JUSTICE? THE DEATH PENALTY CONUNDRUM.

It's very strange that terms like "barbaric" and phrases tumescent with high morality are used to condemn the very concept of the death penalty.  It's strange because the balance of the moral concern expressed seems dedicated to undermining the idea that some crimes deserve the offender to pay the ultimate price.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that every murderer should face the death penalty.  Indeed, circumstances of some murders suggest to me that no more than a moderate -- or even a suspended -- sentence would be an appropriate punishment.
On the other hand, some murders are so calculated, brutal or casual that nothing other than the death penalty could ever be considered justice.  My purpose here isn't to try and suggest a sort of hierarchy of appropriate punishments however.  What is under discussion is the sentence itself. It seems to me there are two fundamental issues which need addressing: the deterrent effect and the risks and costs of mistakes.

DETERRENCE
We need an effective system with a penal code that makes the consequences of conviction too frightening for the crime to be worthwhile.  There needs to be a quid-pro-quo understanding in the minds of, say, somebody planning an armed robbery which goes something like this:-if you are prepared to go out with a shotgun, ready to take life in order to get what you want, you must accept that if you do kill somebody with calculation or deliberation or particular callousness, your own life will be forfeit.  No question.  That same equation should apply to all who murder and kill for a variety of reasons – terrorism, religious or political fanaticism, sexual gratification, financial reward, personal motives of revenge etc.
As it is, life-imprisonment, even without parole, means the killers would have a full lifespan and health support at a cost of around £60,000 a year at the expense of the taxpayers – including relatives of the victims.

RISKS OF MISTAKES
 Yes, mistakes have happened.  The grief caused to the family of the person wrongly executed cannot and must not be underestimated.  "It's better" so the saying goes "that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted."
Well, maybe -- but nothing is without consequence.  Consider this: lack of that ultimate sanction means that there is no ultimate deterrent to what some regard as the ultimate crime.  Statistics, history – and common sense – suggest that as punishments lose their deterrent value, the incidence of the crimes increases. You have only to see the number of times murderers who are released go on to murder again. Well, what have they got to lose? Not their lives, obviously.
The result – more murders means more  anguish and torment for more family members, all because people were in circulation who shouldn't have been around  anyway. Doesn't that also constitute miscarriage of justice?
Moralists and moralisers remain unapologetic. Yes, things went wrong – but it's not their fault.


As I said at the beginning, it's strange.  It's strange how the anguish and moralising about the harshness and barbarity of the death penalty refuses to countenance the anguish and barbarity of the increased murders that would consequently arise.  On the whole, we make a judgement.  My judgement is that there would be fewer miscarriages of justice with the death penalty -- a hell of a lot fewer than there have been increased murders since it was abolished.  If you want to bring morality into it, fine. If you want death penalty advocates to feel guilty for any miscarriages of justice, then the abolitionists must also be prepared to accept responsibility, both for murders that are committed by previously-convicted following their release, as well as other murders that only occurred because there was not adequate deterrence.

I just think that my way will actually save more lives.  Barbaric?  I think not.  Justice.

TROUBLE BREWING

There is a war coming. One by one, the pieces are falling into place. It won't be a war in the way that our parents understood. It won't be country versus country. It will be defined by two issues -- race and Islam. It will be the people of what is generally called the Western world, fighting to protect and reassert their own cultures and identities while facing a seemingly unstoppable mass immigration of alien races and a religious philosophy that is hostile to everything that has built and developed Western civilisation. Worse, those incoming groups know little and care much less about the culture and traditions where they take up residence.

It may well start somewhere like Marseille, a city with one of the largest Arab populations in the world, after Cairo. In France!  There, or maybe Burnley, Haringey, Brixton, Bradford, Bristol, Manchester Moss Side, Brent. If, or rather when it starts, it will spread like wildfire because those tensions are there and have been for years.

At its root, it's less about race than it is about culture -- our culture. You know, the one that we are constantly told by our rulers, libertarians and the BBC, needs to accommodate the incomers because after all, we are a tolerant country.

