Treason, War Crimes and Genocide: Crimes of the UK Government
Is anybody still kidding themselves that recent British governments have been anything other than forces of darkness? They have been a curse to the UK and the World. Their crimes are monumental and their punishment well overdue.
Labour’s warmongering, with Tory backing, is well known. If Tony Blair had been dictator of a tinpot county, he would have been dragged to the court in The Hague years ago, and we would all have applauded. Now it seems that William Hague is calling for the UK to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, without a UN resolution and even if it means the UK goes it alone.
Someone should point out to the ConDems that Britain no longer rules the waves, or the air – or even Britain. And we must question the sanity of these politicians who desire to police yet another country, at the same time as announcing that thousands of servicemen and women are to lose their jobs and two Tornado squadrons are to be disbanded.
It shows to what extent our governments are prepared to take their orders from their elitist masters in their efforts to change the planet geopolitically.
And when it comes to the very serious crime of treason, it is becoming clear that Cameron, Brown and Blair are equally guilty. When Cameron was trying to get our votes in the 2009 European Elections, he made it very, very clear why it is imperative we have an EU referendum.
The Lisbon Treaty includes a massive transfer of powers from the nation states of Europe to Brussels.
He said, and went on to expand on that by painting a very bleak picture of the UK’s future being stolen by the EU. He also said that,
The best way to get that referendum is to vote Conservative.
The politics of the so-called “modern democracy” seem to be very similar to “good cop, bad cop”. At the moment, the Tories are the baddies, with the cuts and failure to deliver a referendum on our EU “participation” (for want of a better word).
Labour are now the good guys by opposing the cuts, even though it was their gross mismanagement – when it was their turn to be the bad guys – which has necessitated them. Some in Labour now have the nerve to say that too much power is being siphoned off to Brussels. They couldn’t say it when they were in power when they could actually, maybe, have done something about it – something really drastic, perhaps, like express their opinion – but they had to wait until it was their turn to be the good guys again.
It is an amazingly simple con trick, which still gets nine out of ten cats voting LibLabCon at each election. Really, a four year old could spot the con. They probably do, but then say to themselves, nah – grown-ups can’t possibly be that stupid; I’m just a kid, so I must learn from them why it is good to vote for liars and cheats all the time.
The treason not only stems from politicians throwing away the sovereignty and freedom bought by the blood of millions, but also from the attacks on our culture, traditions and moral values. I never tire of linking to this post: Treason like this deserves the gallows.
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.
This is also part of the crime of the genocide of the British. If you think I am over-reacting, this is what the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
When you consider the extent to which Labour in particular succeeded in “radically chang[ing] the country,” i.e. basically destroying what it means to be British, and especially English, then this is certainly an intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national or ethnical group through:
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group**
** This has been achieved through modern eugenics disguised as women’s rights, family planning and sex education. The result is that the British fertility rate is below the replacement figure of 2.11 children per family.
Of course, continued interference by the EU will increase our assimilation into the United States of Europe, or whatever it will be called next, by carrying on this agenda of national destruction with the collusion of the “British” Government.
And David Cameron should fully understand that he could be a future Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi, because his “services” are no longer required and his crimes grave.
Blair and Brown and all others remotely connected with this collusion should also be quaking in their Quisling boots.
Their time will come too.
Hear hear Stewart. I don’t think most people are stupid, I think an awful lot of people see things as you do regarding the Left/Right/Labour/Tory reality of our system of ‘democracy’. Many people don’t bother to vote at all because they genuinely believe it will make no difference whatsoever to their lives whether Labour or the Conservatives are in Government. Many vote for candidates other than Labour or Tory (and some of these alternative candidates available – who never win, excepting the odd rare miracle – are very good indeed in terms of what they stand for). Most people vote either Labour or Conservative because they know that the Government can only be formed by one or the other, and because the only message that people get from the major media is Labour/Tory – especially at General Election time.
