Things The (Dopey) Police (and probably MI5 too) Don't Understand Re Moslem Trouble
Thursday 15th February 2018 Edition
As you may know, this broad issue became an unwitting one in an criminal Harassment case involving me in 2012 (junior officers in the West Midlands Police and The Crown Prosecution Service etc claim it is Harassment of the police to point these facts out to them - though they may claim a misunderstanding if senior West Midlands Police officers and/or their Commissioner etc are now forced on the point - which is one aim of this webpage).
If you understand ANY of the abstract points below, can I ask you to inform ANY Moslems or media figures whom you know etc - the more senior and influential the better - or senior officers/commissioner of the West Midlands Police or any other constabulary.
In the wake of recent events in Woolwich, it has become newsworthy to expose ALL of the things which the police (and MI5) miss or fail to grasp etc when it comes to Moslem-related trouble in the country. I've now made a giant list below - more are planned to be added.
If YOU understand and (as I say) the police don't, I suggest you tell other people etc and start building up a "momentum" which will eventually force the police to explain themselves.
(Some reasons why the police are ignorant about such things routinely reveal themselves : e.g. whenever the police are televised when involved in doing something en masse - booing the Home Secretary at a Police Federation conference or are pictured all doing a mass finger-tip search on hands and knees after a major crime etc - note how they are near-exclusively WHITE. In those unguarded televised moments where "Spin" isn't possible do such things reveal themselves as obvious).
The points below form a wider concept coined "Nailing" - the breakdown concept of "Nailing" is given in brackets (The Sixsmith Missile, Air Hockey etc)
1. (The Sixsmith Missile) Jack Straw of The Labour Party etc will NOT cause big arguments with our Moslems about Veils etc whenever The Tories argue about Europe.
If the Tories are arguing about Europe, and are thereby helpfully (for Labour) dividing themselves as a Party in so doing, there's NO way that Jack Straw will then simultaneously trigger a big argument with Moslems (because doing so would DISTRACT the agenda of BBC News, ITN, and Sky News etc AWAY from The Tories fighting each other).
Jack Straw will also NOT do it on days where he knows he CAN'T then top the News Agenda with the row (days like Budget Day, Bank Holiday Mondays etc or any other day known to be busy or blocked newswise in advance - starting an argument with Moslems THEN would NOT top the News Agenda).
i.e. if you want to launch a major grass-roots community initiative with Moslems, do it on Budget Day etc - Jack Straw CERTAINLY won't disrupt the initiative by causing BIG arguments about Veils etc.
(Remember - the West Midlands Police claim it is Harassment of THEM to point out that abstract fact TO them. We know from Spin-doctor Jo Moore's notorious 9/11 "Bury bad news" email that such thought-processes DO routinely exist in senior Politics concerning how to utilise the News Agenda. So SEE how dopey the West Midlands Police typically are on the topic? You NEED to be widely spreading word of that complete police ignorance for me please).
2. (The Sixsmith Missile) TWO separate and distinct forms of Moslem-related trouble are actually occurring in the country;
Type A - the trouble caused by Al Qaeda, ISIS - and The EDL, Britain First etc (obviously).
Type B - the type of trouble triggered when (factional) rivals within the 2 main Parties at Westminster realised after 9/11 that by concocting or amplifying BIG rows with UK Moslems at designated times, they could routinely get the better of rivals both in the other Main Party AND against factional rivals in their OWN Party in perennial internal Party power-struggles at Westminster.
(Obviously when senior Westminster figures cynically trigger Type B trouble they try to make out that they are addressing Type A trouble etc)
Counter-intuitively, the assertion is also that on a routine day-to-day basis Type 2 trouble is actually a BIGGER overall factor than Type A trouble.
(Westminster and its Type B trouble can pretty much top The News Agenda on demand - whilst Al Qaeda and its Type A trouble have to plant bombs in London etc to top The New Agenda)
3. (The Sixsmith Missile) Whenever some Moslem terrorist etc does some bombing etc, studying the existing "Despatch Box Combination" will tell you HOW much further trouble will then erupt in direct response to Westminster then commenting on that terrorist act.
(Obviously you know that both The Tory Party and The Labour Party change leaders over time, e.g. recently Labour has gone Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Ed Miliband, Corbyn - whilst The Tories recently went Major, Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May. So over time in the House Of Commons those two selected people routinely stare across the Despatch Box at each other - forming a combination pairing).
A. If the Tories are led by a Thatcherite and Labour by a Blairite, and
Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - BOTH Westminster leaders will rant and
rant and really RANT about it.
B. If the Tories are led by a Thatcherite and Labour by someone from the Old Labour faction, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - only the Thatcherite leader will really rant and rant and RANT about it.
C. If the Tories are led by a Cameroon and Labour by a Blairite, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - the Blairite leader will rant and rant and RANT about it only IF Labour are LOSING in opinion-polls at the time. In the event of any such massive ranting by the Blairite, the Cameroon will then instantly MATCH it and join in.
D. If the Tories are led by a Cameroon and Labour by Old Labour, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - NEITHER leader will rant and rant and RANT about it that much and will remain rather conciliatory towards most Moslems overall in fact (though of course they will STILL both condemn the terrorism outright etc)
Obviously BIG provocative ranting by senior Westminster figures (like in scenarios A, B, and C above) then erupts MORE subsequent trouble in response to the original terrorist act than LESS Westminster ranting about the original Moslem terrorist act (like in scenario D). And in scenario A where BOTH leaders start ranting ENORMOUS extra trouble erupts in response.
Also, see above how "Moslems doing some terrorism or other" is a Constant identical factor in ALL four scenarios, but the amount of resulting community trouble VARIES in each scenario - which therefore PROVES that "Moslems doing some terrorism or other" is NOT the ONLY chief factor governing HOW much community trouble erupts in response to actual Moslem terrorism.
(What sort of Maths did the dopey police study at school? Clearly they missed
Algebra class - maybe because it was invented by a Moslem!
Since Tuesday 11th September 2001 (the date of 9/11 of course), all of the "Despatch Box Combinations" have been as follows - Tony Blair/William Hague, Tony Blair/Iain Duncan Smith, Tony Blair/Michael Howard, Tony Blair/David Cameron, Gordon Brown/David Cameron, Ed Miliband/David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn/David Cameron, and the present one of Jeremy Corbyn/Theresa May.
IF you tabulate out the various incidents of major trouble concerning Moslems - the 7/7 bombing, Danish cartoons, Geert Wilders visits, the murder of Lee Rigby, all the terror failed plots when uncovered etc etc etc and plot them against the "Despatch Box Combination" which existed at the time you'll SEE how the above ranting pattern fits.
NO recent Tory Party leadership outcome and NO recent Labour Party leadership outcome either has been dictated by matters concerning our Moslems.
e.g. in 1994 the Labour leader John Smith merely died of a heart-attack, and Tony Blair then beat John Prescott and Margaret Beckett to become the new leader. The key issue in the contest was Labour Party modernisation.
Tory leadership contests meanwhile are often notoriously interminable and byzantine affairs, where even those making the final decision aren't aware of all of the issues at work!
(In 2016 Tory Andrea Leadsom badly put her foot in it about infertility in women in a comment aimed at Theresa May which backfired and prematurely ended the contest - and Ken Clarke had earlier unwittingly revealed that tactical voting would occur in the early stages. Truly byzantine).
i.e. the "Despatch Box Combination" is NEVER dictated by our Moslems, but the "Despatch Box Combination" governs the AMOUNT of Westminster ranting at our Moslems after terrorist incidents.
4. (Air Hockey) - the UK and US are allies in NATO of course, and 2 main Parties exist in each country (Labour/Tory of course - and then Democrat/Republican). An ENEMY of that alliance would be advised to DELIBERATELY seek to launch major attacks when the combinations of Tory/Democrat or Labour/Republican rule - and to AVOID doing anything major when Tory/Republican or Labour/Democrat exists.
(This one solves a conundrum which the dopey 1980's Labour leader Neil Kinnock famously FAILED to solve when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher ganged up on him for ideological reasons - the abstract concept was further developed on seeing Michael Howard gleefully rubbishing Bill Clinton at a mid-1990's Tory Party Conference with the same motive).
Explained - (2011) the ruling combination of Tory/Democrat presently exists (David Cameron/Barack Obama). If a terrorist enemy launched an attack on either nation, DECISIVE efforts would take place within The Tory Party to RUBBISH Barack Obama (thereby automatically LESSENING their joint allied retaliation effort WITH Obama against the attacker).
If however Tory/Republican existed instead, and the SAME enemy launched the SAME attack, The Tories would then concentrate ENTIRELY on retaliation in co-operation with The Republicans.
i.e. a terrorist would therefore be advised to DELIBERATELY attack when Tory/Democrat rules, and thereby face only 50% retaliation in response - because attack when Tory/Republican rules and you face 100% retaliation.
(Ditto when Labour/Republican rules as opposed to Labour/Democrat).
In that first example, that helpful strategic clue is given away to the enemy by the "patriotic" Tories.
A football allegory to help you understand the abstract concept;
If a team wants a player transferred to them and openly says so, and openly says too that they don't want a different player transferred to them, but actually then end up with the unwanted player and not the one they wanted, ALL their opponent teams then KNOW that their squad is WEAKER and less cohesive etc than it would have been than if getting the desired player instead - and so THAT is the time to then play them if in control of fixtures etc.
(Like the way in US Elections how The Daily Mail/Tories always want The
Republicans to win and The Daily Mirror/Labour always wants The Democrats to win
- but NEITHER newspaper/Party can influencce outright the actual outcome in any
real way and in the end is simply saddled working within the NATO alliance with
whoever DOES win - they certainly can't dictate the winner on demand. e.g.
Whoever in the ruling Tories openly said that they didn't want Barack Obama to
win against John McCain/Mitt Romney has simply now ended up automatically
working with Obama anyway - and in theory Al Qaeda etc can now SEE that weakness?)
If you tabulate out all the various 4 ruling combinations which have existed, and plot them against the recent joint wars and major Foreign Policy initiatives etc, you'll see the pattern - 2 pairings typically deliver quick and cohesive results, whilst the other 2 pairings deliver something either long and drawn out or an utter shambles.
Tory/Republican - 1991 Gulf War, Panama, Libya (1986) etc
Labour/Democrat - Kosovo, Sierra Leone etc
Tory/Democrat - Bosnia, Libya (2011), Somalia, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Iraq (2014) etc
Labour/Republican - Afghanistan, Iraq (2003) etc
Which wars and crises etc fared the BEST for us (and therefore the WORST for our enemies) - that first batch of 2 combinations, or the second batch of 2 combinations? Fairly obvious really.
(The reason is obvious : one Right-wing Party works better when working in unison with another Right-wing one, and ditto 2 Left-wing parties working together. But when Right-wing has to work with Left-wing the trouble starts over creating a cohesive joint Foreign Policy, especially as each will have the motive to actually sabotage the other in order to assist it's factional counterpart against that trans-Atlantic rival).
e.g. Currently the Tories will always at some point try to thwart (Democrat) Barack Obama simply to attempt to assist The Republicans against him.
(Remember that in both the UK and the US that ONLY the Party in power has executive power to decide any retaliation against terrorist attacks - i.e. moves made by Opposition parties do NOT dictate outright what executive action is taken after any attack so CAN'T be cited by executive Parties which fail to retaliate cohesively).
Countering with the idea that the concept can therefore merely RE-ENFORCE the idea of The Voter in BOTH countries constantly returning ideologically shared pairings doesn't stand scrutiny;
e.g. a Tory saying that Tory/Republican should CONSTANTLY exist as the trans-Atlantic govt combination because Tories won't work as well with Democrats, merely publicly CONFIRMS via their own mouths the stated National Security threat which has actually been CREATED by Tories (and the Democrats) SHOULD the Tory/Democrat combo then be returned by The Voter at some stage anyway.
It also pre-supposes that monumental political events like Black Wednesday/Watergate etc can be made to be ALWAYS irrelevant when push comes to shove with The Voter, MERELY by citing some abstract issue about National Security designed to KEEP in office the Party which actually CAUSED Black Wednesday/Watergate.
Also - WOULD Voters in the US really be prepareed to just constantly mirror a govt choice already made by us Limeys and vice-versa? They'd be NO real point in ever having Elections at all in one of the countries, because effectively the other set of Voters would ALWAYS be making the choice for them - and the Voters in NEITHER nation would accept that situation on demand.
And - since Tory/Republican works as well as Labour/Democrat in the concept, WHICH of those two combinations should be permanently picked?
(And lastly you can't ever swap one cohesive combination for the other direct because US and UK elections are at different times).
5. (The Bin Laden Joker) I know that above fact about a fundamental NATO weakness, and you now know it too - but clearly Bin Laden NEVER knew it (and the rest of Al Qaeda still DON'T) - and that IS worth knowing.
Explained - Bin Laden launched 9/11 (his "Trump Card") when the combination of Labour/Republican ruled.
(i.e. EXACTLY when it is said that he'd then face a shambles of a retaliation in response explained above - and so it proved of course).
So, DID Bin Laden/Al Qaeda KNOW to do that? Or did he just get lucky over the timing?
We can hardly ask Al Qaeda for that answer of course, but we CAN still work it out;
A. Some of the Psephological factors which led to The Labour Party (still) ruling The United Kingdom by September 2001 - Black Wednesday, the Back To Basics shambles, general Tory sleaze etc, Gareth Southgate's missed Penalty at Euro `96, John Prescott's punch and Foot And Mouth and Sharon Storer (and the Police Federation rubbishing Labour) during the 2001 Election in the end all proving irrelevant when initially they seemed decisive, John Smith dying and being replaced by the more electable Tony Blair, Rupert Murdoch's (continuing) endorsement of Labour, William Hague failing to solve the decisive nuisance of UKIP to The Tory Party, John Major's last ditch attempt in late 1996 to force an all-out diplomatic war with the EU which failed, etc etc etc etc etc.
(Note how the dopey police miss a factor stated above which actually INVOLVES them directly).
B. Some of the Psephological factors which led to The Republican Party ruling The United States by September 2001 - hanging chads in Florida, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Al Gore being less charismatic than Bill Clinton (in US politics the president and a ruling party leader can at times be 2 different people - heightening any contrasts regarding how a Party is viewed overall), the Elian Gonzales Scandal ostracising Cuban expats in Florida who normally voted Democrat, etc etc etc.
i.e. If you were Bin Laden deliberately waiting for the Labour/Republican combination to "cue itself up" in order to attack THEN, you'd have to have been monitoring all of those Political events, knowing that deviations risked throwing up a ruling combination which would scupper the master plan.
(Psephology says that Tory/Republican and Labour/Democrat would've retaliated cohesively to 9/11 when it was launched. The actual ruling Labour/Republican combination made a decisive hash of the retaliation - which AGAIN Psephology predicts).
Also we know that Bin Laden plotted 9/11 for several years - and the other favourable combination for him of Tory/Democrat existed in the 1990's (John Major/Bill Clinton) - so why didn't he launch 9/11 THEN if knowing about such things as which combinations would suit him over a retaliation?
All those videos Bin Laden sent out - he never mentioned ANYTHING about Psephology or those above Political factors which ended up dictating who governed by September 2001 etc.
Conclusion - he just got lucky over the timing of 9/11.
(i.e. There's a "blind spot" in the logic of Al Qaeda - EVEN when they play their "Ace Cards").
6. (The Sixsmith Missile) This Mathematical Equation;
(This one was spotted from episodes of Newsnight and Channel 4 News - where Frank Luntz uses his "Tracker" to monitor Focus Groups concerning Politics - they are often shown someone ranting at Moslems on video etc and are asked to give them a score - Luntz himself somehow hasn't spotted it though).
If Main Party A is LOSING in opinion-polls (to Main Party B) + a Focus Group dominated by Labour/Tory swing-voters (and they always deliberately are) pushes the score of a ranter at Moslems ABOVE the score which they subsequently give to Main Party B generally = Main Party A will then RANT at Moslems on the next quiet News Day to attempt to go AHEAD of Main Party B, instead of losing to them like they were before.
(Obviously thereby ERUPTING Moslem-related trouble in the country due to the ALREADY volatile situation with Moslems in the country post-9/11)
If (Main Party A opinion poll score < Main Party B opinion poll score) + (Ranter's
focus group score > Main Party B focus group score) = Main Party A will rant at
In that example, the INNATE behaviour of the dopey Focus Group is NOT the chief factor governing any subsequent rant at Moslems by Main Party A (and neither is the innate behaviour of Moslems at the immediate time relevant either) - it is ACTUALLY governed by that complicated existing relationship between Main Party A and Main Party B in existing opinion-polls, and HOW high a score the dopey Focus Group gives a Ranter at Moslems in relation to that ratio.
(In the Equation above and the examples of it in action below - imagine the "Ranter at Moslems" factor to be someone like Nigel Farage of UKIP etc)
Imagine that the Focus-Group collectively gives the Ranter at Moslems the score of 60 (via the `Tracker' device placed in front of each of them which then displays the average score), and Main Party B the score of 40 - the losing Main Party A will then subsequently RANT at Moslems too in those circumstances (to try and score 60 like the original Ranter at Moslems - and thereby BEAT Main Party B who are on 40).
If the Focus-Group gives the Ranter 60 again, but then gives Main Party B the score of 70 - Main Party A WON'T then rant at Moslems to try and score 60 like the Ranter, because that WON'T beat Main Party B on 70 (instead they'll try a method which scores 70+) EVEN though the Focus-Group gave the first Ranter at Moslems the SAME score as before - 60.
(i.e. the MERE score given to the first Ranter at Moslems - no matter HOW high or low it is - does NOT in itself dictate outright whether a BIG rant at Moslems by a Main Party at Westminster THEN occurs. All sorts of other complex factors are at work - like the varying score over time of Main Party B and what is dictating that, and whether or not it beats the Ranter's score at various points).
First example : If (Main Party A opinion poll score < Main Party B opinion poll score) + (Ranter's focus group score 60) + (Main Party B focus group score < 60) = Main Party A will rant at Moslems.
Second example : If (Main Party A opinion poll score < Main Party B opinion
poll score) + (Ranter's focus group score 60) + (Main Party B focus group score
> 60) = Main Party A will NOT rant at Moslems.
Also, a rant from either Main Party WON'T occur if say Main Party A is on 70, with Main Party B on say 50, and the Ranter at Moslems on 30 - because neither Main Party can trump the other by scoring only 30 in that situation (and also - often Main Party A won't rant if ALREADY beating Main Party B anyway whatever the Ranter scores).
If say Main Party A scores 80, Main Party B scores 85, and the Ranter at Moslems 75, then Main Party A will NOT rant at Moslems (because scoring 75 doesn't beat 85 of course) - but if say Main Party A scores 20, Main Party B scores 25, and the Ranter scores 30, Main Party A then WILL rant at Moslems! (Because a score of 30 does beat 25).
(i.e. in the above example a Main Party rants at Moslems when the Ranter scores just 30 - but NOT when the Ranter scores more than DOUBLE that at 75 - so the ranting at Moslems by Main Parties is CLEARLY not merely just "Reflecting public concerns" etc as they falsely claim when ranting at Moslems - OTHER factors govern it).
First example : If (Main Party A opinion poll score < Main Party B opinion poll score) + (Main Party A focus group score 80) + (Ranter's focus group score 75) + (Main Party B focus group score > 75) = Main Party A will NOT rant at Moslems.
Second example : If (Main Party A opinion poll score < Main Party B opinion poll score) + (Main Party A focus group score 20) + (Ranter's focus group score 30) + (Main Party B focus group score < 30) = Main Party A will rant at Moslems.