Tolerant? Really? I think not. Certainly, we put up with things we find irritating -- the noisy kids next door, grandma's nagging and so on. But putting up with something is not the same thing of tolerating it. When we put up with something, we forbear: we do that because we know that it will not last – so we won't NEED to do anything. Tolerance implies acceptance of something as normal, something that does not threaten your way of life. What has happened over the past 50 odd years is not normal. During that period, we have allowed more than 10% of our population to become alien and hostile to everything we used to stand for. One of the consequences is that socially and educationally our systems have to adapt to the additional requirements of that new intake and their descendants. Many of those will be hostile – philosophically, racially and religiously – to the society that made the great mistake of welcoming them with tolerance.

When the war comes, it will be race and Islam-fuelled: whatever you think about the rights and wrongs, we will have no choice -- you will have no choice -- as to which side you are on because that will already have been decided for you by race & the Koran.

EU stitch up. We've been played for suckers all along.

Under the 30 year rule, many government papers and cabinet papers that had been classified as secret were released for public scrutiny. Last year, many of those relating to the 1975 referendum on Europe were released. (Yes, I know that was 40 years ago but it wasn't me doing the research). The findings were alarming and depressing.
　
The deceit and duplicity go back a long way, much further than I ever suspected. We've all been played for suckers by people who "know what we really should be doing". It is uncomfortably close to supporting the conspiracy theorists that links the Bilderburg Group with Common Purpose and worryingly, the same names keep cropping up. (And instinctively, I am not a conspiracy theorist.)
　
　
Quick summary of treasonous secret government documents.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the department that began the abolition of Britain by secretly working for the EU in 1970. The FCO’s secret documents from then were released under the 30 year rule. Ironically, the EU will close the 156 British Embassies around the world, so the FCO is the department the EU will crush the most.
These documents show that immediately after his election on 18th June 1970 Ted Heath began working with Frenchman Jean Monnet of the Comite D'Action pour les Etats-Unis D'Europe. Heath's plan from before he was elected was clearly the abolition of Britain. He and his entire cabinet were dealing with a "United States of Europe" from day one. All his statements about "no loss of sovereignty" he knew to be lies. He was a full-blown saboteur.
All this is blatantly obvious from FC0 30/1048 and those referred to below.
Jean Monnet, the chief implementer of the EU, was allowed deep access into Heath's government, and got the willing co-operation of Sir Alec Douglas Home, William Whitelaw, Geoffrey Rippon, and Sir Keith Joseph, all of who we now know to be traitors to the British Constitution under our own treason laws.
We now also know Heath, Rippon and Roy Jenkins were recruited by the Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst intelligence department in 1958, and had been working for the EU since then. Who are today’s members? Francis Maude, Ken Clarke, David Milliband, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind are probable candidates. We won't know until their deaths.
The government disinformation programme to deceive the public about the EU was underway by 6th August 1970, less than two months after Heath took office.
On 30th September it was authorised by Alec Douglas-Home Secretary of State, and William Whitlaw. Public figures like Joseph Godber MP, Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs, were given secret briefs on the pro-EU message, and what to tell the public. This is all right for political party, but highly illegal for the government.
Norman Reddaway, the campaign's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) full time leader, was involved from before the 10th September, as was Mr Royle.
The speed with which Edward Heath leapt to stab Britain in the back is quite astonishing.
By the 6th October the plans were finished:
Anti EU groups and politicians, like Enoch Powell, were stalked - even when they went abroad; advance copies of their speeches to be obtained from their party leaderships and derisory rebuttals delivered in advance or as soon as possible.
Ministers were recruited to speak for the EU, and given a manual of deception from which to write their speeches.