I most closely identify my politics with the ‘brand’ of traditional conservatism but the Conservative Party (and its sham ‘Christian’ group) won’t even allow me as a member because of my views on homopervuality and islam. I will be standing for Parliament again at the first future General Election for which I can be properly prepared (hopefully the next one), and ‘if there was any justice’ so to speak I should be a Conservative Party PPC, but that won’t happen; my next time I’ll either be an Independent again or else identified with a minor party such as UKIP.
The main reason I have ever wanted to be in the Conservative Party is simply the pragmatic need to have a realistic prospect of winning a seat in Parliament. There is much to find fault with in the current Conservative Party but what is a man to do?
The ordinary voter can only vote for one of the candidates available to them (and most voters aren’t even aware of all of the candidates that are available to them because non Lib/Lab/Con candidates tend not to have the thousands of pounds they need to spend on electioneering and because they are almost always frozen out of the media coverage).
So what is a man to do?
The ordinary voter can only vote for an available candidate; beyond that, those who feel passionately enough can either join a political party in good faith in a sincere attempt to ‘make a difference’ or else stand as an independent candidate.
If a man joins a political party – especially Lib/Lab/Con – and publicly expresses any views which are out of line with the imposed orthodoxy of that party’s hierarchy then he will simply be expelled faster than you can say ‘homosexual-pervert’.
So what is a man to do?
If a man stands as an indy or a minor party candidate in a General Election he is very unlikely to be elected; to have any realistic prospect of winning a candidate needs to spend at least £10,000 at election time, a team of committed volunteer supporting activists (at the very least a dozen), to be well connected with various local groups in a constituency ands especially to be well connected enough to get a level playing field from the media (and preferably to have an influential journalist tacitly but fully on side). It’s a very tall order indeed to get elected outside of the major party machine, and even if Super Indyboy is elected he is a solitary MP in Parliament. One gifted man can make a difference with the platform and status of an MP but only if he can win an election.
So what is a man to do?
In recent years many people have switched off from active engagement with the major political parties but it is not the case that most of these people are switched off from social and political issues.
Some people blog, and some of the people who blog achieve some good by doing so. Lots of bloggers don’t do political parties but they clearly care passionately about the causes they blog about.
Lots of people who are disengaged from the major parties manifest their social and political passions through charities or specific interest groups.
What is a man to do?
I personally believe that the British system of FPTP liberal reprsentative democracy can work and is still capable of delivering decent, common sense and non-traitorous Government – which is not happening at present – but only if the turnout at General Elections goes above 80% and only if all of the candidates who stand in General Elections receive a fair crack of the whip from the media.
Was this too long for a comment on a blog? Discuss…
“What is a man to do?”
@Richard – It’s every man and woman for their self now, I’m afraid. The country’s finished. Good job we’ve got the Big Society, eh? I’d be lost without it.
Richard in what universe d you honestly think that someone with your criminal record, lack of any real qualifications (be that academic or work history) and the number of public comments you’ve made that will come back to haunt you has even the smallest chance of being elected to parliament? If your asked about court ordered mental health treatment you won’t be able to lie if its in an interview or if you do you’ll be found out its a fact just think about it?
It’s NOT your religion its the way YOU have decided to behave and the way you have decided to comment in a way that the vast majority of people see as hate filled. You keep trying to associate yourself and the way your received as being because of your fundamental Christian beliefs but even local clergy want nothing to do with you and as you know your banned from or not welcome at two local churches at the least.
You have never really had any sort of long term job other than a little agency temping, toilet cleaning in the gay quarter of Manchester and a failed commercial oven cleaning business and as you are now again have spent long periods on the dole so how does any of that qualify you to represent a constituency? Now I know you’ll refuse to address any of what I’ve written but if you do stand again you will have to answer questions about such things as prior convictions and work history because they will be in the public interest for someone being considered for public office.
Stop living in la la land and face these facts, get on with finding gainful employment and develop some life experiences, stop living off other people and at least get your own place.