In any case too, Focus Groups are deliberately "loaded" with Labour/Tory swing-voters (who LIVE in Labour/Tory swing AREAS) far and above their actual ratio to all other voters in straight numerical terms.
(i.e. such Focus Groups are NOT an actual accurate cross-section of ALL Voters but ARE an accurate representation of the vagaries and biases which our Voting System innately contains).
e.g. if you vote Labour and The Tories win the Seat where you live, then your vote effectively does NOT exist - it is as if you didn't vote at all. And vice-versa too of course. So such people are deliberately IGNORED by Focus Group assemblers because it is known that their voting intentions are IRRELEVANT to a General Election outcome.
i.e. you wouldn't find a Labour voter from Sutton Coldfield in a Focus Group, and you wouldn't find a Tory voter from Aston on one either.
The dopey police simply do NOT understand the above points no matter HOW times
you tell them that! Do YOU understand the abstract point being made about WHEN
such community trouble erupts? It has ALL sorts of complex factors when the
dopey police think that there aren't.
7. (The Sixsmith Missile) Counter-Intuitive Community Trouble Triggered By Rival Tory MP's
If you have TWO different Tory MP's (one a factional ally of PM David Cameron and one a factional Thatcherite rival of him), the Constituency of the Tory rival will have MORE Moslem-related trouble than the Constituency of the Tory ally (if only considering the times when that trouble is a direct reaction to an attack on Moslems by their local Tory MP) - EVEN if the 2 different places have the SAME number of Moslems doing EXACTLY the same things (which they pretty much WILL of course).
Labour areas typically have more Moslems than Tory areas of course, but all Tory areas in The Commons each have about the same amount of Moslems in them.
Also, the two different Tory MP's will attack the "Moslems in MY Constituency" at DIFFERENT times (but whilst always citing the actual BEHAVIOUR of those Moslems as the trigger for their attacks on them) - but since the TWO sets of Moslems in the DIFFERENT areas are both doing the SAME thing at the SAME time then why would they be attacked at DIFFERENT times by the TWO different Tory MP's?
Think about it - do Moslems in say posh Sutton Coldfield act DIFFERENTLY than
the Moslems in say posh Streetly/Brownhills? They act the same. Both areas have Tory MP's of course.
So broadly the Moslems there act in the SAME way and are about the SAME in number
too. And that is pretty much the case in EVERY House of Commons constituency
held by a Tory MP - so WHY would SOME Tories launch attacks on their Moslems at DIFFERENT
times to OTHER Tories (or more or less often) IF the actual behaviour or numbers of those
Moslems was the ONLY factor governing it?
Tory constituencies in The Commons tend to have small but equal numbers of Moslems in them who do IDENTICAL things in those areas of course - so ANY big difference between the 2 areas over the amount of trouble concerning Moslems/attacks on them by the local Tory MP etc PROVES that ADDITIONAL factors are clearly at work BEYOND the actual activities of those Moslems.
(The explanation of why those anomalies exist - e.g. If David Cameron is damaged by something, and if a Thatcherite factional Tory rival then suddenly concocts a BIG argument with the "Moslems in MY Constituency" on the next quiet subsequent News Day, Cameron is then weakened FURTHER within The Tory Party to the direct advantage of that Thatcherite rival, who is strengthened within The Tory Party too if deliberately choosing THAT time to then attack their local Moslems).
And whatever initially damages David Cameron to enable that advantageous possibility by the Thatcherite rival would NOT necessarily be a factor directly involving our Moslems of course.
(The police are SO dopey - you may as well speak French to them as explain THAT abstract concept to them - TRULY dopey)
8. (The Sixsmith Missile) The undermining of The Labour Party leader and The Tory Party leader by ambitious (Shadow) Cabinet rivals by concocting rows with Moslems.
WHEN (Tory leader) David Cameron comes a cropper over something, ambitious rivals in his Cabinet will concoct BIG rows with our Moslems on the next quiet News Day.
WHEN (Labour leader) Ed Miliband comes a cropper over something, ambitious rivals in HIS Shadow Cabinet will concoct BIG rows with our Moslems on the next quiet News Day.
The dynamics of that;
Tory dynamics - ranting at our Moslems typically attracts grass-roots Tories to support you. David Cameron when weakened by something LOSES ground amongst much of those grass-roots Tories. So by ranting at our Moslems just after David Cameron has already been weakened by something, a Cabinet rival can drain core Tories FROM David Cameron and TO themselves - so a USEFUL way in trying to become the NEXT Tory leader and ousting Cameron in that endeavour.
(A Tory rival trying to oust Cameron directly results in a largely damaged Tory Party overall which is TOO badly damaged to then fight Labour - so no good to whoever becomes the new Tory leader. That problem is solved by using our Moslems as "proxies" in the Tory power-struggle and where The Tory Party at large is then left largely undamaged by the leader transition process).
Labour dynamics - a bit more complicated - ranting at our Moslems typically attracts the Labour/Tory swing-voter to support you. That voter is "weighted" in opinion-polls (the vagaries of our voting-system mean that the votes of certain voters matter FAR more than other voters even though outnumbered in votes overall - see Number 30 in this list).
A damaged Ed Miliband LOSES those voters, so by ranting at our Moslems just after Ed Miliband has already been weakened by something, a Shadow Cabinet rival can make it look in the NEXT opinion-poll that THEY'VE got a better chance of beating Tory David Cameron than Ed Miliband has of beating David Cameron - thereby forcing The Labour Party at large to consider a SWITCH of leader, ousting Ed Miliband in favour of the opportunist rival who ranted at Moslems at the CORRECT time to achieve that outcome.
(Again trying to oust Ed Miliband directly results in a largely damaged Labour Party overall which is TOO badly damaged to then fight The Tories - so no good to whoever becomes the new Labour leader. As with The Tories that problem is solved by using our Moslems as "proxies" in the Labour power-struggle and where The Labour Party at large is then left largely undamaged by the leader transition process)
9. (Air Hockey AND The Sixsmith Missile) Theoretical Threats To National Security Created By `The Starstruck Clowns Of Cobra'.
(This potential threat was noticed on seeing senior Met Police officer and clearly "starstruck clown" John Yeates forever racing along in Whitehall etc whenever COBRA was assembled - in a way which seemed to hype COBRA's importance to its OWN membership - i.e. membership of it in itself seems to be dangerously feeding the egos of its members. John Yeates is of course the same police clown who famously missed Phone Hacking, the Expenses Scandal and Cash For Honours occurring right in front of him en masse for ages in London. Another senior Met officer called Bob Quick also showed what a clown he was by giving away secrets when he was rushing to a COBRA meeting in Downing Street).
If GDP (Economic Growth) is announced as DOWN, Thatcherites in The Tory Party will trigger BIG rows with our Moslems on the next quiet News Day (principally in order to FURTHER undermine factional Tory rival David Cameron - who will have just been sent reeling already by the bad GDP figures. See Number 8 above).
If GDP is announced as UP though, then Blairites and The Manning Wing in The Labour Party will trigger BIG rows with our Moslems on the next quiet News Day instead (principally in order to FURTHER undermine their factional Labour rival Ed Miliband - good GDP helps Tory rival David Cameron and so a rant at Moslems at THAT point would make The Labour Party consider chucking Ed Miliband OUT and bringing a Blairite IN as Labour leader instead.
i.e. UNLESS the GDP figure is neither up NOR down (a rare occurrence) then Moslem-related TROUBLE will occur on the next quiet News Day after any GDP figures are announced (triggered by Thatcherites/Blairites/Manning Wing ranting BIG at Moslems shortly after).
The GDP figure date announcement is known MONTHS in advance (several months beforehand it is always on The Treasury's website and in The Financial Times etc - that is to assist the Financial markets etc make plans for it).
So KNOW that date, and so you KNOW when the Moslem-related trouble is coming (the `Sixsmith Missile' concept) - but also;
Let's be Al Qaeda etc for a bit;
It means that you know the DATE (several months in advance from sources easily accessible to Al Qaeda etc like The Financial Times etc) when some senior Westminster figures will RANT big at UK Moslems (the next quiet News Day after the next set of GDP figures). Of course you don't know WHICH senior Westminster faction will do the ranting (due to NOT knowing the actual GDP figures which will govern that) but that doesn't matter;
(Let's just pick a theoretical date as an example of when GDP will be announced - 24th September)
The "Air Hockey" concept says this - if you are Al Qaeda, plant a time-bomb in the UK to explode on say 3rd October.
(So you've got several months to get all the materials and assemble it etc - say you start in June).
Let's assume that the bomb is ready by late August, it takes you THAT long to source and assemble it etc. You plant the time-bomb in a well hidden place, and then flee the country (in late August remember).
The time-bomb then explodes on 3rd October of course, but SOMETHING ELSE occurs in the meantime, which in theory could FURTHER assist Al Qaeda;
The GDP figure comes out (24th September), Westminster then rants at Moslems (days later but BEFORE your bomb goes off).
i.e. it would then (falsely) APPEAR to (dopey) MI5 etc that YOUR bomb was in fact in DIRECT response to the Westminster rant made DAYS earlier (that's because YOU as Al Qaeda KNEW that Westminster would rant at Moslems after the GDP figure to undermine factional Party rivals - but the dopey police and MI5 etc did NOT know that).
i.e. The actual TRUTH lies right under their noses amongst the security services COBRA members who meet at Westminster - in the form of the politicians sitting RIGHT next to them - but COBRA's hugely egomaniacal membership nature itself blinds them to it.
The tricked MI5 etc would wrongly then assume that;
A. That you Al Qaeda can source and plant bombs in mere DAYS in response to Westminster rants at Moslems, when in reality of course it takes WEEKS for you to make and plant bombs (thereby AIDING the terror aspect of your campaign - i.e. you look STRONGER than you are).
B. They'd ONLY check at airports to see who fled the country or local CCTV etc for the few days between the Westminster rant at Moslems and the bomb going off, and check out THOSE people (when of course you in reality fled the country WEEKS earlier and so WOULDN'T be pursued - i.e. deliberately send MI5 on a wild goose chase after the bomb goes off via chasing loads of innocent people as well as thwarting their attempts to trace YOU).
A slight problem with the plan though, the ticked-down bomb-timer when later found in the wreckage and examined;
MI5 might figure - "WHY did Al Qaeda fix a LONG timer to a bomb when only needing to set it on a SHORT fuse? Why not just use a short-timer instead and keep the long-timer for when you might really need it?"
You CAN in theory solve that suspicion thwarting your efforts though - simply ALWAYS fit a LONG timer to your bombs EVEN on occasions when you DO set them on a short fuse.
Now - the CRUCIAL bit - WHO has created THAT National Security threat?
A. Gary O'Brien, by spelling it out here (where Al Qaeda etc might be reading it).
B. Dopey MI5 and the police etc NOT knowing about that abstract link between GDP figures and senior Westminster figures suddenly concocting rows with Moslems to gain advantage over factional rivals - due to being "Starstruck Clowns Of COBRA"?
Before you answer, bear in mind that Al Qaeda MIGHT independently figure it out anyway IRRESPECTIVE of Gary O'Brien's efforts - and of course WHEN Gary O'Brien attempted to warn the police about it, they (utterly dopily) said it was Harassment of THEM !!!!!!!!
Nursery rhyme about COBRA;
Running around Whitehall like a Starstruck Clown
Trying to track Al Qaeda whilst running around and around
Assembled by our PM's like Gordon Brown
Who'd give 90 Days to such Starstruck Clowns?
10. (The Sixsmith Missile) The non-routine travels of Tom Bradby (ITN), Nick Robinson (BBC News) and Adam Boulton (Sky News).
(This one was noticed when the then home secretary John Reid cynically "stormed" a Mosque in 2006 - deliberately dragging many senior journalists along with him - knowing they'd then film it etc and therreby the make it Item 1 on the TV news due to their senior journalistic status at their organisations. The dopey police never noticed this next abstract point despite loads of them being IN the Mosque at the time! Obviously those dopey police were all caught on film during the big televised row in the Mosque).
(Spring 2014) If Michael Gove/Theresa May etc plan a BIG concocted televised argument with Moslems in a provincial University/Mosque somewhere in the country (shortly after David Cameron has been weakened by something), they HAVE to make sure that MAJOR journalists are there with them, major journalists who do NOT routinely follow them about daily in all their govt work to provincial areas - so in itself THEIR sudden united presence somewhere is an advance clue as to what is coming.
(i.e. if David Cameron suddenly comes a cropper over something and shortly
after that the Education Secretary Michael Gove suddenly turns up at a
provincial University etc with Tom Bradby, Nick Robinson and Adam Boulton etc in tow it
means that he's going to start a BIG argument with the Moslems AT that
University KNOWING that the resulting TV pictures HEADING the News Agenda will
make grass-roots Tories rally TO him and AWAY from the just weakened by
something else David Cameron - something USEFUL in Gove's bid to become the NEXT
11. (The Sixsmith Missile) The dopey police clearly DON'T watch fixed American professional wrestling (with its big-mouth ranting and raving etc) and its subtle methods of audience manipulation - which our senior politicians sometimes copy and "borrow" regarding our Moslems.
Walk along the Stratford Road and the Coventry Road etc, look in all the LOADS of Moslem social cafes etc, NONE have Sky News or the BBC News Channel on the televisions (they all watch Al Jazeera News or similar). Yet WHEN a (Shadow) Cabinet minister etc wants to "Talk to our Moslems", they strangely make a deliberate point of going on Sky News and the BBC News Channel etc to do it.
(The Labour/Tory swing-voter watches Sky News and BBC News though - the TRUE intended audience of the "misdirected" rant).
Like in fixed American wrestling - one wrestler rants directly into the TV camera (or stands in an empty ring ranting into a microphone), as if he's talking to the other wrestler whom he intends to `fight', when in reality he's simply talking to the TV viewers at home - his WORDS are deliberately misdirected;
e.g. "I'm telling you Hulk Hogan! I'm talking to you Hulk Hogan! I'll get you at Wrestlemania! And I'll then do THIS and THAT to you at Wrestlemania!"
(The wrestler is "selling" the upcoming Wrestlemania event to the TV viewers - but his WORDS sound like he's talking to Hulk Hogan).
Why not just FIND the other wrestler and talk to his face? (Answer - because THAT risks omitting the TV viewer from SEEING it occur).
i.e. Jack Straw if he actually told the truth when ranting about veils;
"I'm telling you Moslems! You won't wear those veils, Moslems! I'm laying down the law to you Moslems! But I need your votes in inner cities, Moslems! So I'll rant to make other voters think I'm ranting at you by saying by saying it on a channel which you DON'T watch but on a channel which the voters I do also want DO watch - besides, you Moslems can hardly vote Tory in protest can you? And what exactly can that Respect win if you vote for them? And I won't actually bother changing the law over veils because you Moslems won't vote for me if I do - but I've tricked those other dopey peoplle who watch Sky News into voting for me just by ranting about veils - so that's another 67 grand in my pocket. Thank you Hulk Hogan for showing me how to do it - why fight properly when fixing the fight makes money anyway?"
(The "Dean Scream" was a coined factor in the early stages of the 2004 US Presidential race when Democrat contender Howard Dean seemingly started to imitate the ranting and raving wrestler Chris Jericho - who e.g. always emphasises the word "EVER!" - again something which is COMMON KNOWLEDGE in Political circles but UNKNOWN to the dopey Police)
The `route' seems to be this - US Politicians sometimes copy the ranting and raving tactics of American wrestlers, trans-Atlantic think-tanks then pass on the idea of our Politicians doing it too during the routine swapping of ideas between them.
That would explain John Reid being almost exactly like an American wrestler, given that he probably never watches it himself.
WWF - World Westminster Frauds.
(American wrestlers CAN be decisively thwarted in a number of ways - e.g. if one of them performs an Irish Whip move on the other, but the 2nd wrestler then instantly ceases to move, it COMPLETELY flummoxes the first wrestler - "breaking with Kayfabe" is the technical term - the crowd usually starts booing, realising the lack of skill and co-ordination just displayed. Kayfabe `says' that the 2nd wrestler must complete the move irrespective of actual Physics(bounce off the ropes and then be hit etc). So Reid etc would SURELY be completely flummoxed in that same way - and would be similarly booed by dopey Essex - simply by "transplanting" that tactic into Politics. Simply fool Reid into trying an "Irish Whip" move in Politics and then instantly CEASE any further `movement' - that SHOULD do it - COMPLETELY flummox him on demand in front of the witnessing Essex)
12. (Air Hockey) Labour and The Tories giving potentially helpful clues to The Taliban by upstaging each other's Party Conferences
(Whilst UK troops served in Afghanistan) Labour will visit UK troops in Afghanistan to deliberately upstage The Tory Party Conference when it occurs, and vice-versa (check in the past and you'll see). The dates of the 2 Conferences are known WELL in advance though, so therefore The Taliban can potentially spend a LONG time planning how to "greet" them on arrival at Camp Bastion or the UK embassy in Kabul or Bagram Airport etc knowing that massed UK troops and VIP's etc will be standing all together to be inspected by the political visitors etc.
The planned visits
are "Top Secret" to prevent that we are told, but it doesn't look like it to me!
(After 1984 in Brighton too - just as well this O'Brien is playing on the right side this time!)
13. (The Sixsmith Missile) "Moslems in MY Constituency"
When an MP suddenly rants at our Moslems, they typically single out the Moslems in their OWN Constituency - fawning BBC News, ITN and Sky News journalists like Mark Easton etc then all make a beeline for THAT named place, and it becomes the "epicentre" for resulting community fallout (both Moslems and their property being attacked and/or Moslems attacking others and their property).
e.g. MORE Moslem women wear Veils outright in Birmingham or London than compared to (the much smaller city of) Blackburn - but WHEN Jack Straw ranted about Veils, it was BLACKBURN (his OWN Seat in The Commons) which became the "epicentre" of the resulting trouble.
i.e. the MERE numbers of Moslems in a given place doing something does NOT in itself indicate WHERE trouble will mostly likely erupt when an MP rants about them - a member of Parliament merely NAMING a place as their OWN Constituency when ranting is the chief determining factor.
i.e. If you KNOW which MP will suddenly rant at Moslems and thereby start some trouble, then you automatically know WHERE the trouble will then erupt.
(e.g. Jack Straw ranting means Blackburn, Liam Fox - North Somerset, David Blunkett - Sheffield, etc - their Constituencies).
14. (The Sixsmith Missile) Venn Diagrams and the resulting clues. So another branch of Mathematics which the dopey police clearly missed at school.
Imagine a Venn Diagram of Tory MP's, made up of THESE circles;
A. Vehemently supported Liam Fox in his trouble over Adam Verrity in 2011
B. Deliberately attended The Commons when Baroness Thatcher died
C. Voted to oppose Gay Marriage
D. Backed David Davis in the Tory leadership contest run-off in 2005.
The few Tory MP's where all the circles intersect are those Tory MP's who will MASSIVELY rant at our Moslems on the next quiet News Day just after David Cameron comes a cropper over something (see Number 8 above).
And because that number of MP's will only be about 10 - 15, AND we know that trouble erupts in the area WHERE the MP represents (see Number 13 above) it means we've got a shortlist of potential trouble-spots.
And now a Labour Venn Diagram on the same topic;
A. Backed David Miliband in the 2010 Labour leadership contest
B. Voted for the Iraq War
C. Voted for 90 Days detention without trial
D. Disputed that Foreign Policy led to the 7/7 bombing.
E. Did a vanishing act whenever the Fox-Hunting ban was going through The Commons
Draw that Venn Diagram of Labour MP's out - and there are the few Labour MP's where all the circles intersect who will MASSIVELY rant at our Moslems on the next quiet News Day just after Ed Miliband comes a cropper over something (see Number 8 above again)
And again because that number of MP's will only be about 10 - 15, AND we know that trouble erupts in the area WHERE the MP represents (see Number 13 above again) it means we've got another shortlist of potential trouble-spots.
