Film Maker Admits No Evidence To Link Starving Polar Bear Viral Video To Climate Change’

As one of those sites run by nasty fluffy-kitten-eating climate change sceptics we have taken our fair share of insults over the years from rabid lefties claiming, “but its science, you can’t question facts like that,” and then calling us a lot of unpleasant names.

Well the whole point of science is it’s there to be questioned. And as dutiful sceptics we have questioned those emotionally manipulative stories about the poor polar bears (which according to unbiased evidence are increasing in numbers,) dying because of human made climate change, the bear clinging to a very small ice floe (which was exposed as a Photoshop mash up,) and the starving polar bear foraging for food in an arid landscape that could have been southern Spain, North Africa or the Middle East.

The starving polar bear video was a heart-rending piece of viral footage: a polar bear, ravaged by the impact of climate change, starving and staggering across an ice-free landscape.

The video, watched 2.5 billion times on the National Geographic website – where the write up explicitly linked the anorexic anima’s plight to climate change was explicitly made – was used as propaganda by the green lobby. But the film-maker who shot it has now acknowledged it didn’t necessarily show a polar bear dying from the effects of climate change at all.

Cristina Mittermeier has come clean and admitted the animal could simply be old, ill or injured and unable to successfully forage for food – and it was incorrect to say the bear was starving because of climate change,’ because there was no evidence to support that.

Photographer Paul Nicklen captured the heartbreaking scene of a starving polar bear scrounging for food on dry land.

National Geographic has since edited the title of the video so there is no link to climate change.

Mittermeier says the problem began when National Geographic captioned the video ‘This is what climate change looks like’.

Mittermeier says, ‘In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption.’

She said, ‘Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy.

‘With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral — and people took it literally.

‘Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story — that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn’t know what had happened to this particular polar bear.’

Oh well, it’s no worse that the use of ‘adjusted data’ in ‘mathematical models’ of the climate to produce statistics showing the planet is warming although real world data shows there has been no increase in global mean temperature for twenty years.

Testicularly Deficient Hate Merchant vs The Right

owen-jones
Owen Jones: thirty – something beardless youth who might start sounding sensible when his balls have dropped (Picture: https://possil.files.wordpress.com/ )

That odious little pre-pubescent shirt lifter Owen Jones, who fancies himself as leader of Labour’s hate squads is trying to stir up bad feeling again as he launches another bid to ban anyone who disagres with his fascistic brand of left wing authoritarianism from expressing their views in public. On Monday girly – boy Jones tweeted a video criticising major companies such as British Gas, Experian UK and TK Maxx for dvertising with the hugely popular LBC radio station. Though nominally a London franchise, LBC has acquired an audience far beyond the capital via internet radio, thanks to its willingness to give equal airtime to people Jones calls “extreme right wing” as they do to people Jones and his equally bigoted, university – brainwashed friends deem worth listening to.

This time Jones has taken issue with companies that advertise with LBC while people like former Ukip leader Nigel Farage has a slot on the radio station, conservative journalist Juliet Hartley Brewer and controversialist broadcaster Nick Ferrari are associated with the station.

Mr Jones asked if the brands if they were happy to be associated with LBC when they “legitimise” the rise of “rightwing extremism”. He tweeted: “Rightwing extremism’s on the rise – and LBC is legitimising it.

Jones does not seem concerned that he in turn is legitimising left wing extremism, although communists like Uncle Joe Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Fidel Castro and the rest killed far more of their own people than hitler ever did, (not that that in any way condones hitler’s crimes.)

On Tuesday Mrs Hartley-Brewer responded to Mr Jones’ claims. She tweeted: “Owen has the look of a man who doesn’t sleep, who is haunted by his demons. I honestly think he needs help.” (We think he needs a cruise missile up his arse, think of the nanosecond of intense pleasure he would experience before being blow to oblivion.)

Mr Jones retaliated and called her “vile” and an “unpleasant person”.  He tweeted: “Some people think Julia Hartley-Brewer’s nastiness is a performance, an act, that she can’t really be as vile as she comes across.

“I’m afraid she’s worse in real life: the most personally unpleasant person with a media platform in Britain. That takes some doing.”

In Little Owen’s world a vile and unpleasant person is anyone whose political opinions differ from his. We’re not the only people who think he’s a cunt of course. Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan had been scheduled to talk to the leftie after Donald Trumps visit to Britain but the invitation was rescinded after Jones tried to make political capital by asking followers should he go on the show. Juliet Hartley Brewer is a regular and popular guest on the Good Morning Britain.