All that’s complete garbage; that’s not my life. “Lionheart” ??? Who are you kidding? You’re an anonymous coward writing defamatory excrement about a genuine person in public.
If I was to track you down, you’re probably vice trade. What’s staggering about you (and others like you) is the sheer level of your idiocy; your motive is to defame me and you think that you can actually achieve that by writing rubbish about me and doing it anonymously. You’re the one in need of a reality check.
Again you don’t answer any of the points I’ve raised do you and everyone reading this can see that Richard and worst of all your adulterating the discussions about serious issues with ones that involve you and your personal comments, views and crusades.
You can refuse to answer or ignore what I’ve said but you know the truth and the facts are Richard that questions WILL be asked about your criminal record, employment history, mental health treatment etc and thanks to google it doesn’t matter where you stand your history will follow you.
Seriously Richard how can someone who has no real real world qualifications very little experience and all of the negative history and baggage that follows you about have any change of standing for public office? Its the same with many of the arguments, many of them distorted just because it’s you involved. Anyone that creates a number of female aliases to tell the electorate how “sexy” he is then gets publicly shamed and banned from a community website and doesn’t see it as a problem or impediment is beyond rational discussion and therefore every discussion he’s involved with gets tainted.
Your unemployed and living off the charity of people who let you stay with them but talk about £10,000 – £20,000 election war-chests, you must be the only person whose banned from churches (Elmwood and Salford to name but two) and the courts building where you where sentenced but still can’t accept that you may have a problem?
All facts Richard so seek help before your court ordered to do so again and stop deflecting from serious debates with your endless quest for validation and publicity.
Last indulgence…
Just how stupid, depraved, cowardly and delusional are you? As I already wrote before regarding your lies: “All that’s complete garbage.”
Why bother to waste your time writing about somebody you claim is a no-hoper insignificant nobody? And why do it anonymously? How stupid are you?
Do you seriously think anything you say is going to have any influence upon me? And do you seriously think anybody else who reads your rubbish about me is going to rate your credibility above zero?
I don’t need to defend myself against rubbish coming from some evil and delusional anonymous enemy on the internet, and neither do I need to set out the history of my life achievements to justify to a fool my aspiration to enter Parliament.
I have done great things in life, and I continue to attempt great things; you don’t even have the courage to say your name or show your face in public when attacking a public person. ‘Lionheart’ you are not. Try Satanheart – that’s who you are.
Adieu.
Sadly not a surprising reply and I’m sure that most will read into it enough to see just how disturbed Richard is.
I’ll pray that you get the help you need and make something of yourself Richard you have all the tools to do so if you face reality and stop blaming others for your problems and build a normal decent life for yourself.
Lionheart, I love you, man, you’re a legend. But, please, for the sake of my manic pedantry, learn the difference between “your” and “you’re”. Even that doofus Carvath gets it right!
Sorry Rob my bad you’re right of course!
Ps I adore the word Doofus I hope you don’t mind if I appropriate it at every opportunity do you?
Right, what’s going on here? I cannot even leave you alone for 24 hours, can I?
Richard – you have highlighted the incredible difficulty in changing things in this so-called democracy.
Michael thinks the country’s finished. He might be right, but I’m not prepared to give up just yet, while there is still a glimmer of hope. Anyway, where else can one go that isn’t being deliberately destroyed with the same agendas?
Do you think that there may be better opportunities to improve things without trying to be an MP? You had success with the prostitution I think*.
P.S. You know what I mean!
Lionheart,
The point of the blog is to discuss the post, not to defame other contributors.
I expect Richard has more “real world” experience than your normal career politician. Maybe you think they are doing a good job.
You seem like a stalker. Why don’t you reveal yourself?
No Stewart I don’t think that (with a few notable exceptions) our current crop of politicians are doing a very good job at all.
My main point with Richard is that other that perhaps on here every argument or discussion becomes about him not the the subjects (look as his party political advert for the Carvath party in this thread). All the points I’ve raised are valid and just get trotted out in every appearance of his on the internet and things like his criminal record, lack of a job or home and his expulsions from churches as reasons why the basic principles in the arguments are unsound and that can’t be right.