15. (The Sixsmith Missile) The dopey police appear to have NO concept whatsoever of underhand factional fighting at Westminster amongst the 2 main Parties
Ed Miliband etc is of course Labour, and David Cameron etc is of course Tory. The police view of Westminster though appears to be merely that Labour en masse simply tries to fight Tory en masse, and vice-versa. So subtleties like the ones below seem BEYOND their understanding completely;
A. The Labour Party has THREE main factions within it - identified here as Old Labour, Blairite, and The Manning Wing (where the latter 2 factions tend to act as a united axis when it comes to internal Labour Party ructions).
IF current leader Ed Miliband (of the Old Labour faction) gets damaged by something, and the Blairite/Manning Wing factions on seeing that then suddenly start/concoct a BIG argument with Moslems on the next quiet News Day, that Blairite/Manning Wing axis ends up in a better position WITHIN The Labour Party against the Old Labour faction (see Number 8 above).
B. The Tory Party has TWO main factions within it - identified as Thatcherite and Cameroon. Again;
IF current leader David Cameron (of the Cameroon faction of course) gets damaged by something, and the Thatcherite faction on seeing that then suddenly start/concoct a BIG argument with Moslems on the next quiet News Day, that Thatcherite faction ends up in a better position WITHIN The Tory Party against the Cameroon faction (see Number 8 above again).
So OBVIOUSLY those types of thing actually occur (see Number 8 above).
However, the problem ISN'T that the dopey police when challenged dispute that those things are occurring, but that you can EXPLAIN that concept to the dopey police 1000 times and you may as speak Chinese to them as chance they'll understand it - they simply DON'T understand the idea that senior colleagues at Westminster who are in the SAME political party can and do often try to deliberately and opportunistically sabotage each other like that!
Er - that TV show called The Thick Of It? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thick_of_It -
(They are forever at it in that show - it is ENTIRELY fiction? Maybe it should be called The Thick Police - Innit?)
The police just think that Tory only fights Labour and vice-versa etc. They simply don't understanding the idea that ALSO going on is Tory fighting Tory and Labour are fighting Labour for internal Party supremacy.
16. (Air Hockey) Are MI5 "Harold Wilson Idiots"?
I won't bore you with the details, but Harold Wilson (prime minister 1964 - 70 and then 1974 - 76) found that his wife was being bugged by MI5 - and they had got the conversations she was having TOTALLY wrong! Harold Wilson and his wife were famously from Working Class backgrounds originally.
(The explanation over the errors isn't that hard to find - e.g. as a Brummie travel to London or Yorkshire etc - DO the people there understand EVERY word you say enough to then always VERBATIM repeat it to someone else? Answer - no. And vice-versa too of course).
So IF it is that MI5 are LOUSE with posh former Public Schoolboys etc CAN they accurately recount conversations made by any NON Public Schoolboys they are eavesdropping on? And does ANYBODY actually perform routine checks about that issue to make sure they ARE getting it right?
Aside - one of the senior Metropolitan Police officers (him being Peter Clarke of the Trojan Horse malarkey in fact) at the Leveson Inquiry ROUTINELY misleads people when asked about MI5 monitoring Harold Wilson - the book Spy Catcher does NOT claim that MI5 actively tried to discredit him, it says that when approached by others to join in a plot to discredit him, MI5 refused to get involved - and then did NOT then disrupt the plot they had been asked to become part of.
We DO know in point of fact that the many plots failed anyway (Labour's Jim Callaghan became PM after Wilson and NOT a Tory etc), but Spy Catcher says that MI5 didn't disrupt any plotting, they just ignored it.
A subtle difference, which Peter Clarke at the Leveson Inquiry etc constantly twists on;
(Note how one of the plotters - Cecil King - actually owned The Daily Mirror
at the time.
And notice too how Tony Benn NEVER publicly read THAT bit of Spy Catcher out!)
SNP leak scandal of the 20165 General Election
seemingly vindicates things more;
It looks like a senior UK civil servant can't accurately transcribe the French ambassador when he talks to senior people in Britain.
(i.e. can civil servants etc be routinely trusted to ACCURATELY record and interpret conversations when monitoring them? And does anybody routinely check?)
Nicola Sturgeon and the French Ambassador are giving one version, a civil servant is giving another version, with senior civil servant others saying the conversation was recorded incorrectly (or certainly there is dispute amongst civil servants it seems).
(An MI5 agent secretly listening in on suspected extremists of course has to determine how innocent or not their conversations are - with calamitous consequences if wrong either way - but if a civil servant can't even record the French ambassador correctly when openly present with them then what hope is there? Senior civil servants and MI5 agents tend to be the same type of people? Home Counties - Public School - Oxbridge etc? And why am I the only one to notice that risk with them when seemingly blindingly obvious from that SNP scandal?)
David Cameron using Baseball allegories to UK Moslems is another clue;
(June 2015) He said they must "Step up to the plate" to condemn terrorism etc - does THAT unwittingly reveal bits of hiss psyche?
The term "Step up to the plate" comes from Baseball (the Batter stands over a
paving-slab type thing - called The Plate - the ball essentially has to pass
over it when Pitched or thrown).
When about to bat, a player walks to it - i.e. they `step up to the plate'.
It has come to mean to take up a challenge irrespective of the actions of others, though is an odd choice in point of fact in that in Baseball the Batting Order is FIXED
(e.g. in Cricket a "Nightwatchman" can be used in a change of batting order) - you can't do that in Baseball.
(i.e. what Cameron could be construed as actually saying to Moslems if you think about it is - "Await your turn to condemn terrorism" - as that is what a Batter in Baseball does when they "Step up to the plate") - or certainly a Moslem unfamiliar with the term and then studying Baseball to find out what it means might conclude that - that they should wait for other Moslems first.
So you'd instead use a cultural reference which no Moslem could mistake when wanting them to condemn?
It might explain why cultural diktats from on high at Westminster often get nowhere.
(Is his psyche in that regard revealed in a way which could assist Al Qaeda though?)
17. (The Sixsmith Missile) "Amplified" And "Unamplified" EDL Marches
The English Defence League often marches about of course (and Unite Against Fascism march in opposition usually at the same time). Now, IF an EDL/UAF march places at Item 1 in the News Agenda of BBC News, ITN, and Sky News, there is MORE resulting community trouble than if IGNORED by the News Agenda of those 3 organisations (or placed much lower down etc).
The pattern is this;
If the EDL/UAF march, and a (Shadow) Cabinet member rants about it, the march itself then places at Item 1/high up in the News Agenda.
If the EDL/UAF march, and (Shadow) Cabinet members ignore it, the march itself then places FAR lower down the News Agenda.
i.e. the MARCH itself does NOT in itself dictate its place in the News Agenda (and thereby the resulting level of community trouble), it is WHETHER a (Shadow) Cabinet member intervenes.
And that intervention is governed by WHETHER (factional) rivals at Westminster can be trumped (e.g. see Number 8 above).
(Police ignorance over Algebra displayed again there - where EDL/UAF marches are a CONSTANT factor yet somehow producing VARYING outcomes both in the News Agenda and communities).
18. (The Sixsmith Missile) BBC News, Independent Television News (ITN), and Sky News - They Report The Actual "News"?
What does the term "news" actually mean? Well not what you might think in fact - and the differences can be very subtle;
e.g. Jack Straw and Veils - pardon me for saying, but the ACTUAL issue of some Moslem women wearing Veils was ONLY truly NEWS in the TRUE sense of the word when they actually STARTED doing it (decades ago), NOT when Straw suddenly brought it up in late 2006 - so WHY was it examined as an issue in its own right THEN?
i.e. if Jack Straw starts wittering about Geoff Hurst's goal crossing the line or not in 1966, DOES the GAME itself then become "news" in the true sense? (No it doesn't - the game itself was only truly `news' in 1966).
Straw suddenly wittering about it would be news, yes indeed, but the GAME itself WOULDN'T be `news' - yet watch how BBC News, ITN, and Sky News routinely allow Westminster to trick us like that - if Straw wittered about it, the GAME itself would become "news" and then be treated as such and be examined as if it was news - when the game itself patently WOULDN'T be news at all - it occurred in 1966.
(It is suspected that Knighthoods/Peerages are offered to senior journalists at those 3 fawning news organisation by senior Westminster figures to allow them to bring up particular things at particular times and thereby thrust them into being "news" when in truth they aren't).
19. (The Sixsmith Missile) Machinations involving the Australian Labor Party
(June 2013) The Blairite/Manning Wing factional axis in The UK Labour Party has the constant cynical motivation to concoct BIG rows with UK Moslems at opportune times in order to wrong-foot the Old Labour faction, in order to thereby force a switch of Party leader (from Old Labour to Blairite) or to re-enforce an existing Blairite leader against Old Labour factional rivals.
(Typically the current best time for them to always pick is the next quiet News Day just after Ed Miliband has been damaged by something).
The UK Labour Party is OBSESSED by something which happened in the Australian Labor Party way back in around 1983;
A General Election was looming, and it was BEHIND in the polls. So it CHUCKED its leader out with just about ONE month to go until Polling Day (so a VERY late change of leader of course) - and then WON the election instead of losing it! Labor were on course to lose under the old leader of course.
(It explains WHY the Blairite/Manning Wing axis of the UK's Labour Party was STILL actively trying to oust Gordon Brown RIGHT up until about January 2010 knowing that an election would HAVE to take place by May of that year)
i.e. the argument that a point comes for either Labour/Labor where RALLYING behind the leader instead of trying to oust them AUTOMATICALLY becomes the only realistic winning strategy as Polling Day approaches nearer and nearer falls on deaf ears in the UK Labour Party after that incident decades before with the Australian Labor Party.
Now, in Australia PART of that 1983 scenario has JUST re-occurred (the Labor Party was behind in polls with an election due in September 2013 - mere weeks time of course - and the leader has just been CHUCKED). The second part of the scenario isn't yet known of course - will Labor STILL lose anyway or WILL the change of leader result in VICTORY instead of defeat at the General Election in September?
(In point of fact Labor LOST to Tony Abbott)
Why that matters over predicting Moslem trouble in the United Kingdom;
As I've said, when Blairites/Manning Wing want to get rid of Ed Miliband as Labour leader, they can CONCOCT big rows with Moslems at opportune times.
i.e. as the next UK Polling Day approaches nearer and nearer (May 2015) and Ed Miliband remains Labour leader, Blairites/Manning Wing will CEASE trying to oust him (by concocting BIG rows with Moslems at opportune times) probably by around the 2014 Labour Conference (late September 2014) IF the current Australian Labor tactic FAILS (i.e. if switching their leader very late means they still LOSE anyway or even lose worse).
If the Australian Labor tactic now succeeds (changing the leader very late turns the polls around like it DID too in 1983) then we can expect Blairites/Manning Wing to KEEP concocting Moslem trouble at opportune times to get rid of Ed Miliband right up until around February 2015 (i.e. around 6 months more time to do it).
20. (The Intercepted Pass) FIVE known dopey West Midlands Police officers tricked into unwittingly PROVING how dopey they are on the matter
(Police officers tend to have the "psyche" of Rugby Union players. American Football meanwhile is a similar game but different in subtle ways. So police officers can routinely be caught unawares IF made to think that they are playing "Rugby Union" when "American Football" is ACTUALLY the game being played. Police attempts at cover-ups can be thwarted via the abstract tactic).
i.e. in Rugby Union, a pass made by one player which is caught by an opponent isn't a totally catastrophic setback (especially if occurring at the far end of the field from the goal-line), but that identical occurrence in American Football leads to the TV commentators and fans etc suddenly screaming "INNER-CEPTED! INNER-CEPTED!" (even if as before occurring at the far end of the field from the goal-line) because they KNOW that a crucial thing has just happened - an incident which ISN'T that crucial when occurring in Rugby Union.
In my Harassment interview (recorded on Forensic tape ) a dopey detective sergeant (who of course NAMED himself on the tape beforehand) DISPUTED the above Political allegations ON that tape, and the equally dopey detective constable with him did NOT correct him when that occurred (i.e. those officers can now be COMPLETELY compromised SHOULD the allegations be PROVED - and Jack Straw should soon do that for us).
Meanwhile, the dopey acting sergeant in the Witness Box NAMED the "Duty Inspector" who ALSO disputed the allegations in the case - so in total we've now got the identities of FIVE police officers involved.
i.e. INNER-CEPTED! INNER-CEPTED!
(You'd NEVER get more than one officer implicated via normal investigative methods).
21. (Sixsmith Missile AND the Intercepted Pass) Multi-million pound risk to tax-payers if/when patrolling police officers sue chief constables over failed warnings of Moslem trouble.
(Many police officers who merely WITNESSED Hillsborough got MORE money from compensation pay-outs than the relatives of those who ACTUALLY died there)
e.g. Jack Straw will concoct a BIG row with our Moslems on the next quiet News Day after (factional Labour Party rival) Ed Miliband comes a cropper over something - INEVITABLY triggering widespread community trouble.
FIVE known (dopey) West Midlands Police officers have now BLOCKED that method of warning officers - so INEVITABLY other police officers will be CAUGHT OUT by the community trouble which Straw triggers (and therefore will be injured etc).
WHEN those unwarned officers realise that OTHER police officers BLOCKED a potential advance warning, they'll SUE the Chief Constable OF those officers (on whose behalf the 5 will have ROUTINELY acted on) - but of course the resulting compensation pay-outs will come from the TAX-PAYER.
Of course the tax-payer would NOT have to fork out anything IF the five dopey police officers had NOT blocked the warning.
22. (Air Hockey) Kill The Hawk And The Dove Will Run - the "blueprint" of how Terrorists can defeat the UK (and US) on demand.
This shows the ultimate drawback in clueless Westminster and the equally clueless Capitol Hill fighting Terrorism in Ulster and the Middle East etc forever and a day. Over time (as Psephology plays out in both places) it unwittingly simply produces CONCLUSIVE patterns regarding how The West can be permanently defeated BY Terrorism;
(In the UK typically) the Labour Party is Dove, the Tories are Hawks - (in the US typically)
Democrat is Dove, Republican is Hawk, etc. There are also opportunist
`super-aligners' in the game - e.g. Blairites and Cameroons who switch from Dove
to Hawk when it best suits Westminster (factional) fighting.
"Buggin's Turn" means that (in the UK) inevitably sometimes Labour rules, and sometimes The Tories do instead (and in the US there is eventual alternation between Democrat and Republican too etc).
So at SOME point, ANY of the 4 Parties can either START (or be forced/drawn into) a war against Terrorists.
So let's play that game out, we can just cite the UK as an example since it fits the US model too anyway;
e.g. say that Labour rules first, and starts to fight Terrorists (at some point) - it can either Win, Lose, or Negotiate.
(Losing outright isn't a viable outcome in reality given UK resources etc - e.g. Ulster lasted decades and could have lasted more on the UK side) so that leaves Win and Negotiate;
The Win outcome - no problem whatsoever there for Labour obviously, they indeed win - Terrorists defeated and The Tories aren't assisted Psephologically either.
The Negotiate outcome though - this is the interesting one;
"Buggin's Turn" says that The
Tories WILL rule at some subsequent point. So if THEY then rule and then re-start the war
and WIN, they decisively beat both the Terrorists (militarily) AND Labour (Psephologically)
- the Tories will have shown that Labour wwas WRONG to negotiate with a Terrorist enemy
which COULD in fact be beaten.
Let's "invert" that perspective;
It means that IF the Terrorist forces Labour (when it rules) to fight and then negotiate peace, that MIGHT not be the end of matters - because in fact it risks simply galvanising The Tories to fight you the Terrorist whenever THEY then rule (and for The Tories to then throw absolutely EVERYTHING into that effort knowing the potential Psephological reward on offer against Labour)
So IF you are a Terrorist, going all out to placate Labour when IT rules isn't really the ideal option UNLESS you can be certain that The Tories will be deterred by that outcome when THEY then rule.
So then, that leaves the scenario of The Tories ruling first and fighting the Terrorist, let's explore that situation;
(Being Hawks) they'll typically fighter HARDER than Labour would - BUT, force THEM to negotiate, and ALTHOUGH Labour then has the motive to re-fight when IT then rules (as in the example above), it's a DOVE Party, so would be VERY unlikely to.
The Labour perspective in that scenario - The Tories fought and did NOT win but negotiated, and so are damaged Psephologically. Labour COULD then re-fight when subsequently ruling, but probably would NOT win either, especially given the fewer resources which that Dove Party would offer (re-fighting and then simply re-negotiating too offers only a "draw" with The Tories when NOT fighting when The Tories negotiated automatically gives a BETTER outcome for Labour).
e.g. Labour can spend more money on The NHS etc instead of re-fighting to
simply produce the same outcome as the Tories - so the BETTER option for Labour is to KEEP the peace which
The Tories negotiated.
(Explained better - if The Tories fight and do NOT win but negotiated, they CAN'T make Psephological hay on the matter when Labour rules if it chooses NOT to then re-fight. Labour can simply say that it won't be lectured over a war by a Tory Party which fought to win it but then negotiated instead - so why should Labour now re-fight the war again just because The Tories say so?)
The Terrorist perspective in all that meanwhile - you fought ONCE and forced a Negotiation from The Tories, and no realistic need to worry about Labour re-starting anything later.
So, "Kill The Hawk And The Dove Will Run" - THAT'S how you typically win IF you are a Terrorist.
(I'd wager that The Tories would throw LESS effort at the Terrorist if ruling first and fighting than if ruling second and then fighting - because ruling second offers the chance to k.o. Labour BETTER than ruling first but both offer the same k.o. chance over the Terrorist)
23. (Air Hockey) How to viably breach French national security - in theory
(France is an associate member of NATO - and so is nominally a UK ally - so UK security services are obliged to tell the French about threats to France which they become aware of).
A. The sudden French intervention by its President Hollande in Mali (January 2013) might've been prompted by massive domestic Tax rows over the 75% rate on the rich - a simple Psephological distraction technique.
The rebellion in Mali was hardly new, the Islamic rebels gained major ground some months before - the French move is consistent with Psephology anyway.
The previous French president Sarkozy also bashed Moslems when domestic Psephology said to.
Since both he and the present incumbent Hollande (who are from different Parties) faced ONLY linear retaliation (from Political opponents etc) when making such moves, it means that no "Nailer" exists in French politics.
And the existence of no "Nailer" over that also tells us that the French Secret Service etc therefore haven't conceived the abstract "Nailing" concepts such as "Air Hockey" and "The Bin Laden Joker" etc over their OWN National Security.
Such information about that National Security ignorance by them would in theory be useful - to the Mali rebels themselves - of course such a possibility of the Mali rebels actually knowing or finding out can't be ruled out entirely.
B. The vagaries of French politics mean that sometimes the president and prime minister are from the SAME Party, and are sometimes from RIVAL Parties (a situation called "cohabitation").
It would be a fair bet that when from RIVAL Parties, major French foreign
policy initiatives end in a shambles (and are cohesive when president and prime
minister are from the same Party). Which would be USEFUL knowledge to the
ENEMIES of France of course - it `tells' them WHEN to best cause trouble with
The French Secret Service can't see abstract National Security threats like that - and the dopey West Midlands Police clearly can't see them either - so have we spotted a more broader and dangerous Western security services pattern post-9/11 here?
