they discovered that the temperature rise was as little as a third of what the World’s government think tank had predicted.

The IPCC’s computer models, used to predict the effects of global warming, it appears, failed to accurately predict the influence that water vapour has on the temperature of the earth. At the global climate change summit in Bali late last year, Dr Roy Spencer presented a paper to the IPCC, saying that rather than CO2 driving the formation of water vapour, which then drives up temperatures as a greenhouse gas, water vapour actually washes excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, dampening and balancing its affect as a greenhouse gas. This discovery was made thanks to weather satellites that showed water vapour forms a lot lower in the atmosphere than was initially suggested. Shock horror, the finely balanced system that is the global ecosystem is able to keep itself in balance… who’d have thought it?!

Apparently the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback (the word used to describe what effect – negative or positive – a gas has on the temperature) has written to Dr Spencer, agreeing that he is right.

CO2 output has a point of diminishing returns anyway, apparently the common analogy is painting over a window: the first layer of paint has a big impact on the amount of light let through, while each subsequent layer has a less obvious impact. Meaning that, even without the dampening effect of water vapour, a ‘tipping point’ so often spoken about by alarmists like Al Gore, is actually a scientific impossibility.

Families in meltdown, judge says

What people like me have been saying for ages.

A senior family court judge has hit out at the government over what he says is an “epidemic” of family failure that will have “catastrophic” effects.

In a speech, Mr Justice Coleridge, a Family Division judge for England and Wales, warned the results could be as destructive as global warming.

In a speech in Brighton to lawyers from Resolution, formerly the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, the judge warned of a “cancerous” increase in broken families and said the government must take “comprehensive action”.

The judge said those who witnessed the goings-on inside family courts would be aware of it being a “never ending carnival of human misery – a ceaseless river of human distress”.

Mr Justice Coleridge said the collapse of family life is at a scale and severity that would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago.

This can be attributed directly to feminism and the socialist/ communist elements of government that adopted that evil ideology, in the quest for ever increasing control over individuals. As is usually the case with these ideologies, their theory doesn’t fit with reality.

Feminism as you should know by now, hates the nuclear family.

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

Sexism and the City?

The femprop never stops. Every couple of months, another article has to come out moaning about how hard done by women are.

In April 2008 the Fawcett Society launches a campaign for equal pay for women, in an effort to close the gender pay gap.

This still exists more than 10 years after Labour came to power pledging to address the issue.

The situation is particularly acute in London.

Really?

Unequal pay for women has been illegal for 30 years, and yet in London men earn 24% more than women – the highest discrepancy in the country.

The gap becomes even more marked at the higher end of the scale with men earning 32% more than their female counterparts.

Only 11% of FTSE 100 directors are female and no company in the city has more than 30% female staff.

So what. When was the last time you heard of a business giving a woman a job, but actually paying her less money than they advertised? I mean, if the job states £20,000 a year, that comes with some conditions. Like actually being there full time. For a whole year.