A discussion on the Islamic culture impacting on British values is dismissed because ” he’s got a conviction for harassment of a church elders daughter and has been locked up in a metal hospital” ! Thats got nothing to do with any salient points of a debate but bang there it goes and yet another whinge about Christians being unable to get elected because the media are unfair is on its way! (Ps Richard over 75% of elected MPs said they where of the Christian faith when last asked)
Stewart,
The pursuit of a seat in Parliament is of course not the only way of seeking to advance a good agenda. Very few people ever get to become an MP (and, sadly, at present and for a long time now, very few MPs are pursuing a good agenda – and indeed many are actively pursuing an evil agenda).
For people to make a difference I think it’s important to keep well informed about what’s going on (and from a variety of sources), to vote for the least bad candidate in elections, to speak out for what you believe in public, to blog or write letters to newspapers, to contact your MP on issues, to support campaigning organisations like SPUC and to attend the odd demo. We can all do more than we think if we make the effort and especially if we band together with like-minded people.
As regards the ongoing anonymous defamation campaign against me on the internet, I’m afraid it is par for the course for any public activist standing for the causes I do in an age when the internet makes it very easy for evil-minded people to do their dirty deeds. It’s not just me that gets this sort of treatment, just look at the recent hate campaign against Melanie Phillips – and you know yourself the sort of nonsense that is directed at you Stewart.
Richard defamation is lies there is a huge difference, yes you don’t want certain facts to be published and that was my initial point to you that if you stand for public office then it’s inevitable that questions about prior convictions or mental health or suitability will be asked and I’m sure that Stuart would agree that its right that they are and should be answered by people standing for public office.
There are some great benefits to the internet for people that want to get out messages that aren’t “mainstream” in ways that they never could before and if enough support manifests from that then individuals can have a real effect BUT the flip side is that its hard to hide inconvenient truths and thats also a benefit of the internet because eventually the truth will come out..
There’s no truth in anything you say about me. You fabricate complete rubbish about me and you don’t identify yourself either. The only reason you’re on this comment thread is to attack me, which you’ve now done – there’re only so many times you can keep repeating yourself. Unless by any chance you wish to comment on the substance of Stewart’s blog – as I did – you ought to disappear; I suspect he won’t tolerate your antics much longer.
Ah so you decide who can say what on Stuarts blog now Richard??
My point was about the substance rather that the individual making the points (and your initial rant was about YOU not about anything else) being what should matter and other than you I am sure that everyone will make their own minds up about who has more to hide going on what they’ve written.
In fact Stuart I think its as much the fault of the formula or government and the generic pattern that anyone who wants to get elected has to follow as any individual. By that I mean that there are some things you just can’t ever say or do if you want a realistic shot at being elected, certain parameters enforced by mainstream media and that the voting public have by and large accepted as have the political parties themselves. In the same way as more and more new cars all follow the same CAD protocols and as a result to be successful they all look so similar all real policies almost have to follow a narrower and narrower path to be acceptable and given time the political differences of mainstream parties diminish until they will eventually become a boring and uniform bunch (and they already have in many ways) all plodding a predetermined grey middle of the road path.
Some trends are virtually set in stone now politically unless something drastic happens and most things that radically divide (or used to more to the point) such as sexual orientation , religion and race are almost being outlawed and acceptance is being relentlessly forced regardless of all else. Its almost irrevocable in my view Stewart and people clouding the issues with their own baggage doesn’t help, in the same way the peace message of the 70s was linked to “hippy” types and easily dismissed as a result by the general populace (even though the arguments where very sound and did eventually prevail) any religious discussion that has someone who can be labelled a “nutter” because of prior sectioning etc can suffer in the same way.