24 (The Sixsmith Missile) Inconsistencies year on year concerning Christmas and Easter "offending Moslems".
We are led to believe by garbage Westminster (and are often reminded by
Westminster itself at the time) that Christmas and Easter "offend some Moslems"
in the country, exactly like the annual Drumcree march etc every July in Ulster
by Protestants offends some Catholics.
IF that is true though, then LIKE the annual Drumcree march etc the amount of resulting community trouble/major rows each year would be UNIFORM (the same amount each year) - and it ISN'T with Easter/Christmas rows and our Moslems if you check.
Note too that Christmas/Easter have the EXACT same significance to Christians (and Moslems) in this country EACH and EVERY year that they occur - which IS every year of course.
(i.e. Christmas in say 2007 was no more or less significant to a Christian than say Christmas in 2008 or in 2006 etc - ditto with Easter).
Yet NOTE how senior Westminster figures do NOT rant about Christmas/Easter
"offending Moslems" EVERY year (so a counter-intuitive outcome).
So let's look AT garbage Westminster itself for the answer to the discrepancies - the answer coming from the contemporary `Despatch Box Combination' each Christmas and Easter;
(As like Number 3 above)
A. If Christmas/Easter occurs whilst a Thatcherite leads The Tories
and a Blairite leads Labour - BOTH leaders will start the Christmas/Easter week
ranting about those events "offending Moslems" etc.
B. If Christmas/Easter occurs whilst a Thatcherite leads The Tories and Old Labour leads Labour - the Thatcherite will start the Christmas/Easter week ranting about those events "offending Moslems" etc.
C. If Christmas/Easter occurs whilst a Cameroon leads The Tories and a Blairite leads Labour - the Blairite will start the Christmas/Easter week ranting about those events "offending Moslems" etc IF Labour are LOSING in the polls at the time - the Cameroon then instantly joining in.
D. If Christmas/Easter occurs whilst a Cameroon leads The Tories and Old Labour leads Labour - NEITHER of them will start the Christmas/Easter week ranting about those events "offending Moslems" etc.
(Obviously MORE community trouble erupts at Christmas and Easter WHEN senior Westminster figures start arguments with Moslems about them than when they DON'T start arguments about them).
Note how AGAIN there's a Constant factor in all 4 above scenarios (Easter and
Christmas occurring annually) but which results in VARYING amounts of community trouble each
year - a total giveaway that therefore OTHER factors MUST be involved.
That last scenario (D above) is the current "Despatch Box Combination" of course (i.e. David Cameron and Ed Miliband currently face each other across the Despatch Box in The House Of Commons).
Tabulate out each Christmas/Easter from 2002 onwards (i.e. all the ones occurring post-9/11) against corresponding ranting at the time by Westminster leaders if you want proof.
e.g. Easter 2004 was Tony Blair/Michael Howard - Blairite/Thatcherite - combination A above. The result there would be that BOTH of them (or close Westminster allies) ranted. Certainly since Christmas 2010 (Cameroon/Old Labour - David Cameron/Ed Miliband) there hasn't been any major ranting by Westminster neither during Christmas nor Easter.
The Drumcree march etc causes broadly the SAME amount of trouble in Ulster EACH year though, but Christmas/Easter here on the mainland with our Moslems DO NOT.
(The actual true dynamics occurring - post the Good Friday Agreement the political `non-entity' which is Ulster can't be viably used as a "proxy" in perennial Westminster factional power-struggles, but post-9/11 our Moslems most definitely CAN be - and they are being used that way).
Note how not only have the dopey West Midlands Police FAILED to spot that inconsistency with Christmas/Easter rows and Drumcree marches etc, it must mean that the Police Service Of Northern Ireland (and before them The RUC) have ALSO failed to spot it. And probably The Garda police in The Republic Of Ireland too - AGAIN supporting the idea of innately doopey security services when it comes to spotting abstract threats.
25. (The Sixsmith Missile) Dopey Dave Thompson and his explanation over the minor media coverage of the Midland mosque bomber.
(So this now means we have SIX West Midlands Police officers we can positively cite on this general matter).
When the police circulated photos of the suspected mosque bomber to the media, not much coverage was given to it. This has led deputy chief constable Dave Thompson to assert that Islamophobia is involved in that. It isn't. What is involved is something called The Leveson Inquiry.
e.g. compare the hysterical national media coverage over the murder of Jo Yeates (pre-Leveson) with that of the murder of Linzi Ashton (post-Leveson). Two almost identical events (an unsolved murder of a young white woman with a suspect at large who was maybe caught on CCTV etc), but a COMPLETELY different media response - blanket coverage of the first, very little about the second.
The chief factor at play is CLEARLY the now altered relationship between the police and the media post-Leveson when it comes to the coverage of major crime cases generally.
We live in a country where thankfully outright proof won't come from differing places of worship now being bombed to make a full comparison of the media coverage of course.
Gary O'Brien coined his abstract political concept "Nailing" on developing it in around 1992/3. When the London Nail-Bomber (who targeted black people and gays etc) was later at large in 1999 he was caught on CCTV. The Daily Mirror put the picture on the FRONT PAGE with the large headline "Nail Him" - leaving Gary O'Brien to wonder what the response to his concept would have been IF the concept had been established in mainstream Politics at the time (the concept SCRAGS Right-wing garbage like Michael Howard from pillar to post on demand).
Would people have thought that the Right-wing terrorist using NAILS was some sort of violent ironic response?
That's why Gary O'Brien always remembers that FRONT PAGE Daily Mirror story about a terrorist attacking minorities - but the Midland mosque bomber did NOT get that same Daily Mirror coverage when EVERY other factor but Leveson was the SAME.
Dopey Dave Thompson needs telling - and until he is told it remains Number 25 in the list of Things Which The (Dopey) Police (and probably MI5 too) Miss Or Don't Understand Re Moslem Trouble.
26. (The Sixsmith Missile) How come Westminster doesn't start BIG rows with our Moslems in the Augusts of years?
August is a mere Gregorian calendar month in the year, it has NO significance whatsoever to Christians or Moslems at all beyond that (e.g. a Moslem woman who wears a Veil doesn't take it off in August - nor does she put a Veil on in August if she doesn't normally wear one etc).
Moslems and Christians DO have significant times of the year of course (Ramadan, Easter, Christmas, Eid Mela etc) - but the calendar month of August is NOT one of them.
Tabulate out ALL the BIG rants STARTED by Westminster at our Moslems post-9/11 (Jack Straw ranting about Veils, Philip Hollobone ranting about Veils, Danish cartoons, rows about wearing crosses at work, John Reid storming that Mosque etc) - note which MONTHS they all happened.
You'll find that Westminster DOESN'T rant at our Moslems in August.
(In 2006 some Moslem terrorists actually planted liquid-bombs at Heathrow Airport in the middle of AUGUST - but the then home secretary John Reid WAITED until September until "storming" into a Mosque and RANTING at them about it ONLY then!)
The anomaly is explained by the fact that Westminster ITSELF shuts down for August (i.e. WESTMINSTER is the chief factor in that anomalous situation). If rants at Moslems REALLY were motivated and triggered MERELY by the BEHAVIOUR of Moslems WHY would August have NO rants when Moslems behave the SAME in August as other times?
(Sometimes Ramadan coincides with August but NOT always and NOT exactly either - and in any case a Moslem woman wearing a Veil does NOT remove it for Ramadan nor put one on for Ramadan etc - and Moslems do NOT ever get ranted at by Westminster specifically due to their actually Fasting during Ramadan etc).
Note what Westminster ITSELF says on the topic;
Westminster says that ALL trouble regarding our Moslems concerns or revolves AROUND issues specifically involving our Moslems.
But the month of August means NOTHING special to our Moslems (i.e. the calendar month of August ISN'T Ramadan etc), so the amount of anti-Moslem ranting by Westminster should be the SAME as at ALL other times which are broadly irrelevant to our Moslems?
By contrast IF Westminster is RIGHT, then the amount of Moslem trouble IN January, or IN February, or March etc (outside of Moslem-relevant times) - should be EXACTLY the SAME as the amount of Moslem trouble in the calendar month of August - yes?
e.g. IF someone has a row about a Cross at work, WHAT part of Christianity makes Christians NOT display crosses in August etc?
Answer - None - NO part of Christianity says that.
i.e. If such rows REALLY are about the Cross etc as (and NOT really about Psephology and the desire by senior figures at Westminster to "amplify" certain rows at opportune times in the interests of defeating factional Westminster rivals) would such a Cross-row NOT as likely massively flare up in August or e.g. in May EQUALLY?
CHECK when a Cross-row etc has flared up (to the TOP of the News Agenda) in all Augusts SINCE September 2001, then CHECK though how many have flared up (to the TOP of the News Agenda) OUTSIDE of each August since September 2001.
(The major rows should be spread fairly uniformly throughout the
year EVEN if all school rows due to school-holiday are eliminated and
As I say August is VERY significant in Psephology at Westminster though - Psephology says there is NO real point in senior Westminster figures concocting Moslem trouble during August.
Which EASILY explains the mis-match of course.
(ARE the dopey Christians reading this waking UP yet? Certainly the dopey police are asleep - we know that).
It's what Mathematicians and Scientists etc call a "counter-intuitive" result.
IF Moslem extremists attack a UK airport in August, or try to (which HAS occurred MANY times since September 2001 of course) surely you'd expect MORE Cross-rows etc to IMMEDIATELY flare up in various parts of the country (in the time and months immediately after) as a result - yes?
Yet they DON'T flare up then.
SOMEHOW though they flare up in January, February etc - when the ACTUAL terror attack was in AUGUST!
e.g. Liquid bomb-plots at airports immediately followed by NO
major Cross-rows (i.e. in August), yet we get major Cross-rows when there are NO
liquid bomb-plots (i.e. outside of August).
It just DOESN'T fit logic - does it?
And SURELY The Police can SEE that?
Well NO they CAN'T - even though THEY are the ones actually guarding airports!
(Like those dopey police in that Mosque which John Reid stormed later in 2006)
27 (Air Hockey/The Bin Laden Joker/The Blair-Reid Project) Who Needs Snowden And Wikileaks etc When Obama Himself (unwittingly) Shows Us ALL The US National Security `Holes'?
(In the 1980's the US Democrats kept losing to the US Republicans - and here Labour kept losing to The Tories - both eventually managed to stop the rot and have CLEARLY learned from each other too. What neither liberal Party realises though is that a depressed computer technician Gary O'Brien was independently working on the SAME problem - and came up with DIFFERENT methods - which ostensibly are vastly SUPERIOR to the methods which those 2 Parties came up with).
So Obama has been wittering about Drone Strikes, the need for Email interceptions en masse, and threats in Yemen, etc.
(We know that Obama is NOT a "Nailer" from his battles with John McCain in 2008 and then Mitt Romney in 2012).
Obama's algorithm over National Security is CLEARLY just that of people like John Reid, Jack Straw, David Blunkett etc (super-aligning "Winchester 73" Blairites in Labour) - as I say the two Parties (Labour and Democrat) just copy each other once ONE finds a viable tactic against their respective Right-wing opponents.
Because Obama has (unwittingly) shown his `hand' in that way, he's unwittingly too PROVED the ignorance of himself, The CIA (and therefore our MI5 too) etc on certain matters;
In "Nailing" exists many very abstract concepts concerning National Security - like `Air Hockey', `The Bin Laden Joker', `The Blair/Reid Project' etc - ideas FAR superior to those merely thought up by the likes of John Reid and Jack Straw etc - their strategies were essentially devised via the process of initially fighting The Police at Grunwick, Orgreave, and Greenham Common etc and then just doing the opposite of that when Rupert Murdoch made it clear that he wouldn't endorse their Party otherwise, and they then eventually realised that Murdoch was "kingmaker" in General Elections.
i.e. "Air Hockey" BEATS any John Reid algorithm over National Security hands down - and SO does `The Bin Laden Joker', and `The Blair/Reid Project' does TOO - anyone who knows and understands THOSE abstract concepts would NEVER pick a John Reid algorithm over National Security - they'd ALWAYS pick the FAR superior Air Hockey etc.
(The "Blair/Reid Project" IS named after John Reid of course - but out of sarcasm - because he SHOULD have thought of it as the chief UK response to 9/11 but he DIDN'T - too abstract)
Conclusion - Obama picks John Reid algorithms concerning National Security because NO-ONE at The White House etc has realised that Air Hockey etc can exist and be used instead.
(And the dopey West Midlands Police DON'T use `Air Hockey' and `The Blair/Reid Project' etc because we now know that they DON'T understand the abstract concepts when put to them)
i.e. Obama, The CIA, The West Midlands Police (and MI5 etc) ONLY view National Security through "Jeremy Clarkson's prism" - meaning;
A. Do what Jeremy Clarkson says concerning National Security
B. Do the OPPOSITE of what Jeremy Clarkson says concerning National Security
The (dopey) police etc CAN'T see OTHER (very abstract but VASTLY superior) options in the National Security game.
And if YOU now know THOSE weakness over US (and MI5) National Security issues (weaknesses worked out via the abstract observations of TRANSPARENT events) then in theory SO can Al Qaeda see them too - and that WOULD be VERY useful info for them to know.
And one last thing which you may want to ponder - IF the (so-called) great CIA and MI5 etc monitor The Internet for ALL threats to National Security etc - then how come they haven't spotted THIS one which I've now placed RIGHT under their noses here?
28. (Air Hockey) - The Foreign Office (MI6) Failing To Foresee The Invasion Of The Falklands And Trouble Over Gibraltar
Typically, if the economy of some tin-pot country goes down the pan, or if a General Election there is looming, and the incumbent is a mile behind in the polls, and IF also some UK overseas territory is VERY nearby, then that tin-pot place will suddenly start RANTING about that bit of UK land (via a blockade or even an invasion etc).
(A widely known political proverb but clearly completely unknown to the dopey Police - "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel").
The Falklands War (1982) is a perfect example - Argentina invaded simply to distract its citizens away from domestic economic havoc. Spain with the SAME motive and for the SAME reason over Gibraltar in 2013.
Note how the Foreign Office (i.e. MI6) were caught out by BOTH incidents.
Such cynical activities are NOT limited for foreign nations of course, as our own Michael Portillo proved back in the 1990's - www.youtube.com/watch?v=54rhgUrzOXM
(If the Tories are so patriotic how come they routinely give strategic clues to our enemies? See Number 4 above)
29. (The Sixsmith Missile) Potentially crooked Crown Prosecution Service officials trying to undermine Labour via Terror trial dates
When Moslems are convicted over Terrorism, the next opinion-poll typically shows Labour DOWN on what it was just before - and so a crooked senior CPS employee (trying to help The Tories) could TIME such trials for the Labour Party Conference or Local Elections etc (the CPS set the dates of such trials).
(There IS some suspicion that this is ACTUALLY already occurring but the evidence isn't conclusive - the dopey police DON'T even understand the potential for it though. Many senior CPS employees DO have Political Party affiliations)
The way to undercover the truth for yourself;
Study the END dates of all the UK trials for Moslem terrorism post-9/11. A non-suspicious pattern would be an even spread throughout the year (you'd expect Court holidays like Christmas and Easter to be blank of cases of course - any trial already proceeding would be paaused). But that appears NOT to be the case - Labour Party Conferences, Labour leadership contests, and Local Elections etc seem to disproportionately clash with the end of such trials.
30. (The Sixsmith Missile) The significance of the swing-voter or "floating voter" in UK elections.
Study this result in a theoretical Seat for The Commons;
Tories - 18, 000 votes
Labour - 15, 000 votes
Lib Dems - 5, 000 votes
UKIP - 1, 000 votes
(The Tories win the Seat obviously)
Question : From this choice of answers - what is the MINIMUM number of additional votes in the SAME Seat which the Labour Party would need in order to win?
A: 3100 ?
B: 2100 ?
C: 5100 ?
The answer is NOT A (3100) - which is a common error (and the one which the dopey police probably give if asked).
The answer is actually B - only 2100 extra votes are needed.
Explained - although 15 000 + 2100 is NOT greater than 18 000 of course, it IS enough votes to win if Labour simply takes them directly FROM The Tories;
Tories - 15, 900 votes (down 2100)
Labour - 17, 100 votes (up 2100)
Lib Dems - 5, 000 votes
UKIP - 1, 000 votes
So a Labour victory that time instead - achieved with FEWER votes than ostensibly seemed possible.
i.e. stealing the votes of the OTHER Main Party is a FAR better winning strategy than trying to persuade those who don't normally vote, or by trying to get Lib Dem voters etc to defect to you (by far the most Seats in the country have The Tories and Labour running in first and second place and merely swapping those places or not at each General Election).
So are you looking at the sort of voter who flip-flops between Labour and The Tories (which VERY few voters overall actually do - many vote one way all the time or by mere numbers disgruntled Labour voters are MORE likely to defect to Respect or The Lib Dems etc).
You can envisage a typical Labour/Tory swing-voter as the sort of person who'd vote Labour if they thought The Tories will privatise The NHS - but will vote Tory if they think Labour are getting TOO pally-pally with Moslems.
i.e. So somebody EASILY galvanised into deserting Tory for Labour should Labour actually ATTACK Moslems at times specifically designed to achieve that defecting outcome.
And THAT'S the significance re Moslem trouble in a way the dopey police don't understand - the way our Voting System actually lends itself to it in some circumstances
31. (The Sixsmith Missile) Internal Labour Party Factional Machinations Involving (Shadow Home Secretary) Yvette Cooper - and Internal Tory Party Factional Machinations Involving (Home Secretary) Theresa May
(Before the 2015 General Election)
The dopey police ONLY view Yvette Cooper MP in the above context (that of being the Shadow Home Secretary - i.e. the person who in all likelihood would become Home Secretary and therefore would run the police in the event of a future Labour govt).
HOWEVER, the dopey police CAN'T see THIS abstract factor about her which governs (potential) Moslem trouble in the country;
The Blairite/Manning Wing factional `axis' in Labour do NOT want Ed Miliband as Party leader and want him OUT - but IF they forced him out, the Old Labour faction would then KEEP trying to undermine any new Labour Party leader who was from the Blairite/Manning Wing axis - and the only real winners in such constant Labour in-fighting would be The Tories.
How to solve that problem?
One way is a "compromise" leader candidate agreeable to ALL of the main factions in Labour (Yvette Cooper is the usual one cited) - i.e. agree to force Ed Miliband OUT and get Yvette Cooper IN - that way there's NO subsequent undermining of the new leader by other Party factions.
(The various Tory factions agreed to force then leader IDS out in favour of Michael Howard in 2003 with the same thing in mind - note how he was forced out via a scandal leaked by INSIDERS at Tory Party HQ)
The sticking point with Labour trying the same thing has been THIS though - IS Yvette Cooper any good and would she make a decent Labour Party leader?
(As a result whenever Yvette Cooper becomes involved in something EVERYONE in the Labour Party watches - and so far she hasn't been much cop in fact - so the various Labour factions keep grumbling about getting a new leader but CAN'T all agree on who).
The grumblings in Labour have been starting up AGAIN (e.g. at Conference time that isn't surprising) - and the potential Yvette Cooper is being cited AGAIN.
Why that matters concerning Moslem trouble;
ONE way that Blairites/Manning Wing can undermine Ed Miliband is to concoct BIG rows with UK Moslems at opportune times (e.g. on the next quiet News Day just after Ed Miliband has been weakened by something else).
But IF they agree a compromise candidate as new leader they'll then CEASE that cynical practice.
i.e. the BETTER the general performance of Yvette Cooper, the MORE likelihood Blairites will agree her as a compromise leader and will CEASE concocting Moslems rows to undermine the new Labour leader once Ed Miliband has been forced out by a united factional effort and betrayal.