Six hundred external pro-EU speakers were organised and sent into action.
Overseas information officers were to be controlled and directed on Britain's entry in to the EEC - which was always techincally the EU - a superstate from the beginning.
　
A massive press and media letter writing campaign was begun in which FCO civil servants wrote to the press extolling the wholly untrue virtues of the EU, but signing them as though they were ordinary members of the public.
Whitelaw implemented a pro-EU letter writing to MP's in their constituencies.
They made approaches to the editors of newspapers to get them on side.
They recruited TV and radio recruiters who were pro_EU, and got them more air time.
Then footballers, television personalities - Jimmy Hill included -
The campaign was a huge success - and they finished up with FCO 26/1215, a long summary of results for the future disinformation programme - the one we're under today.
Extracts from other FCO documents including Letters / communications revealed:
FCO 30/1574:
PPS says Heath calls for EU Employment policy (Illegal under our constitution)
17 April 1972 Jellico of the Civil Service Dept, Whitehall, tells Douglas-Home that HMG should ratify the treaty of Accession (obviously illegal). and that EU Political Authority is needed.
19 April 72 Tom Bridges, 10 Downing St, confirms Heath supports Monnet's idea of an EU employment policy.
Our own EU Commissioners are common appointments by all EU govts, not just ours.
EU needs to be a political authority.
　
The unelected Monnet is obviously and illegally the boss.
28 June 72 From Michael Pakenham, Cabinet Office, to Michael Alexander, FCO. Monnet's meeting with Rippon - obviously working together. Action Committee for Europe.
19 May 72. Alec Douglas Home, FCO, to Jean Monnet. "I agree with your method for European unification"
FCO 26/1214 25th Oct 1972 JM Crosby, EU integration dept, tells Redaway & Logan to implement town twinning.
FCO 26/1215 15 February 72 Anthony Royle, FCO, SECRET to William Whitelaw, cc Geoffrey Rippon, Sir Denis Greenhill. Long document summarising successes of the disinformation campaign for future pro EU battles. Govt spent £461,400 on it.
FCO 30/1573 18.172 Jean Monnet, Comite D'Action pour les Etas-Unis D'Europe, To Sir Alce Douglas Home. Common monetary policy, Political prospects.
FCO 30/1061 Snooping on copy of speech by Geoffrey Rippon, in which he lied HMG would not settle for the current common fisheries policy. Lied Britain would still be ruled by the Queen in Parliament, at the same time when he's implementing the Monnet "EU Etats Unis".
1st Aug 71 List of MP's for and against EU, with "persuadables".
FCO 30/1048 How to put the EU across. A manual of deception covering: Sovereignty, the monarchy, influence (strengthened!), don't worry about withdrawal, courts, common law, all lies.
　
FCO 30/1065 Tracking the Britain Out campaign. 10th May 71: 17% in favour of EU.
26/797 Tracking Women Against the Common Market WACM, and Enoch Powell. Anti EU speeches to be given to the government before party seniors deliver them. "Times" on HMG's side?
797 16 April 1971 Tracking Powell in Italy and Frankfurt, plans to counter attack his speeches.
1065: 31 08.71 WK Slatcher Lying to Frere Smith, Anti CM League, that texts of EEC legislation are not available. Then changed their minds in two draft replies?
26/1213. 26 May 71 The plan in advance. William Whitelaw wants a single person coordinating publicity campaign. The Mirror cooperating with Maitlan, The Sun soon. Give ProEU TV producers more access. Persuade TV to use pro EU presenters. Recrut Pro EU footballers, entertainers; (This was stunningly successful; it went right through the nation)
FCO 26/1212 EU disinformation: the public are the priority target. Names missing.
26/1212 6.10.71 to Reddaway: All of it, incl. Letter Writing campaign to newspapers by civil servants pretending to be the public.
17th precursor, then 30.9.70 Reddaway to a list of departments: Secretary of state has approved the campaign.
1212 Privy Council writes to Joseph Gober MP asking him to exploit every opportunity to speak in favour of the EU. Sample phrases follow in 'THE MESSAGE" - a restricted document.
　
1212 6.8.70 Miss JC Petrie, EC Information Unit to Mr Ford: Mr Royle describes the team, campaign of letter writing. Conservative Party Research Dept on side.
Geoffrey Rippon was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1970, then Secretary of State for the Environment 1972.
The source for this information is – or was – David Noakes. http://eutruth.org.uk
Strange, but it is no longer available. I just happened to make a copy at the time – just in case!