I know that most people that read this will understand exactly what I mean in the same way that when I say that those sort of skeletons would be a death knell of any political campaign before it ever begins and the only real losers will be the people who have a rational argument but will see their point overshadowed by the clamour about the individual and their activities.
lionheart,
You’re not one of those loud-mouth gay-boys, are you?
All mouth and trousers?
Ironic that you call someone a ‘nutter’.
Google ’stalker’.
E.V. – I took your advice and googled ’stalker’. It didn’t return me anything about gays, loudmouth or otherwise. What’s your point?
Lionheart, consider doofus your own, and welcome! Keep up the good work, I’d be happy to buy you a pint someday.
I have made some enquiries and it does appear that R.C. did indeed get caught out creating aliases in the form of pretty girls to praise his masculinity on various forums. He did indeed get banned from posting on Salford Online (if my memory serves me right) because an i.p. address check revealed he was making multiple posts under various names praising articles he had posted. Everyone but himself and his imaginary friends thinks he is … wait for it …. a doofus. I was not aware of the criminal record or the mental health committal but I will keep looking into that.
Here’s R.C. half way up a mountain: “I don’t need a rope, god will protect me”
R.C. on his way down: “It’s a miracle! God will let me float to the ground like a leaf”
R.C. at the bottom: “God will teach me his mysterious ways by breaking every bone in my body”
Man, it would be funny if it wasn’t so horribly true.
Nah, it’s funny anyway.
English my point was that as someone who has been sectioned in the past and has made public comments that god personally gave him permission to use any of his churches in part-political videos despite the objections of the clergy (all reported on in local media) in addition to issues like those Rob mentioned in his reply above is very easily dismissed or branded as a “nutter” and as a result any discussion or viewpoint he participates in will suffer.
Its so very difficult to have any sort of impact if your ideas aren’t mainstream as it is without having them dismissed out of hand just because someone who agrees has a “tarnished” reputation. Very few politicians will even involve themselves with anything controversial unless they aren’t standing again it seems (thats why Jack Straw is one of my favourite MPs at the moment and I think there is more to come from him).
In fact thats probably worth a separate topic, Mo Molan and Jack Straw have both been revelations but only AFTER they both said they wouldn’t stand again. In Mo’s case she’s carried it on and seems that Jack has a lot to say about crime and Muslim culture’s effect on certain groups and their attitudes in areas that clash with whats acceptable in European countries (notably their attitude towards British women in some parts of the community). Would restricting MP’s to two or three periods of service (8 or 12 years) mean that they would be more likely to do what they think is right as opposed to whats good for their futures in the party? From my understanding its what used to happen in ancient Greece and Rome for those exact reasons so would it work now?
Lionheart,
I make no observations about RC, I don’t know enough about him, but I’ll admit it all seems a bit weird.
The fact that Jack Straw spent 13 years doing the total opposite to what he now suggests should be reason for contempt, not admiration.
I try (but sometimes fail) not to speak ill of the dead, so I’ll say nothing about Mowlam, whose name I can barely manage type without an a severe increase in blood-pressure.
Rob,
I wasn’t talking to you, unless you are posting under numerous names.
That’s me told.
rob shall henceforth only answer to the name robbo. he posts under no other alias on this forum. stewart could possibly confirm that if required.
I hereby confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, Robbo (the blogger formerly known as Rob) has no aliases on this blog.
Richard is correct – I don’t like where this thread is going, and here are my reasons…
Personal attacks which are nothing to do with the post are not welcome and not valid. They might be appealing to some in a soap-operatic sort of way, but they detract from the discussion.
That these comments are posted anonymously and without substantiation is bad enough, but even if evidence were given by named individuals, it wouldn’t alter the fact that this isn’t the place for gossip.
You have probably all seen the email(s) that did the rounds which said something like, “Which workplace in the UK is staffed by…” and goes on to say things like, “30 alcoholics, 6 wife beaters, 24 convicted criminals, 45 people who have filed for bankruptcy,” etc.
I don’t remember it saying “hundreds of traitors!”
So we can gossip or stick to the point. Which is more important?