The WORSE the general performance of Yvette Cooper the LESS likelihood that Blairites will agree her as a compromise leader and so will KEEP concocting Moslems rows to undermine the current Labour leader (Ed Miliband) and any subsequent Labour leader whom THEY haven't agreed to.
The dopey police do NOT understand that abstract concept.
If "The Nailer" warns the police about that situation and Yvetter Cooper herself does NOT (and the Moslem trouble prediction is subsequently vindicated) then she's FINISHED Politically - because she's the SHADOW HOME SECRETARY - she can't leave the dopey police to be caught out by community trouble when a provable way exists to warn them.
i.e. She's FORCED to COPY "The Nailer's move" - as if "nailed" to that path - hence the name of the abstract concept - "Nailing". OR she's forced to say to Blairites that she'll drop them in it with the police IF they try to concoct Moslem trouble as predicted - thereby forcing them NOT to concoct the trouble - "Nailing" them either way - we can settle for EITHER outcome.
(It is also named from US commentaries in fixed wrestling when an unusual "trade-mark" move is utilised by a fighter - "Oh! He `nailed' him with it!")
Yvette Cooper "nailed" to a path - and Blairites "nailed" by the abstract move - "Nailing".
The Tories meanwhile;
The dopey police ONLY view Theresa May MP in the context of being the Home Secretary.
Same factional situation as with Labour too - Thatcherites want leader David Cameron OUT but can't agree on who should replace him, Theresa May often being seen a compromise whom no factions in the Party would then undermine.
(Like Blairites with Ed Miliband - Thatcherites can ALSO undermine David Cameron by concocting LARGE rows with our Moslems on quiet News Days just after Cameron has been weakened by something).
i.e. the BETTER the general performance of Theresa May, the MORE likelihood that Thatcherites will agree her as a `compromise' leader and will CEASE concocting Moslems rows to undermine the new Tory leader once David Cameron has been forced out by any united factional effort and betrayal.
The WORSE the general performance of Theresa May the LESS likelihood that Thatcherites will agree her as a compromise leader and so will KEEP concocting Moslems rows to undermine the current Tory leader (David Cameron) and any subsequent Tory leader whom THEY haven't agreed to.
And I may has well have written all of that in Chinese if wanting the dopey police to understand it - try it with them yourself and see.
32. (The Sixsmith Missile) The Impregnable Poll Ratings Of UKIP - Inconsistencies concerning when backbench Thatcherites `try to attack them' compared with when senior Cameroons already have attacked and have failed to dent UKIP.
Essentially, the breakthrough in UKIP's poll-ratings came when those dopey Social Workers (from Sheffield?) said that UKIP was Racist, and made Adoption (or Fostering?) decisions accordingly. UKIP poll-ratings leapt and haven't really fallen since.
Note that, they have NOT fallen - despite ENORMOUS subsequent attacks on UKIP by all and sundry from across the Political Spectrum - and even journalist Michael Crick being physically attacked in front of TV cameras by a prominent member of UKIP (Godfrey Bloom?)
(The failure to dent UKIP lies in the fact that ONLY certain
voters really matter in General Elections and UKIP has a disproportionate number
of those voters whom the Voting System is already biased towards. The anti-UKIP
attackers haven't resonated enough to make them desert UKIP. Pollsters take into
account those biases in the Voting System in order to give accurate results on
So let's look at the dynamics of a typical anti-UKIP attack;
(Prime Minister) David Cameron will rant and rant and rant about UKIP being "fruitcakes and closet Racists" etc.
And it has NO effect on UKIP's poll-ratings.
So then ("super-aligning" instead) he decides to start ranting at Moslems, Romanians and Bulgarians etc - "To show people we are taking people's Immigration concerns on board when they might consider UKIP" etc.
But again - NO effect on UKIP's poll-ratings.
(Check and see - ever since that Adoption business UKIP have
leapt up in polls and NO amount of subsequent attacks by all and sundry has
shoved them back down)
So let's study (abstractly) typical Thatcherite `attacks' on UKIP;
The backbench Thatcherite will then subsequently rant and rant and RANT at Moslems, Romanians and Bulgarians etc - "To show people that The Tory Party is taking people's Immigration concerns on board when they might consider UKIP" etc.
But again - it has NO effect on UKIP's poll-ratings.
(Again - check - no effect).
Yet that is a totally OBVIOUS outcome for the Thatcherite backbencher - if you think about it abstractly;
If the PRIME MINISTER keeps ranting at UKIP and it has NO effect whatsoever, how can YOU as a mere lowly backbencher from the SAME Party and making the SAME identical points as the Prime Minster even hope to make a difference to UKIP's ratings?
It is totally obviously going to FAIL as an anti-UKIP tactic once the Prime Minister has tried and failed. So there's no real point even subsequently trying it if you are much junior in The Tory Party - certainly not more than once anyway.
So what TRULY is MOTIVATING that constantly MASSIVE ranting at
Moslems, Romanians and Bulgarians by Thatcherites? It clearly CAN'T be to damage
UKIP (which is their constantly stated Motive).
This is what it is;
(See Number 8 in this list) If David Cameron is damaged by something, and a Thatcherite then rants at Moslems etc - that tactic DOESN'T work in damaging UKIP - but it DOES work in terms of further undermining David Cameron within The Tory Party.
And THAT'S why Thatcherites keep doing it.
(i.e. the TRUE motive of the Thacherite in ranting at Moslems isn't to damage UKIP - it is to damage factional Tory Party rival David Cameron)
e.g. Watch Thatcherite massively rant AFTER the 2014 Local Elections when Party leader David Cameron has lost - stating that they are "addrssing public concerns" - but HOW can you "address public concerns" AFTER elections your Party has lost?
Wouldn't massive ranting all during the campaign make more
sense? Why "address public concerns" after the Voter has already spoken? How
does that help you WIN the election?
It makes no real sense - unless really you want to further undermine David Cameron within The Tory Party that is.
(i.e Thatcherites rant at Moslems when Psephology says it'll BEST undermine David Cameron - not when it will best undermine UKIP)
33. (Air Hockey) The Daily Mail has created a "Hacker's Charter"?
(Noticed from the opportunist but decisive partisan interventions of the dopey Daily Mail on matters such as Garry McKinnon etc)
"The Nailer" would advise any UK Hacker;
A. When Tory/Republican rules as a joint combination - Don't Hack (you'll be punished hard if caught - The Daily Mail will NOT intervene due to NOT wanting to humiliate either Party)
B. When Labour/Democrat rules - Hack (you WON'T be punished hard if caught - The Daily Mail will intervene due to wanting to humiliate both Parties)
C. When Tory/Democrat rules - Don't Hack (you'll be punished hard if caught - The Daily Mail will NOT intervene due to not wanting to humiliate the Tories)
D. When Labour/Republican rules - Don't Hack (you'll be punished hard if caught - The Daily Mail will NOT intervene due too not wanting to humiliate the Republicans)
In point of fact, The Daily Mail could in theory counter argue that the Labour/Democrat combination does NOT jointly rule very often over time, and that therefore not much of an opportunity is created by its arbitrary actions. e.g. Since the end of WW2 in terms of US presidential executive power;
July 1945 - October 1951 (Attlee/Truman)
October 1964 - January 1969 (Wilson/Johnson)
January 1977 - May 1979 (Callaghan/Carter)
May 1997 - January 2001 (Blair/Clinton)
January 2009 - May 2010 (Brown/Obama)
So in 70 years in total, that is only around 18 years of Labour/Democrat ruling jointly - less than a third of the overall time - so The Daily Mail might have a point.
The Daily Mail is a HAWK newspaper of course (e.g. it supported 90 Days detention without trial) - so 18 years out of 70 years isn't say 60 years out of 70 years etc by any means, but it IS still a threat though - and it is a National Security threat CREATED by The Daily Mail!
34. (Air Hockey) John Reid seemingly damaging National Security during The Hutton Inquiry.
During the Hutton Inquiry in 2004, John Reid (then Home Secretary) knew
that the correct Psephological "algorithm" against Tory attack was to run off up North to the
paranoid Labour powerbase and trash MI5 etc as being active partisan supporters
of the Tories - which he duly did.
The clueless Tories were duly foiled.
See THIS abstract move which the clueless Tories completely MISSED though;
Reid was HOME SECRETARY when he did that - and WHO controls the police and MI5 in this country? Answer, of course - the Home Secretary!
(Utterly innocent of course) people like Khalid Mahmood MP and Asian Dewsbury MP bloke etc - MERELY in passing in their (VERY) busy Inner City schedules could encounter (innocent/guilty) Moslem people being secretly monitored by MI5 etc.
So MI5 would pick their (private) conversations up TOO in those circumstances (second-hand of course).
Which places MI5 (and police officers etc) in a difficult position - since they COULD be falsely accused of eavesdropping DIRECTLY on the MP's, and that allegation could seem to be credible!
Knowing those circumstances could occur innocently, MI5 would have to be CERTAIN that senior politicians NEVER made false allegations about the organisation, since they'd then genuinely fear a false allegation sticking.
Think however that you MIGHT be falsely accused at some point, and you MIGHT withdraw from certain security operations - which MIGHT result in a terrorist getting through!
And WHAT did MI5 see the home secretary himself John Reid doing during the Hutton Inquiry?
Answer - FALSELY accusing them of doing something VERY seriously wrong against the Labour Party!
So if YOU worked for MI5, it WOULD be at the back of your mind - and conceivably it's STILL affecting HOW they do the job (especially given that Labour STILL ruled for many years after).
ESPECIALLY of course when the VERY circumstances I describe re MP's being spied on second-hand THEN later occurred of course!
So the Tories (and MI5 etc) COULD have blasted Reid out when THAT scandal occurred, vindicated on one point, and STILL can on his return.
But ARE they just clueless linear-thinkers on the topic?
(Definitely - dopey MI5 didn't see that scandal coming UNTIL it then occurred - whereas it should have been apparent to them way back in 2004 - clueless).
35. (Air Hockey) National Security weaknesses spotted during the Phone Hacking trial
The Phone Hacking court was told about emails sent between Coulson and others, where Coulson
secretly acknowledged that he knew about Phone Hacking
Here's the flaw - inspired by abstract observations over `Operation Mincemeat' in WW2;
1943 - The Allies have routed Rommel's forces in North Africa, and Sicily (in Italy) is the obvious NEXT place to invade - but is SO obvious a choice that The Axis must know that too - and so will be ready there with a decisive counter-attack etc. So how to invade but fool The Axis?
Someone had this bright idea;
Plant FALSE Allied invasion plans amongst The Axis - but the TRUE twist didn't reveal itself until decades later;
Those Allied officers who planted the false invasion plans were merely left HOPING that the plan had worked before then launching the invasion (hoping that the Germans would simply believe the false plans) - but the TRUTH was this;
The German Enigma code had been secretly broken by that stage of the war - and so senior OTHERS amongst The Allies KNEW that the Germans HAD been FOOLED by the false plans.
(When senior German officers read the planted false plans they sent coded messages to each other saying how they were genuine etc - senior Allied officers secretly read those messages but for security reasons did NOT tell the officers who had planted the false plans even after it had occurred - so those officers were just left hoping that it had worked).
So - the Phone Hacking case;
When (the prime minister remember) David Cameron asked Andy Coulson to work for him - it means that GCHQ and MI5 etc either couldn't or were NOT asked to secretly read all of Coulson's PAST emails at News International concerning Phone Hacking as part of any vetting procedure (there were WIDESPREAD suspicions that Coulson DID know all along what was going on re Phone Hacking).
If they had (secretly) read them - then Cameron would've known THEN what that Court over Phone Hacking knows NOW - and I reckon that he wouldn't ever have hired Coulson in that case.
So - "Air Hockey" - it means that whilst MI5 and GCHQ etc might scan every email live - they CAN'T then retrospectively scan and then read them if letting them slip through the net initially. Nor did they have someone working at News International who had (secretly) read Coulson's emails before Cameron hired him either.
(THINK about it - if YOU were the PRIME MINISTER with routine access to assistance from GCHQ etc - wouldn't you have asked them to secretly read Coulson's past emails re Phone Hacking BEFORE you hired him?)
So either our prime minister Cameron was a total reckless fool - or CGHC weren't capable of reading Coulson's emails and didn't have anyone at News International who could read them either.
The police beat everyone to it.
(And if that alleged Rebecca Brooks love-letter wasn't emailed to Coulson you could've still secretly accessed it by just standing near her computer with a remote data scanning device? So either that didn't happen by GCHQ, or Brooks wasn't investigated at all by them, or that affair being revealed to PM Cameron didn't alter his opinion about Coulson).
So GCHQ etc are spying on the friendly Germans NOW, but are failing to learn National Security lessons from when they spied on them before during the war!
Speaking of Operation Mincemeat, my re-working of part the script of The Man Who Never Was movie, which was based on it;
"You mean there really is such a place?"
The University of Essex
(Are any of the students and staff actually from Essex though? In fact did any dumb police go to university either?)36. (CIA/Malaysia Strategy) The "CIA/Malaysia Strategy" in `Nailing' actually explained;
(The "CIA/Malaysia Strategy" gets its name from ironic mockery of a famous CIA propaganda failure in south-east Asia in the 1960's - where they misjudged the logic of local Asian people due to being overwhelmingly White themselves. They typically and arrogantly think that no brown person can trump them in the game of serving US national interests - wrong. And we can see that dopey Sawers at MI5 today is the same type of person - which might cost him and Al Qaeda big time - that is the plan anyway).
e.g. imagine that dopey arrogant Sawers MI5 public schoolboy bloke, and powerful others like him - if you produce and then demonstrate a viable way for disgruntled UK Moslems to (legally) WHACK him (utterly humiliate him publicly etc), BUT in a way which unwittingly ALSO whacks Al Qaeda too, can you thereby `channel' disgruntled UK Moslems en masse down THAT path (of simultaneously destroying Al Qaeda) merely motivated by a desire to repeatedly WHACK Sawers?
Thereby following that path instead of the path of Assange and
Snowden etc in their present desire to whack Sawers (which is a path which
always risks assisting Al Qaeda too).
`Air Hockey' and its subsection `The Starstruck Clowns Of Cobra' seem theoretically possible in that overall endeavour.
Mere ambitious deputies OF Sawers at MI5, who might see the "CIA/Malaysia Strategy" as a way to get his job for themselves once advocating it as obviously superior to Sawers own existing Thatcherite garbage tactics, might be one useful set of people who might notice the abstract idea floating around.
37. (The Sixsmith Missile) Jack Straw of Labour rants about Veils, and Philip Hollobone of The Tories rants about Veils - but WHY does one of them suddenly ranting about it not always automatically then set the other one off ranting too?
So both MP's are VERY much on the record as ranting about Veils - you hardly need to check Hansard etc.
A football allegory to help you understand the noted inconsistency though;
(April 2014) say you are an Aston Villa fan in a pub saying "Villa are rubbish, Lambert out out out!" etc - and you do the same thing the NEXT day etc. Then after a few days, ANOTHER Villa walks into the pub, and says ""Villa are rubbish, Lambert out out out!".
WOULDN'T you then IMMEDIATELY and vocally concur with the OTHER fan? Surely you would? They are now saying what you've ALREADY said. You'd publicly say - "That's exactly what I've been saying mate" etc. Yes?
But WHEN it comes to Veils - Jack Straw and Philip Hollobone are NOT like that - when ONE massively rants, the other does NOT automatically rant with him at all - but then later massively rants in EXACTLY the same way but at a DIFFERENT time!
(Check that and you'll see that it fits).
When Straw and Hollobone rant though, they say the ONLY factor governing their rant IS the issue of Veils - that is CLEARLY false - because they'd ALWAYS rant together once one of them started ranting if that was the case.
The inconsistency is explained by examining the football parallel again;
Again you are an Aston Villa fan in a pub saying "Villa are rubbish, Lambert out out out!" etc - and you do the same the NEXT day etc. But this time after a few days, a BIRMINGHAM CITY fan walks into the pub, and says ""Villa are rubbish, Lambert out out out!"
You WOULDN'T then concur with THEM though - would you? EVEN though they've said exactly the SAME thing that the 2nd Villa fan said in the other scenario above. You wouldn't give them the satisfaction of publicly agreeing with them.
Jack Straw is Labour, and Philip Hollobone is Tory - and so THAT'S why one ranting about Veils doesn't always set the other one off. They don't want to help each other or make it look like one is setting the agenda of the other.
(Air Hockey) "Buggin's Turn Labour" - a fundamental and perennial strategic
weakness in the logic of the UK armed forces and police concerning National
(This one solves a conundrum which the cluelessly linear Daily Mirror columnist Paul Routledge forever bangs on about - but can never solve).
Whenever Labour wins a General Election, obviously it then runs The NHS, schools, police, armed forces etc - and The Tories then do that whenever they rule of course.
(So see how we are starting out nice and simple here
with this one - but we've
probably lost the dopey police already!)
However, as with something like Black Wednesday in 1992, the Labour Party can subsequently triumph over The Tories (in 1997) WITHOUT actually winning the INDIVIDUAL argument on EACH issue which carries a Cabinet position.
e.g. WHOEVER for The Tories was actually doing a decent job in The Cabinet under say John Major, got chucked out in 1997 the SAME as all the other totally useless Tories in The Cabinet were - all to be replaced by Labour MP's.
i.e. IF you are Tory MP who is actually BETTER at the Cabinet job than the
Labour MP replacing you, it makes no difference - you STILL get chucked out
after a General Election loss. And
(Buggin's Turn - where something is gained merely on an ongoing rotational basis rather than via outright merit - like Labour running The Police and Armed Forces despite defeating The Tories in the 1997 election over neither issue outright - issues like Sleaze and Black Wednesday being FAR more decisive factors - so Labour ended up running the Police and Armed Forces merely due to "Buggin's Turn". Labour didn't gain the right to do it by PROVING outright that they were BETTER than The Tories over those two single issues).
Of course according to The Constitution etc that ISN'T a breach of our Democracy etc - the Labour rule over those 2 institutions (of The Police and Armed Forces) whenever it wins General Elections IS actually legitimate rule obviously - but it IS a problem though. It means thaat you DON'T automatically get the BEST people in The Commons doing those jobs - JUST the best people of the Labour lot.
So in fact post-9/11 that is a VERY serious National Security problem when it
comes to Defence Secretary and Home Secretary (one
which note The Police and Armed Forces haven't pointed out themselves) - you'd
always want the BEST people to fight Al Qaeda etc.
Also of course the SAME problem is true versa-versa too overall (i.e. WHOEVER for Labour was actually doing a decent job in The Cabinet under say Gordon Brown got chucked out in 2010 the SAME as all the other actually useless Labour MP's in The Cabinet were) - however THIS webpage only concerns itself with National Security problems which aren't noticed by The Police and MI5 etc - so we can just concentrate on examples where Labour replaces Tory to demonstrate the overall point.
(The Yanks DON'T quite do it the same way we do - e.g. Barack Obama won in 2008 and with 2 wars raging noticed that the existing Republican Party defence secretary was actually rather good - so kept him on! With Treasury positions in the US the same thing has occurred in the last few decades too. New US presidents don't chuck everybody out if they realise that an existing Cabinet figure is better than someone the president can appoint from their own Party!)
So that is ONE solution to that National Security problem which WE demonstrably have - and there might be OTHER solutions too - CERTAINLY the issue is worth fully examining to find ALL the possible solutions, and then pick one. Yes?