Morgan tweeted: “Oh Owen, stop being so modest! I’ve met you both & you’re infinitely more unpleasant.”

Government Introduces The Free Speech Police Rapid Response Unit

The British government, which has been signalling its intention to abolish free speech and press freedom since the last Labour government (1997 – 2010) tried to declare debate on climate change policy a criminal act, and has intensified its efforts under The Conservatives since the 2016 ‘Brexit’, has this week launched a new agency dedicated to suppressing “alternative news” websites and those publishing ‘off – message’ opinions …

READ ALL:

Government Introduces The Free Speech Police Rapid Response Unit

 

 

Official Report On Douma Gas Attack Discredits Warmongers’s Propaganda.

One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived,”
Niccolo Machiavelli

syria-chemical-attack-douma-1302933“I was lured with cookies and then sprayed with water,” says alleged child victim of the Douma chemical attack (Picture: Express news )

 

The thoughts of the Renaissance-era’s most famous political philosopher’s are often as relevant today as when he first published them in the sixteenth century and the above quotation describe perfectly the politically motivated allegation that Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar al Assad launched a chemical weapon attack on the city of Douma, 10km northeast of Damascus, with nerve gas on April 7, 2018.

More concerning perhaps than the fabrication of the story by Salafist (Islamic extremist) groups (possibly in collaboration with the intelligence agencies of western governments,)  and the ulterior motive behind it, to provoke armed conflict betwen military superpowers, was the readiness of western political establishments and media to believe it. The ISIS / Al Nusra rebels were at the time struggling to hang on to territory that had been occupied by their Islamic State fundamentalist rebellion for seven years, and was under siege by the Syrian Arab Army with Iranian and Russian support. Assad and his allies were on the brink of victory, they had absolutely nothing to gain from an act that could only arouse hostility in the rest of the world.

And yet, apart from the usual chorus of claims from alt_media sources that it was a false flag incident there was little analysis from the mainstream news organisations to point out the inconsistencies in the official narrative.

The last ditch effort to outrage world opinion and put the West on a collision course with Russia, Iran and probably China almost worked when the Trump administration, supported by France’s Emmanuel Macron and Britain’s Theresa May, decided to launch a missile strike against Syria on the back of it.

The last time the major nuclear powers had been so close to direct conflict was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The fact that the attack came after years of US / NATO provocations of Russia, from the blatant breach of a treaty signed at the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991, in which NATO and the EU agreed they would not seek to recruit former Soviet Union states (e.g. Lithuania, Ukraine) or Warsaw Pact members such as Poland and Hungary to western economic and military alliances. In return Russia would allow those states full independence to transform themselves into democracies.

Now many former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact members have full membership of NATO and the EU, with others seeking to join. Further provocations have included the CIA engineered destabilisation of Ukraine, the imposition of economic sanctions and military interventions in third world nations.

In the world view of neocons, neo – liberals cultural Marxists and other regime-change enthusiasts the world is reduced to a gunfight-at-the-OK-corral simplicity in which non-Western nations, the guys in black hats, and the western powers which like to think of themselves as liberal democracies though in reality they are corporate meritocracies, wear white hats. People, individuals and human communities are of no more significance than toy cowboys in a child’s game. In this game however, players are manoeuvring for wealth and power and it is real lives they sacrifice, not plastic toys.

Independent commentators have always maintained that the rebellion in Syria was backed by the USA, NATO and Saudi Arabia. Syria is Russia’s only ally with a Mediterranean coastline and geopolitical strategists see the fulfillment of Saudi Arabia’s long term ambition to build an oil and gas pipeline from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean via Jordan, Syria and Turkey as a way to undermine Russia’s oil trade with Europe.

It was due only to the astute leadership of Vladimir and the Russian government to tolerate a loss of face by offering no response to what was undoubtedly an act of war by Washington and its allies against an ally of Russia and China, that armed conflict, with the possibility of escalation to nuclear warfare, was avoided.

Instead it was agreed that both sides would accept the result of an inquiry conducted by the internationally recognised Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, (OPCW).