And I strongly object to the suggestion that past mental illness has a bearing on one’s suitability to represent people in politics.
Stewart,
Many thanks.
If some prospective Labour politician had come on here with his agenda wouldn’t you have a field day digging up dirt on the tosser?
Stuart I take on board your comments but I have to ask do you really think that being sectioned (and lets say it was a hypothetical person) would really have no bearing on someone’s chances of being elected?
I think of myself as being fairly open minded and liberal but depending on circumstances I think it would effect my decision or at least I’d find it difficult to ignore it as a consideration? I will say that I see a difference between someone who has any sort or past issue and admits and embraces their mistakes and learns and becomes a stronger and wiser person and someone that tries to hide it to deceive the public.
Robbo – I would rather concentrate on his political agenda. Some people like to call politicians rude names, but I avoid that because, as I know myself after a few years of blogging, it becomes irrelevant, so I think that exposing their treachery and uncovering the real purpose of their policies cuts them far deeper. Probably why so many Labour MPs have blocked me from contacting them via Twitter. They like to “listen” only when it’s something they want to hear.
I expect that a great many MPs are being treated for mental illness (and STDs, probably!). I think the most important thing is how they are representing the people. I do think that it is important that they behave morally, because logically if, for example, they are cheating on their other half, I don’t expect them to have much concern for me.
Lionheart – in a hypothetical scenario, it depends, doesn’t it? If it’s in the past and been dealt with, there’s no point in raising the subject every ten minutes.
Specifically, what is your interest in Richard Carvath that drives you to try to discredit him? Are you homosexual or involved in something else he campaigns against?
No Stewart I’m not Homosexual and nether am I directly involved in anything he campaigns against (though to qualify that last statement I’d have to have a list of everything he campaigns against and with Richard that list seems endless).
I can give you direct links to such diverse groups as clergy to models, journalists to court officials, women’s rights campaigners to cancer support groups who have all publicly condemned Richard do they all have “agendas”? In fact Stewart other than on here and in the comments that it later transpired he wrote himself pretending to be women supporters I think you’d struggle to find a single person who has had anything good to say about Richard?? (thats genuine btw please do try and find one because I can’t??)
I have said good things about Richard myself!
I did specify “other than on here” Stuart !!
My point in listing some of the diverse types of people who have publicly and openly criticised RC is to demonstrate that despite his paranoia or conspiracy theories (If he’s not been Emailing you with his own personal theories I’ll be amazed!) the array of people makes my point for me.
I wrote that last brief comment in haste as I had to rush off for the evening.
I can’t say I have heard from Richard about conspiracy theories, so be amazed!
I agree with Richard about homosexuality, abortion, prostitution and other things. I guess we have different ways of trying to defend our culture from these things.
That the key difference here Stuart, you have similar views on some subjects to RC but the way you go about stating that is very different.
RC has stated that he’s in a “guerilla war” and anything he does is justified be it creating a number of false women pseudonyms to write how “sexy” he is on community websites and support his views or film political speeches in churches despite being asked not to by the priest. In essence the political or cultural arguments are being lost simply because of his actions and that he’s involved.
To show one of the key differences between how he behaves and how the rest of us do and so he stops wondering where much of this has come from, a document was put up on at least two public websites detailing prior convictions and I contacted one of the sites immediately on seeing it to tell them that they where in breach of Data Protection laws and to remove it. Would he have done the same for someone whose views he didn’t support?
Oh and RC to help you out a little in where it came from I can tell you that in the format it was posted it was not a direct enforcement document. Your DOB and prior addresses are on the net and anyone who works in a controlled occupation can use that information to say that you’ve applied for a job and to have a detailed background check that includes spent convictions dependant on the position (ie pretty much anything with kids for example). Its illegal without your consent but it happens and it’s something you might want to look into.
Thanks for that explanation, Lionheart.
Britain has been playing a large underhanded part in moderate genocide for a very long time. And has filtered right down to street level, down to the most innocentest children