Well let's examine how our endlessly flogging a linear dead Buggin's Turn horse Police and Armed Forces presently handle that stated problem shall we;
Labour comes in, and The Police and Armed Forces quickly start moaning that they AREN'T spending as much money as The Tories were etc - but SHOW me the Labour govt which DOES match Tory govts over such spending in a sustainable way - Labour NEVER does that with The Police and Armed Forces.
Then when that tactic (rather inevitably) fails, they try Tactic 2 - which basically is Tactic 1 again - just moan even MORE that Labour AREN'T spending as much as The Tories were etc - running off to a Rupert Murdoch newspaper to do it, etc.
That is NOT solving that key National Security problem which I've outlined above (the Labour govts key algorithm is NEVER altered to match The Tories in any long-term sustainable way).
The ACTUAL solution lies in the viable ways I've said - either copy the Yank idea or think up other creative ones - JUST forever harping on in a way which NEVER alters the key fundamentals re Labour and Defence is NOT an actual solution to that known National Security problem.
Then a Tactic 3 seems to be trying to force perennial Tory rule as a solution by The Police and Armed Forces - by publicly rubbishing Labour as a Party to try and make The Tories win and keep winning.
(Certainly a dubious tactic for 2 organisations which are supposed to be apolitical of course) - but even if initially successful, unstoppable Psephological factors like The Profumo Affair and Black Wednesday etc will always prevent THAT from being a viable solution to the problem overall of course - something ALWAYS comes along at SOME poiint to knock The Tories OUT to be replaced by Labour.
So realistically and perennially - Labour ALWAYS returns to office, it ALWAYS will, and will NEVER match The Tories over Defence spending in any sustainable way whenever it does return.
There's your problem - and the present linear and dopey way which our Armed Forces and Police presently deal with that "Buggin's Turn Labour" situation isn't an overall solution - nor are they even looking for one.
40. (The Sixsmith Missile/Air Hockey) - How even Boxing fans can in theory understand a particular aspect of Moslem trouble better than the dopey Police can (so in theory we can EVEN trump the dopey CIA on this one).
The issue of MP's innately fawning to their Party leader is overlooked by The
Police re community trouble;
A. When Tony Blair said (in 2005) that the 7/7 bombing wasn't caused by UK foreign policy - the Labour MP's Caroline Flint, Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, David Miliband, Hazel Blears, Tessa Jowell etc all vocally agreed with him on TV etc on subsequent days.
B. When Tony Blair said (in 2006) that he sided ENTIRELY with Israel when it was being attacked by rockets and had lashed out in retaliation at the attacker - Caroline Flint, Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, David Miliband, Hazel Blears, Tessa Jowell etc all vocally agreed with him on TV etc on subsequent days.
C. When Tony Blair said (in 2014) that the rise of ISIS in Iraq had NOT been prompted by the 2003 invasion - Caroline Flint, Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, David Miliband, Hazel Blears, Tessa Jowell etc all did NOT vocally agree with him.
D. When Tony Blair said (in 2014) that he sided ENTIRELY with Israel when it was being attacked by rockets and had lashed out in retaliation at the attacker - Caroline Flint, Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, David Miliband, Hazel Blears, Tessa Jowell etc all did NOT vocally agree with him.
(In those last 2 scenarios C and D - Ed Miliband by contrast did NOT deny the role of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the rise of ISIS - and did NOT sided ENTIRELY with Israel when it is being attacked by rockets and has now lashed out in retaliation at the attacker. Tony Blair stopped being the Labour leader in 2007, Ed Miliband became Labour leader in 2010).
So the true factor governing ALL the responses of Flint, Reid, Blunkett, Straw etc in ALL of the above scenarios A, B, C, D is this - they simply agreed with Blair when he led Labour, and with Ed Miliband now that HE does - IRRESPECTIVE of the actual obviously differing opinions of Blair and Ed Miliband on matters.
(i.e. ONE factor governing the overall number of Labour MP's lining up to come on TV night after night making statements which provoke Moslems over particular incidents and events is simply the factor of WHO leads the Labour Party at any given time - Tony Blair or Ed Miliband etc - leaders who AREN'T picked solely or even predominantly by Moslems and so the factor is NOT balanced out by that).
And obviously there is LESS Moslem-related community trouble the FEWER Labour MP's you have lining up one after the other night after night coming on TV provoking them.
We had a HOARD of lickspittle opportunist Labour garbage over Iraq - Straw, Reid, Blunkett, Blears, Flint, Jowell, McNulty, our own Sion Simon etc - backing Blair MASSIVELY. Not backing him now though.
That is because the Old Labour faction is in the ascendency in The Labour Party -so being from the rival Blairite/Mannng Wing factional axis is not a good career move nor fashionable in The Labour Party right now.
(Caroline Flint was probably the BIGGEST Labour opportunist over Iraq - EVEN actively rubbishing US Democratson the issue in order to stay `in' with Blair whilst he was leader - but note how she's now forever up the backside of Democrat Obama over everything now that Blair has been dumped - well the dopey Police haven't noticed. She now sits silent on the topic in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet).
i.e. Whenever the likes of Caroline Flint are in govt and make an (inconsistent) Foreign Policy decision which upsets the Moslem apple-cart either abroad or here at home (or both), you NEED to be aware of her political opportunist nature in order to SEE it coming in advance - and our dopey Police and MI5 etc AREN'T aware of Psephological community trouble factors like that one.
(Now that Tessa Jowell and Hazel Blears are standing down, Caroline Flint is probably the BEST `predictor' in the whole of Westminster in that situation - she'll ALWAYS make an executive decision which MERELY suits herself in career terms against that background of perennial factional Labour in-fighting and Tory v Labour fighting- we saw it again with her abortive attempt to force Gordon Brown out in January 2010).
The dopiness of The Police (and MI5) on the matter can be PROVED - simply ask them about John Smith's fatal heart-attack in 1994 and the link with Moslem trouble, they WON'T see any abstract link.
The abstract link explained - all other factors being equal - Smith would have acted DIFFERENTLY over 9/11 and Iraq etc (he was from a different Labour faction than Blair) - and so since opportunist Blears, Flint, Jowell etc only make career-enhancing moves, it means THEY would have acted differentlyover those issues TOO.
(e.g. any community trouble which erupted in Salford over Iraq as a DIRECT result of local MP Hazel Blears' decision would NOT have occurred at all had John Smith still been the Labour leader at the time - because the opportunist Blears would have simply wanted to stay `in' withleader Smith and so would have sided with HIS decision instead - the dopey Police and MI5 can't see abstract Psephological factors like that).
Why Boxing fans WOULD easily understand the concept;
Flint's behaviour almost exactly mirrors the infamous cynical opportunist behaviour of promoter Don King regarding a World Heavyweight Title bout in 1973 between challenger George Foreman and champion Joe Frazier.
(King wasthe manager of the champion Frazier when the fight started - but as soon as Foreman knocked Frazier out and became the new champion himself, King instantly crossed the ring to become Foreman's new manager instead! As I say that is a VERY famous story in boxing circles).
See the famous fight here -www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOOMfWV3yak
(Read the comments underneathon that webpage - where LOTS of boxing fans tell that infamous mercenary tale about Don King. The final knock down at 9:56 in the video is one of the most famous knock-outs in the ENTIRE history of boxing in fact - because many media writers and commentators at the time said how Foreman had actually punched Frazier up into the air and then Frazier landed down on the floor and out! You can actually see though that it is more of a spasmodic jump by Frazier after being punched which launched him into the air and then down onto the floor).
So, knowledgeable boxing fans would instantly RECOGNISE Caroline Flint's behaviour over Iraq (and any associated community trouble which directly stemmed from it in 2003 and then didn't in 2014) if explained to them in the same context as Don King's infamous behaviour in that famous 1973 boxing fight - but you can explain Caroline Flint's mercenary and opportunist behaviour over Iraq to the dopey Police a THOUSAND times and they NEVER understand it.
(Hazel Blears is a member of The Privy Council and is on that Commons Committee which was questioning that dopey Sawers MI5 bloke the other week - but MI5 itself can't see that abstract security issue described above about her - so SEE the level of dopiness in the Security Services there?)
41 (The Sixsmith Missile) - The EDL has often topped The News Agenda, but Britain First (which is essentially the SAME organisation) NEVER has.
Britain First was founded when Cameroon/Old Labour was the `Despatch Box Combination' (ditto Pegida), and that Westminster combination has remained throughout the Britain First existence - by contrast though The EDL (and UKIP etc) were formed when one of the other factional combinations was at the Despatch Box (see Number 3 above).
(Key - Thatcherite/Blairite = trouble x 2, Thatcherite/Old Labour = trouble x 1, Cameroon/Blairite = trouble in certain known circumstances, Cameroon/Old Labour = no trouble)
e.g. that above `Key' would fit visits to this country by the non-entity Dutch MP Geert Wilders - tabulate them out and see.
So - IF an organisation which rants at Moslems is FOUNDED whilst Cameroon/Old Labour is the Despatch Box Combination, it typically WON'T top the News Agenda for as long as that Westminster combination then continues to exist - whereas SIMILAR ranting organisations founded during other Despatch Box Combinations (UKIP, The EDL etc) WILL top the News Agenda at times - certainly FAR more times than the other founded organisations anyway - despite essentially doing and saying the SAME things as each other.
(An explanation of the media deliberately ignoring violence or UKIP having elected representatives etc doesn't fit - Britain First and The EDL are the 2 violent ones and have no elected representatives - but in the concept The EDL and UKIP are grouped together with Britain First outside that grouping. Also - The BNP has often topped The News Agenda and was founded in 1982 - so during a Thatcherite/Old Labour factional combination - so again the asserted pattern fits).
The MORE times that such organisations TOP the News Agenda means the MORE community trouble there is. So that overall anomaly about them would be USEFUL knowledge to The Police if they weren't too clown-like to actually SEE it when explained.
42 (The Sixsmith Missile/Air Hockey) - Machinations involving the Scottish referendum
(September 2014) We already know how dumb police officers typically are on this - previously in late 2011, George Osborne at one point instigated David Cameron to bring up the Scottish independence issue MERELY at an arbitrary time (i.e. there had been NO specific behaviour by Scottish people or The SNP etc on the matter immediately beforehand). By virtue of the sudden Cameron intervention though, the referendum issue then TOPPED the News Agenda.
i.e. the issue TOPPING the News Agenda was NOT based on any behaviour by Scottish people or The SNP etc - but was dictated by an arbitrary decision made by David Cameron.
i.e. That IF community trouble then kicked-off amongst English people living in Scotland, or with Scottish people in England suddenly being attacked etc, the "trigger" would NOT have been the ACTUAL behaviour of Scots or The SNP but an arbitrary decision by David Cameron - that community trouble concerning certain groups of people CAN be triggered that way.
Of ALL the concepts in this entire list THAT is the one which probably shows best JUST how dopey The Police are on this broad issue - that they REALLY thought that someone from Birmingham was just contacting the police about the merits or otherwise of Scottish independence !!!!!!!! And then they put that in a Court statement as official evidence. As long as I live I'll make sure the ENTIRE population knows of that UTTER stupidity by The West Midlands Police
(Might be an idea re The Stock Exchange etc as to inform them of that "ticking time-bomb" sitting underneath the Chancellor George Osborne - that HE'LL be indirectly implicated in a scandal WHENEVER the "dam now breaks" on this issue).
Developments - the gap appears to be NARROWING between the Yes and No vote in polls when previously the No camp led by a mile - and a Yes vote (for Scottish independence of course) would effectively hand The Tories the keys to Downing Street indefinitely, creating an IMPERATIVE for The Labour Party right now - it MUST now go absolutely all-out for a No vote!
Recently the (Labour-supporting) Daily Mirror has been massively ranting at Moslems EVEN more than many Right-wing newspapers. But CAN it now afford to neglect the Scottish question given that imperative?
(i.e. will more Daily Mirror ranting at Moslems at the expense of ensuring a No vote over Scotland risk a suicidal outcome of behalf of Labour? Surely it will?)
The only other possible algorithm in the game is this - WOULD The Daily Mirror suddenly ranting at the Moslems who actually are or potentially would be IN Scotland if a Yes vote triumphs (by bringing up the 2007 attempted bombing of Glasgow Airport etc) somehow help the No camp?
(I'd think not but I'm unsure - logically speaking, wouldn't suddenly playing up threats to Scotland from Moslems make your average Scot MORE likely to actually vote Yes since a newly-independent Scotland could FAR easier then avoid provoking Moslems at home and abroad far easier than a Scotland led by England HAS clearly provoked Moslems at home and abroad? The argument that current United Kingdom Foreign Policy IS indeed directly linked to how much The UK is then attacked by Moslems resonates more in Scotland than in England? The argument that the two things aren't linked at all is usually put about by Right-wingers and Blairites in Labour - and Scotland is hardly louse with either of those).
Whatever - it means that The Daily Mirror will now do ONE of TWO things re Moslems, based MERELY on that narrowing Yes/No vote in Scotland;
A - ABANDON the present amount of ranting at them - simply in order to dedicate column-inches instead to making sure that Scotland votes No.
B - suddenly (and newly) rant predominantly at the Moslems who are IN Scotland (e.g. MASSIVELY bringing up the 2007 attempted bombing of Glasgow Airport etc).
(If a Fleet Street newspaper SUDDENLY and PROMINENTLY brings up from absolutely nowhere a relatively recent case of terrorists trying to attack a specific UK airport where it also states the perceived INCREASED risk of that happening - then SURELY it would be advantageous for MI5 etc to know of that serious reporting possibility in advance? For a start-off doesn't a major newspaper doing that risk creating an immediate copy-cat attack on the SAME airport? And SURELY the named airport itself would also find the advance knowledge useful in all sorts of ways too? e.g. You'd KNOW when a heightened state of alert was coming there due to the newspaper's sudden actions?)
i.e. either the AMOUNT of general community trouble currently being generated by The Daily Mirror ranting at Moslems will LESSEN, or the previously attempted attack on Glasgow Airport suddenly will be MASSIVELY publicised by The Daily Mirror - ONE or the other of those two things is DEFINITELY going to happen.
SURELY that is useful to knowledge in advance for Glasgow Airport or MI5 etc? Got to be.
(If MI5 and Glasgow Airport etc now see the ranting at Moslems by The Daily Mirror LESSEN and it switch to massively sweet-talking to Scots instead, they'll then KNOW that the perceived threat to Glasgow Airport will NOT by thrust into the limelight BY The Daily Mirror too - but without that abstract knowledge they are blind to the entire possibility of the airport threat suddenly being highlighted).
We know that the (dopey) Police do NOT understand that abstract security concept - but does Glasgow Airport understand it when explained to them?
43. (The Sixsmith Missile/Air Hockey) The CLEARLY bogus Phil Woolas argument about WHY Moslems are SO often picked on by Westminster - and a bogus argument which can be PROVED outright to be a risk to National Security to boot
(Many others have made this same mistaken and clearly risky point re National Security which Woolas did on the record on Channel 4 - e.g. Carole Malone in The Sunday Mirror often does it too).
So - e.g. Jack Straw/Veils - note how PRINCIPALLY he attacked Moslems - when Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs etc ALSO have distinctive clothing.
(The "Sixsmith Missile" concept states that MOSLEMS are singled out for Westminster attacks simply because post-9/11 and 7/7 etc attacking Moslems can push the vital swing-voter into particular desired Political camps - whereas attacking Buddhists, Sikhs, and Hindus etc CANNOT achieve that same Political outcome as easily if at all. Which is a DIFFERENT explained motive for Westminster attacks on Moslems than the one given BY Westminster of course)
So, it was put to (past Labour Manning Wing faction member) Phil Woolas on Channel 4 once - WHY are Moslems EXCLUSIVELY attacked by Westminster as a Religious group?
And he responded - THEY are the Religious group trying to attack us with bombs etc - Buddhists, Sikhs, and Hindus etc are simply NOT doing that - hence Westminster doesn't attack them.
Now, ostensibly that is true of course - but allow me to run an abstract coach and horse through THAT logic from a National Security point of view - in a way which the dopey Police, MI5 and Armed Forces etc have NOT pointed out;
9/11 - Al Qaeda launched its attack for arcane motive (the interpreted "occupation" of Saudi Arabia with its holy Islamic shrines by The US). The reality (as seen by nearly everyone else of course) being that the US merely had military bases in Saudi Arabia which in a geographical sense were NOWHERE NEAR the actual Islamic shrines.
i.e. someone from a Religion can murderously (mis)interpret a slight committed by YOU against THEM in way FAR and above the weight which YOU lend to the perceived incident.
Eleanor Hawkins in Malaysia was another example of course.
(The US took the seemingly logical view that ONLY military bases located within the Islamic shrines themselves or the immediate vicinity of them would constitute a slight on Islam - and that the bases merely being in the same country as the shrines but well away from them wasn't a slight - and Eleanor Hawkins would've reckoned that only baring her breasts DIRECTLY to those Borneo natives would offend them).
So 9/11 clearly PROVED that possibility of being badly wrong in that regard - yes? Well obviously it did because that is what occurred of course. Whatever the argument about who was right or wrong in point of fact about the actual slight re the Islamic shrines, the US beyond all dispute greatly misinterpreted the scale of the perceived slight by some Moslems - - and ditto Eleanor Hawkins with those Borneo natives.
So back to Phil Woolas and the rest of Westminster etc - it means that HIS logic is CLEARLY flawed in terms of a response to 9/11. ONE section of a particular set of Religious people (Moslems) have already greatly taken umbrage at a perceive slight which YOU couldn't see at all, so what is to stop ANOTHER Religious group from doing the same in future if you do nothing about them? After all, 9/11 has already caught out that flawed logic - you missed the FIRST perceived slight against ONE Religion.
Playing the game out PROVES the flaw;
9/11 occurs - so Woolas/Westminster attacks Moslems and ONLY Moslems, but the EXCLUSIVE nature of his attacks on THEM automatically means that he doesn't then address the issue of ANOTHER Religion potentially taking murderous umbrage at some perceived slight or other and acting on that in some murderous way - the Woolas/Westminster logic is totally blind to that risk.
i.e. The Westminster game played out would rant at Moslems UNTIL Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus etc did something TOO - and would only THEN start ranting at THEM too along with Moslems - whereas the truth is that 9/11 showed the risk of members of ANY Religious group taking murderous umbrage at a slight which YOU can't see and therefore assume doesn't exist.
(And Eleanor Hawkins unwittingly PROVED that again too - the UKIP type people
who were already ranting at Moslems then started ranting at Malaysians too - but
only AFTER the Eleanor Hawkins incident and NOT before it)
But surely a CHIEF lesson of 9/11 is to pre-empt attacks on us (and CERTAINLY Westminster itself said so in the aftermath of 9/11 and then invaded countries stating THAT chief motive) but ONLY attacking Moslems clearly does NOT pre-empt subsequent potential attacks from Buddhists, Hindus, Jews etc.
(I believe that flaw is called Cultural Arrogance? So a real surprise that dopey followers of The Manning Wing like Phil Woolas and Carole Malone are prone to that flawed logic - eh? Whippet-racing is probably considered ballet to them in terms of Culture).
So yes, prioritise Moslems in your response - but DON'T ignore all other Religions in the country - monitor whatever bonkers logic which THEY might be employing too over perceived slights. Especially since you've already been caught out badly like that once.
Westminster CLEARLY isn't doing that - and show me the dopey police officer, MI5 member, or Armed Forces member who has spotted and stated THAT provable abstract risk.
None have - so they ALL follow a flawed logic re National Security - the same old linear rubbish re spotting such risks which 9/11 proved was flawed.