Now the initial findings of the OPCW inspectors have been published in an interim report, based on the results of its on-site investigations into claims made mainly by British and French political figures and reported in the most lurid terms by mainstream media that a nerve gas attack took place in Douma on April 7, and it makes grim reading for the army of warmongers on both the left and right of the political spectrum as it does for those with financial interests in the military / industrial complex and the strange, insubstantial creatures who hate capitalism but yearn for a global, authoritarian government.  Many left wing ideologues who’ve made a career out of defending the indefensible, and their brainwashed followers as going to end up looking extremely foolish after asserting that there was irrefutable evidence that Assad’s forces carried out the attack, just as they did after previous allegations of war crimes by ‘fascist dictators’ who stood in the way of US / EU economic hegemony.

The short snippet below, from the interim report, shows it will make very grim reading for those who urged direct western intervention in the Syrian war, and will in the long term damage the case for economic imperialism.

“The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products [emphasis added] were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties.”

NO NERVE AGENTS? The gas attack on the strength of which we were meant to go to war was not even a false flag, but a pure propaganda lie aimed at starting a war that would have killed millions in order to remove a dictator who according to the evidence we have, is supported by more than half his people, not because they think his authoritarian government is wonderful but because they know, as we all do now after seeing news coverage of the atrocities inflicted by ISIS and Al Nusra rebels on innocent people, that the government most likely to take over if Assad fell would be more brutal, more theocratic and, in every way, worse.

People who have supported efforts to impose ‘freedom and democracy’ i.e. American style meritocracy on Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine and all the way back to Vietnam in the 1960s, in their orgies of self righteousness and virtue signalling forget that in a truly free nation, the people should be able to choose their own course into the future. Freedom to accept the model imposed by external powers is not freedom at all.

When Winston Churchill, a dyed-in-the-wool colonialist, expressed the opinion  that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” he exposed the way propaganda (fake news to employ the currently fashionable term,) has always been used to mislead the public and manipulate opinion in favour of  perpetual wars waged by the West in the interests of maintaining the elite’s grip on power and ensuring the bulk
of wealth remains concentrated in the hands of a few powerful families.

MORE ON SYRIA

Police can’t say Skripal & Amesbury cases linked, or that those responsible will be caught

queen-elizabeth-gardens-1080x583
Queen Elizabeth Garden in Salisbury, where the Skripals fed the ducks while
The head of Britain’s counter-terrorism operations, Neil Basu, has said the agency cannot positively link the poisoning in Salisbury, Wiltshire, of former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia to the more recent poisoning of the late Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charlie Rowley in the same town with an as yet unspecified nerve agent. Nor can they guarantee authorities will catch those responsible for the nerve agent poisoning of the Skripals and Dawn Sturgess,

Basu, who heads Counter Terrorism Policing nationally, told residents of Amesbury he would “love to be able to say that we have identified and caught the people responsible and how we are certain there are no traces of nerve agent left anywhere in Wiltshire, but the brutal reality is that I cannot offer you any reassurance or guarantee at this time.”

Sturgess and Charlie Rowley reportedly fell ill after coming into contact with Novichok on June 30, and Sturgess died days later. This is the same nerve agent believed to have poisoned Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March. Public Health England have repeatedly said there is no wider threat to the public arising from the Skripal case.

We can perhaps believe the latter assurance as well respected chemists have confirmed that Novichok, the nerve agent generally agreed to have been used in the bid to assassinate the Skripals would decompose if exposed to the environment for three months. The rest of the official narrative however was always as full of holes as a bagel bakery.

A new development has only added to the confusion:

According to Rob Sloane in The Blogmire.com on 28th March, an article appeared in the Sun, which talked about a 12-year-old boy from Salisbury, Aiden Cooper, who was apparently in a park with his parents, when he saw the Skripals and went over to them to feed the ducks:

“A schoolboy told yesterday how he was caught up in the poison spy drama after assassination target Sergei Skripal gave him bread to feed ducks. Aiden Cooper, 12, was playing in a park with pals when they saw Skripal and daughter Yulia beside a stream. They were handed bread and are among the last people to have had contact with the retired ­Russian military intellig­ence colonel, now fighting for his life.

It is usual when citing The Currant Bun (for U.S. readers that’s rhyming slang,) to have a truckload of salt handy as every other word needs to be taken with a large pinch of the stuff, but in this case not only is there no reason why the people quoted in the article, would make up such stories. In any case, the story was repeated in a number of other outlets (The MirrorThe Mail and Metro for instance) and parts of it at least have been confirmed by police when they were questioned on the story, although they did not volunteer the information in the aftermath of the incident when the media and establishment were focused on blaming The Russians.

The interesting thing about The Mirror, The Mail and Metro pieces is that they are all vague about a quite crucial detail. The Mirror and The Mail both tell us that the incident took place “near the Avon Playground”. And Metro tells us that the incident took place at “Riverside Park”. The Avon Playground mentioned by The Mirror and The Mail is next to the Avon River, and it is also about 50 yards or so from the bench where the Skripals were found (as an aside, this is not the same Avon as runs through Stratford-upon-Avon. Avon is a Celtic word meaning river and there are several river Avons in modern Britain). As for Riverside Park mentioned by Metro, no such named park exists in Salisbury although there is a Queen Elizabeth Garden which is a park on the riverside and is where Dawn Sturgess is alleged to have picked up a syringe part filled with an unknown substance. But the important point is that from the details given in these articles most people would assume that the duck-feeding incident took place in the same park as the bench on which the Skripals were found.

Yet all three of these media outlets are wrong, and in a way that may well be very significant. Turning back to the report in The Sun, we find that it is by far the most detailed of all the reports on the duck incident. In fact, it appeared three days after the others appeared, with The Sun sending a reporter to interview the boy and his parents. From that and from independent reports supplied by people living in Salisbury, we learn that Queen Elizabeth Garden is on the other side of town from locations linked to the Skripal case and the police timeline for the incident does not mention the Russians having been there at all. Yet if police officers managed to contact Aidan cooper’s parents from a photo taken in the park they must have known both he and the Skripals were there.

All this does not by any means prove that Russian agents were not involved in the first poisoning, but it does reveal that a lot of the evidence used to support the government’s accusations was unreliable if not totally fabricated.

So what is going on? Is there any link between the incidents? Do the police or security services have any idea what really happened, let alone who might be responsible? The more we learn about this case the more questions it throws up.

Police State Britain

BS WB MENKEN D

Authored by Neema Parvini via The Mises Institute,

This article will demonstrate how the United Kingdom has steadily become a police state over the past twenty years, weaponizing its institutions against the people and employing Orwellian techniques to stop the public from seeing the truth. It will demonstrate, contrary to official narratives, that both overall levels of crime and violent crime have been increasing, not decreasing, as the size of the state in the UK has gotten bigger. It will also expose how the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010, deliberately obscured real crime data with estimated crime rates based on survey data as opposed to the real numbers. I will demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion perpetuated by progressive myths, life was much safer in Britain during the era of classical laissez-faire from the 1850s to 1911.

In his 10 years in power from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair passed an astonishing 26,849 laws in total, an average of 2,663 per year or 7.5 a day. The Labour Party continued this madness under Gordon Brown who broke the record in 2008 by passing 2,823 new laws, a 6% increase on even his megalomaniac predecessor. In 2010, Labour’s last year in power before handing over the reigns to the Blairite social radical, David Cameron, there was a 54% surge in privacy cases brought against public bodies, and the Cabinet were refusing freedom of information requests at a rate of 51%. The vast number of new laws under Labour does not count the 2,100 new regulations the EU passed in 2006 alone, which apparently is average for them.

Many of these vast changes under Blair and Brown were in the area of criminal law. By 2008, Labour had created more than 3,600 new offences. Many of these, naturally, were red-tape regulations. To give you an idea:

  • Creating a nuclear explosion
  • Selling types of flora and fauna not native to the UK, such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed
  • To wilfully pretend to be a barrister or a traffic warden
  • Disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer
  • Obstructing workers from carrying out repairs to the Dockland Light Railway
  • Offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day
  • Allowing an unlicensed concert in a church hall or community centre
  • A ship’s captain may end up in court if he or she carries grain without a copy of the International Grain Code on board
  • Scallop fishing without the correct boat
  • Breaking regulation number 10 of the 1998 Apple and Pear Grubbing Up Regulations
  • Selling Polish Potatoes

There are many more. However, there were also some more serious breaches of civil liberty.

One common tactic of the Blair government was to use a moral panic to pass radical new legislation. For example, in 2006, he passed the Terrorism Act that overturned habeas corpus and gave the British police the right to detain anyone for any reason for 90 days. At the time, this got widespread public support because of the recent 7/7 bombings in London. This means that, in the UK, the police can arrest you without you necessarily having committed a crime if they can brand your activities as “terrorist” or “extremist.” Although these laws were ostensibly brought about to combat Islamic terrorism, the ever-expanding definitions of “far right” and “extremist” demonstrate how they can be weaponised against the British people.