The Face of Buddhist Terrorism (yes really) - July 1st 2013 - TIME magazine - the ranting Ashin Wirathu in Burma - www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/full-text-of-the-banned-time-story-the-face-of-buddhist-terror/
(i.e. How do you KNOW that HE won't perceive some slight which YOU'VE committed against Buddhism at some point? Ranters like HIM can be upset by all sorts of things. So CLEARLY throwing all resources at Moslems risks ignoring HIM and others like him. That is CLEARLY a risk with current UK strategy yet The Manning Wing etc NEVER bring it up - which PROVES that it ISN'T truly an issue of National Security to them - a bogus Labour faction!)
The Time magazine edition was banned in the staunchly Buddhist nation of Sri Lanka - and note how Carole Malone etc said damn all about that in 2013. Je Suis two-faced Manning Wing - www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/the-face-of-buddhist-terror-sri-lanka-to-ban-time-magazine/
e.g. some Malaysian attacking the UK embassy in Kuala Lumpur in response to
Eleanor Hawkins - did garbage MI6 etc foresee THAT possibility beforehand?
No they didn't - too busy ranting. at Moslems.
i.e. They only responded to that potential threat AFTER the incident - and clearly in a rushed way - so again caught out like with 9/11 - and they would've lessened their security response at that embassy once Eleanor Hawkins was deported too.
Check that, and you'll find that they have - so some useful potential knowledge for a baddie there - knowing when there will be LESS security at that embassy than otherwise.
(i.e. dopey MI6 etc respond to a threat given THEIR perspective on matters - and NOT necessarily given the perspective of potential attackers - so a VERY bad flaw in their routine security thinking revealed there).
The Life And Times Of Colonel Blimp film was supposed to have eliminated that flawed but routine Armed Forces logic by exposing it as widespread in the early 1940's? The idea that Nazi Germany would invade when IT thought was best - and NOT necessarily when YOU would think that they would invade - their thought processes on the matter might be different to your's.
44. (Air Hockey) Ryder Cup Golf Makes Everyone Cross
UK liberals (at Westminster and in Fleet Street etc) will rant at Yanks in general (and at its govt in particular) if The Ryder Cup occurs whilst a Republican is in The White House.
UK conservatives (at Westminster and in Fleet Street etc) will rant at Yanks in general (and at its govt in particular) if The Ryder Cup occurs whilst a Democrat is in The White House.
(Check past Ryder Cups and you'll see that typical pattern)
Currently of course, Barack Obama (a Democrat) is in The White House
Explained in simpler form;
Ryder Cup + Republican in the White House = UK liberals will rant at Yanks
Ryder Cup + Democrat in the White House = UK conservatives will rant at Yanks
The $64, 000 question being this;
COULD knowing that transparent information in ANY way assist Al Qaeda etc in some nefarious but practical way?
Remember that The Ryder Cup (with significant prominent targets present such as Tiger Woods etc) occurs on a date, time, and at a venue transparently known WELL in advance (about 2 years in advance if not more?)
And although knowing beforehand whether a Democrat or a Republican will occupy The White House can't be called outright on demand, ONCE the president IS picked (in the early November of the same year as The Summer Olympics etc and so can be calculated centuries hence) EVEN force majeure factors such as The Grim Reaper (JFK) or removal by Impeachment (Nixon) WON'T remove the PARTY (Democrat or Republican) elected to The White House for 4 subsequent years - somebody from the SAME Party is picked to serve out the remaining term, normally the vice-president if available.
(In terms of US presidential executive power I think the concept works like this - if The Ryder Cup occurs in an election yyear but takes place AFTER the election but BEFORE the inauguration, it is the WINNING presidential candidate who is then ranted at by respective Limeys due to The Ryder Cup - not a losing or a two-time incumbent who although STILL officially the president serves as a lame duck until the following January. A winner and an outgoing two-time incumbent can sometimes be from the SAME Party of course - Bush Snr succeeding Reagan a fellow Republican etc. That overall pattern can be checked of course - and can The Ryder Cup ever even occur in that stated way anyway?)
Either Liam Fox/The Daily Mail etc will massively rant at Yanks, or Ken Livingstone/The Daily Mirror etc will massively rant at Yanks - we know WHICH one and WHEN.
e.g. Liam Fox causing Yank trouble at a KNOWN time - now the city of Bath is near his Constituency or actually in it? It has LOTS of Yank tourists - very famous for it actually - so The Tourist Board for that city could be made to turn on him somehow?
The fact that you can PREDICT his damaging actions (remember conditionally dictated merely by a golf game occurring and who occupies The White House at the time) should in theory severely annoy them when pointed out and proved.
I can't see how Al Qaeda etc would find that knowledge specifically useful though (e.g. if merely wanting to attack Tiger Woods etc it doesn't help them in any way that I can see) - HOW could it be useful to them?
I suppose you COULD in theory argue that typically, far MORE Daily Mail/The Times etc readers actually attend The Ryder Cup as spectators than Daily Mirror/The Independent etc readers.
So, on those conditional occasions when egged on to be more boisterous etc than otherwise against the Yanks etc AT a Ryder Cup venue itself in The UK (i.e. when a Democrat is in The White House), that would create MORE "cover" than otherwise for a sniper etc to get close to the players. A calmer crowd would in theory lessen a sniper from being able to sneak about the course area like that unnoticed - the sniper in theory wouldn't actually need to be IN the venue itself and so need to smuggle the rifle into the venue. In fact just entering the venue and then picking up a handy heavy object and hurling it at a player whilst taking advantage of the specifically boisterous distractions might suffice.
(There was a past Ryder Cup occasion in the US when about 50 celebrating women prematurely ran onto the course and disrupted a game which technically hadn't finished? That behaviour would aid a far-off sniper due to distracting all the security officials etc. Definitely. Or just run onto the course with them and then attack the player with some object - I say such incursions in the UK are MORE likely when a Democrat is in The White House and the Daily Mail etc egging on will be a factor).
Yes - the `Air Hockey Game' - ostensibly all rather frightening of course (developed from the Asperger's mind of Gary O'Brien), but NOT so frightening at all merely if YOU see something BEFORE the terrorist can and point it out. That in itself will end the threat.
(The Daily Mail CAN'T support 90 Days etc and then STILL perform the existing algorithm - will be outed as total fraud re National Security in front of everyone)
But our dopey Police don't understand the abstract game - and so won't until Tiger Woods gets shot by Al Qaeda.
At which point David Cameron will line his pockets in the resulting war - like Tony Blair did last time.
45. (The Sixsmith Missile) Jihadi John - The Sun is currently outranting The Daily Mirror
(September 2014) The Sun usually rants more than The Daily Mirror at certain groups (like Moslems). There's a complicated "formula" for knowing WHEN The Daily Mirror will outrant it though.
A formula worth knowing if you are the dopey police etc, because The Sun is read mainly in the south and The Daily Mirror read mainly in the north, giving clues as to where any resulting community trouble stemming from the ranting will likely flare up.
(e.g. The Daily Mirror will start to outrant The Sun in a xenophobic way if The Tories are incumbent and the England football team start to decisively progress in a tournament. Compare the newspapers before the Euro 96 game and then again before the 1 - 5 game in 2001. Different despite the SAME opponent - Germany).
Events during the 1970 World Cup - which coincided with a General Election - explain that abstract algorithm.
46. (The Sixsmith Missile) Dopey fundamentalist Christians rant at Moslems AND Hindus etc equally - but Westminster (and Fleet Street and US Republicans etc) ONLY join in with the Christian attacks on Moslems, not the anti-Hindu attacks etc.
(The fact that the dopey Police both HAVEN'T noticed this next one AND don't understand it when explained either again underlines their overall unfitness to police a multi-ethnic Britain)
Remember - always keep in mind what Westminster itself publicly and transparently CITES as the chief reason when it rants at Moslems when joining in with a rant initially started by a fundamentalist Christian - that they are "Merely reflecting that Britain is a Christian country and are re-enforcing the ability of Christians to state their beliefs in this a Christian country" etc.
Well fundamentalist Christians believe a LOT of things about other Religions actually;
Obviously they rant at Moslems (due to them not being Christians), but e.g. Hindus AREN'T Christians either of course.
(In fact Jesus Christ is considered a prophet in both Islam and Christianity of course - but Hinduism shares NO direct link whatsoever with Christianity)
So - in case you try to counter with - "Fundamentalist Christians DON'T attack Hindus with the SAME ferocity with which they attack Moslems";
Er, I beg to differ actually - yes they do - in fact in many cases their rantings are even GREATER at Hindus than at Moslems;
e.g. (Bonkers) Vincent ten Bouwhuis in London, railing against Reiki and Yoga in the name of Christianity;
“They are based on Eastern religions and they call upon the powers of whatever spirits they believe in. In the West people think it’s innocent but it’s not. With yoga it is harmful because it involves meditation which is an open door to the devil. The whole lotus position is geared around worshipping a demon, it’s a way to please that demon.”
More of his bonkers ravings against Hinduism -www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/exorcism-video-watch-brutal-process-2259096#ixzz3EimLselZ
(Re the actual origins of Yoga - nobody is quite sure who he was and when he lived, or even if `he' was actually several people with the same family name etc - but Yoga was developed if not invented by an ancient Hindu called Patanjali. He himself stated that Yoga was a core aspect of Hinduism - but that is not a universal view amongst all modern Hindu scholars however. The issue often causes debate about whether Yoga can be practised in Church halls etc. Certainly the presence of a statue of the god Ganesh or a short prayer to Patanjali in any Yoga class would clearly stress or confirm its links with Hinduism regarding that particular class)
A bonkers Christian railing at Martial Arts due to their links with Buddhism and Hinduism etc - http://acureisoutthere.co.uk/martial_arts_and_the_occult.htm
Note this bit - "The computer you are reading this on, indirectly comes from occult sources. (The bible code and Kabala scholars used encryption analysis and code breaking skills to develop through Mathematics the first computer, in Milton Keynes to decode the Enigma machine the Nazis had made (which was no doubt influence by the occult also). Mobile phones are from the study of radio waves and physics-microwave radiation that passes signals through the air. This comes from originally occult studies also. In fact you could argue that 90% of the technology we use today comes from occult studies."
(Well if your computer is The Devil etc then don't use it to put your dopey Christian rantings online please - or can only I see that irony? Using the Devil to warn us about the Devil - I ask you).
Again you might try to counter - "Those are just individual Christians ranting about Hindus - so no wonder Westminster ignores them."
Well what about that ONE Christian Yank bloke who was threatening to burn a Koran on You Tube - he actually TOPPED the News Agenda on THIS side of the Atlantic!
(When we finally get the dopey Police awake on this broad issue we should be
able to get them to force a Leveson-style inquiry into how BBC News, ITN, and
Sky News construct The News Agenda each day. We should find allies in that
endeavour from The SNP after Nick Robinson's recent antics in the Independence
referendum The suspicion is that knighthoods and peerages etc are being given to
senior journalists in that endeavour in exchange for those fawning concocted
favours re The News Agenda - in fact see if Nick Robinson is soon given one).
So the actual dynamics going on;
Ranting at Moslems by Christians (if joined in with by Westminster at opportune times) can wrong-foot (factional) Political opponents.
Ranting at Hindus by Christians (if joined in with by Westminster at opportune times) CAN'T wrong-foot (factional) Political opponents (to anything like the same degree).
That is because the Swing-Vote is differently affected by such attacks - so in truth the actual differences between Christianity, Islam and Hinduism etc are NOT the key factors in whether Westminster joins in the ranting
So it ISN'T the Christian ranting which innately triggers the Westminster ranting - the Westminster ranting is conditional on WHICH Religion is being attacked.
(The Hindu-dominated nation of India is one of the so-called BRIC countries. So as it starts to rival The US and Britain in an Economic sense, it'll become opportune for Westminster etc to THEN join in with already existing Christian ranting at Hindus to wrong-foot Westminster opponents. But monitoring merely the Religion of Hinduism itself and its devout followers etc - the factor monitored by the dopey Police - WON'T reveal the actual true governing factor in the looming trouble to you. As I say - proving how unfit the dopey Police are on the overall issue).
47 - (The Sixsmith Missile) - (Shadow) Cabinet members suddenly ranting
This anomaly was first noticed from all of those utterly shambolic Tory Party
Conferences in the early and mid-1990's under John Major, where all sorts of
factional leadership rivals sought their chances for their proverbial 15 Minutes
Of Fame in front of the Tory Party faithful, in the hope of being the next Tory
leader instead of the forever stumbling clown Major. Even complete Cabinet
non-entities like Gillian Shepherd were doing it - remember her? Exactly.
(More evidence below that the dopey Police can't conceive the dynamics shown in Political sitcoms like The Thick Of It and Veep etc - so another case here of The Thick Police, Innit?)
(October 2014) - Michael Fallon is the Secretary Of State For DEFENCE, but has just massively ranted about IMMIGRATION - er, that's the Home Secretary Theresa May's job?
(i.e. the Police see massive rants about Immigration and Moslems etc MERELY in a linear context - they CAN'T see abstract anomalies like that about WHO at Westminster is suddenly ranting and WHEN they are doing it - the dopey Police can't see discrepancies like that EVEN when repeatedly pointed out to them).
e.g. When the (Shadow) Secretary Of State For Education suddenly starts ranting about Health, or the (Shadow) Secretary Of State For Health suddenly starts ranting about Moslems, or the (Shadow) Foreign Secretary suddenly starts ranting about Schools etc are all CLEARLY examples of fishy situations - since it is NOT the normal Westminster situation of course.
(The Secretary Of State For Defence usually talks about tanks and aircraft-carriers etc - yes?)
And so WHAT truly is going on when that other bizarre type of Westminster thing occurs, where suddenly the Defence Secretary starts talking about schools or hospitals or immigrants etc? Or have only I noticed the bizarre nature of that? Certainly the dopey Police haven't noticed it.
(How THICK are The Police in this country NOT to routinely notice abstract things like THAT when such Westminster ranting about Moslems and Immigration etc can often trigger community trouble?)
To enlighten the dopey Police - THIS is why that strange sort of thing occurs;
If YOU are from ONE faction of a Main Party, and the Party leader is from a rival faction, you can undermine that leader by ranting about Immigration and Moslems etc at opportune times (e.g. just after the Party leader has been damaged by something).
But there's often a fundamental problem with that situation - NOT all (Shadow) Cabinet positions enable easy and sudden ranting about Moslems or Immigrants etc - like say the (Shadow) Secretary Of Statee For Transport. Stating that our roads and public transport are crowded due to Moslems and Immigrants etc? You'd simply paint yourself into a corner over WHAT you then planned to do about it - take their cars off them and kick them off buses etc?
THAT overall strategy would actually undermine your factional Party rival and NOT simply undermine you instead?
You'd have to WAIT say for an illegal Immigrant (or Moslem etc) to kill someone in a high-profile hit-and-run case, and THEN massively rant about that (but of course you CAN'T guarantee that the timings would be correct - that incident would have to occur immediately after your factional Party rival had already been undermined somehow - which is very dicey in terms of timing).
So you HAVE to simply rant when the timing IS right re your Political factional rivals, IRRESPECTIVE of other actual events (and certainly the fawning Tom Bradby at ITN etc won't ever point out that discrepancy- so the knighthood bribes etc must be working in that regard - and as we see the Police are too dopey to notice too).
i.e. Theresa May is looking rather good in the runners and riders stakes re who might replace David Cameron as Tory leader when the time comes, who is also struggling himself - so WHAT better way if you are their factional rival Fallon than to rant in a way which pleases Tory grass-roots whilst ALSO highlighting de facto how Theresa May isn't doing her job as well as the Tory Party faithful would like?
THAT is what is going on - and the Fallon rant should be seen in THAT context - not that the thick Police can see it.
And there's more - concepts from the CIA/Malaysia Strategy, Starstruck Clowns Of Cobra, and The Air Hockey Game etc - so it means that the thick UK Police are potentially compromised over a National Security issue, and SO is the opportunist UK Secretary Of State For Defence - so shall we tell their allies at The Pentagon etc how useful all that transparent info would be to ISIS and Al Qaeda?
(Of course presently The Pentagon are as thick as our Police re the role of Psephology re National Security - the Obama v McCain and Obama v Romney machinations unwittingly proved that outright - which hardly helps the overall situation of course. That potential help for ISIS and Al Qaeda etc just continually sits out there - with the dopey Police arresting whoever points it out to them - truly thick).
"Darlings of the Tory Conference" - the Tory Party Conference always takes place in the last few days of September and the first few days of October. A senior figure there ALWAYS tries to become the "Darling" of it (usually via a MASSIVE rant at whoever Essex doesn't like).
e.g. At the 2016 Tory Party Conference it was home secretary Amber Rudd - threatening to name and shame companies which hire foreign workers
48 - (The Sixsmith Missile) Irish people on the UK mainland have NO problem whatsoever marking and acknowledging Bonfire Night - but Nationalists in Ulster have a BIG problem with it despite having the exact same heritage and Religion etc.
Each year note the routine non-highlighting of that discrepancy by Straw and
Blunkett etc, and annual non-noting too by the fawning Tom Bradby at ITN etc.
I can't think of events coming which will one day make it possible FOR Straw and Blunkett etc to trip up factional Labour rival Ed Miliband by pointing out things like that - but that's when they'll start doing it.
Something would have to occur to make mainland Irish people stop marking Bonfire Night and where then pointing that out to dopey Essex fish-market workers would bounce them into YOUR Political camp - but what could that potential future event be?
49 - (The Sixsmith Missile) Snubs For A Faction During Cabinet Reshuffles
(This theory can be checked to see if it is actually true in point of fact by
tabulating out all of the Tory and Labour re-shuffles post-9/11 against any
immediate community trouble in the aftermaths of them and WHO at Westminster
triggered that community trouble if anyone there did that via a BIG sudden
When a leader of the 2 Main Parties has a (Shadow) Cabinet) reshuffle, IF a faction isn't promoted in it, members of that faction get into a hissy-fit etc (and that is compounded by any snub repetition in subsequent reshuffles), and they start causing trouble for their own Party leader - motivated by either vengeance OR as a sign to the leader of what any future snubs during subsequent reshuffles will lead to.
The most viable way to trigger such trouble for the leader post-9/11 is to start a major row with Moslems - PROVIDED that the reshuffle hasn't coincided with a situation where ranting at Moslems would `backfire' against that faction.
(e.g. If David Cameron is BASHING Ed Miliband and simultaneously reshuffles and snubs Thatcherites, those Thatcherites CAN'T then undermine David Cameron within the Tory Party at large via a big rant at Moslems - because that big row would DISTRACT away from Cameron bashing Miliband - and so would be seen by other Tories as "helping" Labour. But if the snub during the reshuffle does NOT coincide with a situation like that then the snubbed Thatcherites WILL rant at Moslems. See all that? Well the dopey Police don't).
50 - (Air Hockey) Tricking The Dopey Police By Exploiting Their Proven Ignorance Of Two Wild West Film Plots
When it comes to Moslem trouble - some of the concocting algorithms of Jack Straw, John Reid, and David Blunkett etc essentially mirror plot scenes in 2 Western films, or reveal Police ignorance of those film plots - in the movies Winchester 73 and El Dorado.
(Number 10 in this list - the non-routine travels of Tom Bradby (ITN),
Nick Robinson (BBC News) and Adam Boulton (Sky News) also shows off their
ignorance of the remake of Rollerball - where an aspect of that movie plot is
paralleled by that situation - where a floored fighter is caught on film in
circumstances where he wouldn't normally be filmed at all)
e.g. in El Dorado where James Caan recognises that the significant thing about what he has just been told is NOT what has been said - but WHO says it to him - and John Wayne FAILS to notice that until prompted by Caan.