Another area in which the Labour government used moral panic cynically to overturn longstanding common law principles was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which they used to eliminate the double jeopardy rule and, as per the MacPherson report, to put an end to colour-blind policing.

Recently there have been an increased number of cases in which the British state has encroached on civil liberties in a near-openly tyrannical way. The Count Dankula case, for example, in which a man was arrested for “hate speech,” then tried and made to pay a fine for telling off-colour jokes about the Nazis on Youtube. Then there was the young woman who was found guilty of being “grossly offensive” for posting Snoop Dogg lyrics on her Instagram account. And, most recently, the political activist Tommy Robinson was arrested and tried in mere hours for recording outside a courtroom. In each of these cases, despite some protests against the legal rulings, the media broadly sided with the courts, citing the technicalities of the law – in the former two cases section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (another Blair special) – and brand anyone who would protest “far right” or “extremist.”

“Gaslighting” is a word from the world of psychology; it is a technique of manipulation to achieve power. Here are eleven warning signs:

  1. They tell blatant lies.
  2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
  3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
  4. They wear you down over time.
  5. Their actions do not match their words.
  6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
  7. They know confusion weakens people.
  8. They project.
  9. They try to align people against you.
  10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
  11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

The British state has become increasingly Orwellian in its gaslighting of the British public since at least 1997 with near-total complicity from the media. In a recent article for Quillette, I argued that this has been the case in both Britain and the USA for years.

This has especially been the case in the area of crime. During a period in which both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have become increasingly statist and interventionist on both an economic and civil level, we have been continually told that one of the positive effects of ever-increasing government control is that society is becoming more peaceful. This is the narrative, for example, of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. In 2005, The Guardian told us that since 1995 overall crime had decreased by 44%. Almost a decade later the same publication wondered out loud what could be causing the continued decline in crime rates in the UK. And just a few years after that, they had changed their tune completely decrying sudden increases in violent crime and blaming this on cuts in police numbers. In the first few months of 2018, the shocking increases in instances of violent crime in Sadiq Khan’s London, which in the past year has seen rises of 31.3% in knife crime, 78% in acid attacks, 70% in youth homicides, 33.4% in robberies, 18.7% in burglaries, 33.9% in theft and 30% in child sex crime.  But this story told by The Guardian – of a general trend down in crime over the past twenty years followed by a sudden and inexplicable spike – is simply not true, as I will demonstrate in this paper.

In 1997, Tony Blair famously ran on a platform of being ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’. Unfortunately for him, the reality of empirical crime data had stubbornly refused to comply with his anointed vision through his first years in power. “New Labour” were famous for the efficiency of their propaganda machine. American readers will no doubt be aware of Mr. Blair’s complicity in making exaggerated claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” in the run up to the war in Iraq, but few readers – British, American, or otherwise – will know that the Blair government was also lying about the extent of crime in Britain. The Labour Party, who were so much about media perceptions and political spin, needed to find a way to show on paper that their “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” agenda was making good on its promise. So, in 2003, Tony Blair permanently changed the way crime is reported in the UK by introducing the National Crime Recording Standard’ (NCRS). Up until that point, crime in the UK was reported using hard data drawn from actual arrests and convictions from the police. However, from that point onwards, the official statistics were to be drawn from the British Crime Survey which estimates crime based on a survey of 50,000 people aged 16 or over. This works much like how television companies produce estimates for their show ratings. So that means that the statistics you see quoted in newspapers like The Guardian are not hard figures, but estimates drawn from surveys. Whatever the merits of this method, it produced a graph for the Blair government that looked like this:

parvini1

This change ostensibly came about because – as part of the “tough on the causes of crime” part of their pledge, Labour wanted to count victims as opposed to the total number of offenders. Of course, this takes a huge number of crimes out of the data. For example, as it was introduced in 2003, because only over 16-year olds could be interviewed, crimes against minors were not registered in the official statistics. Also, because interviews had to take place in private properties, street crime habitually would not show up in these numbers. Of course, so-called “victimless” crimes – fraud or online crime – do not show up in this data either. Once you start to account for some of these caveats, it becomes more obvious why this extraordinary change in methodology would produce a downwards trend in the data. In fact, it was explicitly designed so that, because of these changes, it could not be compared with numbers before 2002.

In 2007, Ken Pease and Graham Farrell estimated that the survey data could be underestimating violent crime by as much as 82%, with the real number of victims closer to 4.4 million than 2.4 million. This massive margin of error means that the real crime rate becomes a matter for debate as opposed to a question of hard evidence. It seems to me that this was a deliberate choice by the Blair government. Hence, we now find the BBC wondering about what the real crime rate might be.   And this is where the true extent of the Orwellian nightmare of the Blair and Gordon Brown years dawns: by making the crime rate an estimate neither political party can reliably point to the facts, and it always becomes a question of one difficult to substantiate narrative against another. “Post-truth” did not start with Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump – Tony Blair was doing it from the minute he stepped into office.

However, real numbers of convicted offenders are still recorded and kept, although they are somewhat difficult to obtain. In the run-up to the 2010 British election, Conservative MP and Shadow Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, requested the real numbers from the House of Commons library which duly produced a series of independent reports. Incidentally, once the leader of the Tories, David Cameron, became prime minister in 2010, Chris Grayling became the Secretary for Justice and, to my knowledge, was happy to let this little detail slide and continue with the survey-based methodology. It is funny how power can change the incentives for action.

In any case, the numbers that Grayling requested are damning for anyone who claims that either overall crime or violent crime decreased in the UK between 1997 and 2010.

The population of the UK was about 58 million people in 1997. In 2008, that had increased to 62 million, an increase of 6.87%. In that same period male violent crime convictions in England and Wales increased by around 63.92% from 49,153 in 1997 to 80,574 in 2008. So violent crime convictions increased by more than ten times the growth of the population.

Increases like this can been seen across virtually every category of crime. Convictions for persons under 18, for example, increased by 60.18% from 12,806 in 1997 to 20,513 in 2008, in keeping with the average increase in violent crime, this is ten times the rate of population growth in the same period. Knife crime practically doubled during the Blair years, from 3,360 offenders in 1997 to 6,368 in 2008. In 1998 there were 5,542 robberies, in 2008 there were 8,475. From the year 2000 to 2008, the total number of arrests for any offence went up from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, an increase of about 17%.

For the claim to be true that violent crime went down 44% during the 00s in the UK, it would have to be at a time when violent crime convictions went up 64%. For the claim to be true that overall crime went down in from 1997 to 2008, it would have to be at a time when overall convictions for crime went up by 17%. Both claims seem extraordinary: how could there be a rise in convictions without a corresponding increase in crime? The methodology that measures victims through estimates from survey data clearly is not getting this correct.

If we use recorded convictions in this way, as opposed to estimates, we can make meaningful comparisons to the past as Peter Hitchens does in The Abolition of Liberty. As we have seen, the total number of convictions in England and Wales for 2008 was around 1.47 million for a population of 62 million people, around 2.25% of the population. According to Hitchens the comparable number in 1861 at the height of laissez-faire was 88,000 for a population of 20,066,224, or around 0.44% of the population. In 1911, before Leviathan and the welfare state had really had a chance to grow, the number was 97,000 for a population of 36,075,269, or around 0.27% of the population. The claim that crime has risen because of government cuts to the numbers of police also cannot stand since in 1911 there were 51,203 officers whereas by 2009 there were 144,353 officers. The increase in police officers from 1911 to 2009 therefore is 181.92% compared with an increase of 71.86% in total population. So the size of the repressive apparatuses of the state have increased greatly, and with it the total number of criminals.

It is clear that with less personal freedom and a bigger and more invasive state comes less personal responsibility and greater lawlessness. It is also clear that as the British state has become more top-down in orientation than in its common-law past, it has levied increased coercive legislative power against the British people it supposedly serves. The state is now behaving in an openly Orwellian manner with near-explicit contempt for the public.

On Fake News And Where It Originates From

It should be well established by now that this blog opposes globalisation and supports small government and individual liberty. It should also be well established that the mainstream media and social media organisations like Facebook and Twitter, controlled by the globalist banking cartel, have dedicated themselves to suppressing what they call ‘Fake news’, which has never been properly defined but which according to mainstream media and social media is anything that dissents from the globalist narrative.

So here’s a little snippet that shows where fake news originates and gives us a clue as to the agernda of those behind it’s use in propaganda.

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a …….WORLD GOVERNMENT ”

David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.