So when Jack Straw rants about Veils in front of the police, they only notice WHAT is said and NOT who says it (and when etc).
i.e. the routine Police psyche on the matter isn't that of James Caan in El Dorado - but is more like that of John Wayne in the film.
That police ignorance might not be useful to a bad guy though;
e.g. a Police officer knowing that the house made of bricks in The Three Little Pigs fairy-tale WON'T be blown down by the wolf, despite the earlier fate of the straw and wood ones, might know that fact merely as of right rather than via any actual familiarity with that fairy tale - brick houses are simply far more sturdier than wood or straw ones anyway - so it doesn't necessarily follow that Police failures over Psephology means they have or haven't seen the 2 films.
i.e. dopey Police NOT noticing any further paralleled plot-points from the 2 films when also deliberately translated into real-life wouldn't be certain to work due to Police witnessing of the film plots but not noticing the trap parallels - they simply might not have seen either film but MIGHT spot any paralleled plot.
(So any trickery by a criminal or terrorist would probably work best against those Police officers who HAVE seen those 2 films but HAVEN'T spotted Jack Straw's concocting - those officers could be tricked in a BIG way by terrorists and criminals. And we DO at least know that Police officers have NOT spotted Jack Straw's concocting)
The salient points are these;
A. Can `transplanting' certain further sub-plots from El Dorado and Winchester 73 specifically assist terrorists or criminals in some new or added way above what terrorists or criminals already achieve via their existing methods?
B. Can terrorists or criminals somehow viably and routinely ascertain whether a Police officer has or hasn't seen El Dorado and Winchester 73 - and do that without arousing suspicion?
(I believe that El Dorado is essentially a remake of Rio Bravo and so it might not be easy to ascertain each time - especially as John Wayne starred in both films - i.e. if you described El Dorado to a Police officer might they mistakenly recollect Rio Bravo as the movie in question and vice-versa?)
C. So you are a terrorist or criminal. You know you can roundly trick any Police officer who HAS seen either El Dorado or Winchester 73 or both. Even assuming all that AND that you can ascertain that info from officers - HOW could you be reasonably certain that WHEN you played the trick, it would be against one of THOSE officers and not some other Police officer where the plot then wouldn't work?
(So it would have to be at night or on Christmas Day etc when they are generally fewer officers around anyway and where you'd know that most if not all of those officers HAVE seen BOTH films. That scenario would present the BEST chance for the plan).
e.g. could a Moslem extremist somehow just contact a Mosque to stage innocent "Film Nights For The General Community" etc over time - you'd show some Moslem films etc but ALSO other films - including THOSE 2 (under the false guise of giving the Film Nights a wider feel to the community etc) - and invite the Police along.
Afterwards you'd then know that ALL Police officers who attended will have seen THOSE 2 films - and a bit of general discussion afterwards with them would confirm or not if they noticed the relevant scenes.
To be on the safe side, you'd then WAIT for Jack Straw etc to do his trouble concocting routine again - if those Police officers then all FAILED to spot that blatant concoction by Straw DESPITE having just seen the 2 films, it means that the coming tricks by you the terrorist/criminal will work on those same officers.
(And one scene in question in El Dorado involves lawmen being lured into a fatal ambush)
51. (The Sixsmith Missile) - a counterfactual explanation for the recent rise of UKIP
(January 2015) With a General Election looming and UKIP likely to figure highly in it, community trouble IS a strong possibility leading up to Polling Day (and the chances of community trouble lessen the less that UKIP are a factor)
So knowing when UKIP will be a factor in General Elections and when they won't be is useful - ESPECIALLY if the accepted wisdom explaining UKIP's current popularity is in fact INCORRECT.
So the fawning Bradby, Boulton and Robinson etc essentially give THIS explanation for UKIP's current popularity - issues about Immigration have NOT been dealt by the 3 main Parties with and have been ignored - hence UKIP - yes?
Read me this riddle then;
In 2006 about 600, 000 Poles came here all at once. UKIP then said the same number of Romanians and Bulgarians would come in 2014 - and nothing like that then happened.
Yet tabulate out the respective Opinion Poll ratings of UKIP from 2006 to 2014. The pattern you'd expect (if merely related to the issue of Immigration) would be a big rise in 2006, and then in 2014 a little higher still.
Yet that is NOTHING like the pattern of UKIP's score from 2006 to 2014 if you tabulate it out.
Oh, and explain this too - August 2011 - Police shoot ONE black person, and seemingly every other black person sets every furniture shop on fire etc - and UKIP stays nowhere in the Polls throughout - the same UKIP whose fortunes are "due to the issue of Immigration" then - eh?
THIS is mainly what has led to UKIP;
The Tories used to the be on the Right, but moved to the Centre when being on the Right kept losing elections - so the dopey Thatcherite faction who think that Gay Marriage causes flooding in Somerset etc are now voting UKIP.
Labour meanwhile used to be in the Centre (and also appeasing its Manning Wing faction), but moved to the Left because it was fed up with being led by a grinning empathising actor who invaded whatever countries Rupert Murdoch told him to - even if he won elections. People who used to vote for Phil Woolas and Hazel Blears in Labour are now voting UKIP.
So when the Westminster factional "tectonic plates" in the 2 Main Parties adjust themselves again will decide the fate of UKIP - and if Thatcherites take over The Tories again, and the Blairite/Manning Wing axis takes over Labour again - that will be it for UKIP.
Those of you who think that UKIP is linked to Immigration outright will pull the wrong `lever' when trying to deal with UKIP.
(i.e. Show me David Blunkett chasing Maxine Carr to the absolute ends of the Earth again - and I'll show you the end of UKIP up north)
52. The Police sometimes "bury bad news" themselves - but somehow still can't see the implications re community trouble of other organisations (Westminster) which do that.
(During the Phone Hacking malarkey note how the Police and Murdoch were
sometimes swapping employees - e.g. Police officers were retiring to join The
News Of The World etc. That is because the Police and media often follow the
same Public Relations algorithms so can easily swap between those careers)
So, as infamous Spin-doctor Jo Moore showed with 9/11, you can "bury bad news" (on a very busy News Day put out a piece of inconvenient news - it won't be noticed).
The Police often do the SAME thing (e.g. when the Charlie Hebdo massacre occurred in Paris in January 2015 the Metropolitan Police simultaneously leaked out that they'd been stealing the identities of dead babies for undercover officers again) and as Jo Moore previously dictated, that news wasn't really then noticed.
It is a known and established pattern by the Police if you check (quite a few organisations do it actually).
So given that, you THINK that Number 1 in this list (about when Jack Straw WILL start rows about Veils and when he WON'T) would be easily understood by officers because it is essentially the `reverse' of that known principle - but they don't.
Of course that leads to a possible Conspiracy Theory - were the Police DENYING the idea about Jack Straw because acknowledging it risked ruining their OWN use of such tactics?
During the Harassment trial I was secretly trying to establish that - the Police didn't know that of course.
(So when the dopey unwitting clowns started their alterable tape running and started providing Statements etc - they didn't know that I was trying to establish or prove that possibility).
I am satisfied that the Police ARE merely utter clowns - their media dept uses Psephology themselves but common or garden officers simply CAN'T see the abstract concept when applied abstractly to other organisations.
There's also the fact that as a former officer I knew myself that the Police don't routinely study Psephology at Westminster as a way of predicting trouble - when the Police circulate internal warnings of looming community trouble the FACTORS are openly stated in the bulletins. The Police knowledge of Politics as a factor is very basic when stated in the bulletins - e.g. if the National Front were standing for election in Lozells etc.
(The plan was to deliberately "corner" Police Officers in the Witness Box on the record etc about whether they thought Jack Straw was as likely to cause an argument about Veils when The Tories weren't arguing about Europe as when The Tories were arguing about Europe. Although that particular plan was foiled over Relevancy issues enough evidence was gained indirectly to PROVE their dopiness rather than conspiracy)
It DID become apparently too that the Left-wing affiliations of some Solicitors meant they were reluctant to drag the issue of Jack Straw into a Criminal court-case where the point risked publicly denying an obvious point with most lay-people seemed to understand at will.
Just one further point - it CAN still be Harassment of the Police to give the Police information which is USEFUL to them.
(i.e. so PROVING that Jack Straw is indeed LESS likely to cause Veils rows at times of Tory rows over Europe was ruled legally irrelevant beforehand - hence it couldn't become part of the case re the direct questioning of The Police)
The evidence Statement actually gained from the unwittingly Police wasn't about Jack Straw - but DID concern Chancellor George Osborne and Prime Minister David Cameron, re when they brought up Scottish Independence when not an immediately relevant point but as a mere arbitrary move in late 2011.
That's enough from the Police to prove the point - if really involved in some grand conspiracy they certainly wouldn't have implicated the Prime Minister of the day - they'd have known to blank the whole thing regarding references to Westminster
53. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Allegations concerning Afzal Amin in Dudley
(March 2015) So the allegations are - that he conspired with The EDL so that they'd pretend to march there, he'd then pretend to stop them, and would claim the credit for no march taking place. And also that he tried to get the Muslim Public Affairs Committee to ATTACK him, knowing that any witnessing swing-voters would back HIM in the resulting row.
So far, so Psephology.
(That second tactic certainly predates 9/11 and Moslems etc - for a start off in the 1975 Common Market referendum the pro-Europe campaign massively cited that Tony Benn, Ian Paisley, and the National Front wanted to leave - knowing that massive citing would "bounce" loads of undecided voters AWAY from the withdrawal camp merely based on WHO was publicly saying to leave The Common Market. The tactic is at least THAT old).
In a Moslem context probably the best example of that 2nd tactic was John Reid storming that Mosque in 2006 whilst dragging Tom Bradby and Adam Boulton along - KNOWING the Moslems would attack him back and the prominent journalists Bradby and Boulton there present would prominently feature the row and loads of swing-voters would thereby see it and support Reid.
Key points being these though;
A - BBC News, ITN, and Sky News didn't massively elaborate on the plans regarding exactly how they'd actually work when stating them.
(i.e. certain aspects of the cynical use of Psephology are seen as SO obvious by them when they occur that they feel NO need to detail them to the viewer since the viewer easily understands the tactics too they assume - which the viewer probably does actually - it seems that the dopey Police often DON'T understand such obvious tactics though)
B - It seems that the dopey Police DIDN'T countenance what Amin was up to DESPITE being directly involved in ongoing matters - no surprise there then since we know their ignorance of Psephology.
(In a fully-fledged game of `Air Hockey' the Afzal Amin tactics WOULD have been stated to the Police in advance as potential occurrences, but weren't already on this list etc since it was an unlikely scenario in terms of trying to be quickly vindicated merely over the principle - a Moslem Tory conspiring with The EDL etc - it wouldn't be the first potential example which you'd cite to the Police simply due to its obscure and rare nature in terms of its participants)
It is one more to the list of PROVED examples of such things regarding Moslems anyway;
Jo Moore's 9/11 email
Phil Woolas during the 2010 election
Afzal Amin now
So Westminster certainly can't deny that it ever happens.
54. The "Clint Eastwood Strategy" explained
The particular problem with our Politics in recent times broadly stems from
Watergate in the US in the 1970's - the Republicans were chucked out in the
aftermath, and Ronald Reagan was then trying to figure out how to get in for
them, and so in truth (essentially on the back of a fag-packet) he cobbled
together an ideological coalition which would defeat the Democrats - a coalition
of in truth unrelated things.
e.g. what has the belief in the rights and wrongs of trading Derivatives on the financial markets innately got to do with the rights and wrongs of being Gay or not?
The answer of course in truth is - nothing.
But in (existing) Politics they ARE linked in that broad ideological way.
(i.e. Liam Fox and Janet Daley etc have simply "photocopied" the back of Ronald Reagan's "fag-packet" en masse onto Britain - and thereby have linked things which AREN'T actually directly linked - and then attempt to govern like that)
On the other side we see the same thing - e.g. the committed atheist George Galloway suddenly all pally-pally with Moslems!
So the ENTIRE game of UK Politics has to be restructured somehow - because the existing game will NEVER work - it bunches things together as directly relevant to each other when they actually AREN'T.
(Being gay, financial trading, foreign policy, education policy etc - e.g. so surely a nation like Switzerland would create different ideological links within those things than we do?)
For me the conclusive proof of UK overall failure re the current set-up came after 9/11;
We had ONE set Moslems trying to kill us (Al Qaeda from Jordan and Egypt etc), Westminster then became fully involved in the overall situation, and now we have TWO sets Moslems trying to kill us (still Al Qaeda from Jordan and Egypt etc and now some of the Moslems who live here too)
(The Fraser Nelson argument that UK Moslems were trying to kill us just as much before 9/11 as now is as bogus as his ideological argument that trading Derivatives and being Gay or not are somehow directly linked too)
How to force the needed change then?
(It will have to be decisively "gate-crashed" into the current Political system of course - and interlopers like The SNP and UKIP etc will never have enough Seats at Westminster to do it) - so HOW to viably do it?
The "Clint Eastwood Strategy" explained (from a conundrum involving a blocked bridge which that actor solves in The Good The Bad And The Ugly movie)
So - I'll explain the "Sixsmith Missile" first as the concept begins with that;
Labour always attacks Tory, and Tory always attacks Labour back of course (and also Labour fights Labour and Tory fights Tory in internal party factional fighting too)
Post-9/11, it has become possible for Westminster fighters in those sets of battles to use Moslems as a `proxy', by attacking them at opportune times in order to defeat Westminster rivals.
e.g. if Boris Johnson massively rants at Moslems on the next quiet News Day just after David Cameron has come a cropper over something, it will enhance his OWN chances of being the NEXT Tory leader.
(Because that way Tory activists - typically hardly the most liberal of people of course - will gleefully see Boris BASHING Moslems JUST after they've seen current leader David Cameron mucking something up - if YOU were a Tory activist who would YOU then pick as Tory leader instead? Boris Johnson - right?)
Note in those circumstances though how Boris attacks Moslems IRRESPECTIVE of their actual behaviour immediately beforehand - Cameron's behaviour will have dictated the timing.
(Like Jack Straw of Labour attacking them over Veils - Moslem women hadn't just started wearing them NOR had there been a sudden increase in them doing it when Straw suddenly ranted - so clearly OTHER factors than their actual behaviour often govern the TIMINGS of the attacks on Moslems)
Boris Johnson will erupt Moslem-related trouble in Uxbridge (his Constituency) on the next quiet News Day just after David Cameron comes a cropper over something - so a PREDICTION there of the TIME and the PLACE of some FUTURE Moslem-related trouble.
(Remember that in the aftermath Moslems in Uxbridge and their property will either be attacked and/or they will attack others in Uxbridge and their property etc)
The dopey police however (who are ONLY watching Moslems and not specifically the ones in Uxbridge anyway - and in any case are NOT observing Tory factional fighting for the TRUE trigger of it) will be COMPLETELY caught out by that trouble when it starts.
So a prediction made beforehand would simply be vindicated in front of the witnessing police then (and they'd subsequently ADOPT the predicting method) - Boris would be forced OUT of Politics in disgrace at that point - PROVED to be deliberately concocting trouble with Moslem here whilst sending UK troops to die in Afghanistan etc fighting genuine Moslem trouble? He'd have NO chance of surviving that scandal if found out.
So, you can "block" that opportunist avenue for Boris to attack Cameron.
(That concept is coined "The Sixsmith Missile" of course)
Imagine that you can also viably and on demand blow a hole in the "lines" of David Cameron which Boris could then charge through and decisively exploit re the Tory leadership, but which DIDN'T involve Moslems - WOULD Boris then charge on THAT front instead?
(Remember that his preferred "Moslem front" method of attacking Cameron has already been blocked by "The Sixsmith Missile")
i.e. can you force and manipulate the perennial Labour v Tory, Tory v Tory, and Labour v Labour battles at Westminster to be constantly fought on `fronts' created by YOU and which ALWAYS serve the undisputed Public Interest and thereby channel the fight AWAY from other `fronts'?
(It'd become FAR easier to placate Moslems overall once all and sundry at Westminster weren't attacking them just to get ahead in rivalries there)
THAT abstract Political concept is coined - "The Clint Eastwood Strategy".
"They'd fight their stupid war somewhere else." - the relevant line from The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly - you simply decide where that "somewhere else" is.
(Surely teachers and other clever Public Sector workers etc would join in such a strategy once demonstrated? If nothing else motivated merely by the desire to keep Westminster ideologues like Michael Gove perennially off their backs when currently him attacking them can be used for benefit against his rivals - and then freely weakening the Political `lines' in places where it would then assist them by forcing a usable "front" for Gove to open up there instead if in the undisputed Public Interest - and often it would be)
The envisaged game when played out;
Michael Gove etc would try to bash teachers etc when trying to serve either a Tory v Labour or Tory v Tory battle at Westminster
Teachers etc would construct a "Sixsmith Missile" in response (a way of viably blasting Gove OUT on demand on him making his ideological move).
Teachers would then viably blow "holes" in Labour/Tory "lines"- such that if Gove then attacked THERE instead it would serve the undisputed Public Interest AND his own Westminster career too - essentially FORCING Gove down THAT alternative route (Gove protesting to the public etc wouldn't work and he'd be SHOVED down the alternative route).
Seeing that example, OTHERS would then copy it (would flock to it in fact) - simply to keep Westminster off THEIR backs too.
Thereby BLUDGEONING the whole of Westminster forever down Public Interest paths and causing continual HAVOC in their "lines" to achieve that.
It certainly would remind Westminster of their TRUE role - and we'd get no more of Jack Straw causing community havoc OUTSIDE Westminster just whenever HE feels like it.
If the dopey Police or MI5 etc try to throw a spanner in the works etc to protect Westminster from the ongoing havoc;
A. Everyone would SEE the Police and MI5 etc thereby acting directly AGAINST the Public Interest.
B. Since the Police and MI5 etc themselves often have Westminster on THEIR backs too - wouldn't they just join in with the game?
(The Internet and Desk Top Publishing revolution are just 2 examples of things which can be used to BLAST viable "holes" in Labour and Tory `lines' at will)
55. The concept of "Senna/Prost Politics"
(Much of "Nailing" is derived from abstract observations of Formula 1 motor-racing. The pit-stop tactics used in it and how they can force false predictions etc)
When John Reid "stormed" that Mosque, and when Jack Straw ranted about veils, EVERY police force in the country would have made (retrospectively unalterable) electronic Log entries from VERY senior ranking officers if not chief constables.
At a guess, I'd say that THIS is the sort of (simplistic) thing which will be revealed if those Logs are ever publicly examined;
How much trouble they expect to erupt in their force area as a result of Straw/Reid ranting, what The Koran says about Moslem women wearing veils - etc.
i.e. VERY simplistic and linear views on the matter - basically following the "accepted narrative" on the issue of Moslems
Now - look at this;
Cheryl's Birthday: Singapore's maths puzzle baffles the world - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32297367
(The solution is given)
Now compare it with THIS (much simpler) level of Mathematics - already given in Number 3 in this list;
A. If the Tories are led by a Thatcherite and Labour by a Blairite, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - BOTH Westminster leaders will RANT about it.
B. If the Tories are led by a Thatcherite and Labour by someone from the Old Labour faction, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - only the Thatcherite leader will RANT about it.
C. If the Tories are led by a Cameroon and Labour by a Blairite, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - the Blairite leader will RANT about it only IF Labour are LOSING in opinion-polls at the time. In the event of any such massive ranting by the Blairite, the Cameroon will then instantly MATCH it and join in.
D. If the Tories are led by a Cameroon and Labour by Old Labour, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - NEITHER leader will RANT about it
i.e. the dopey Police CAN'T even see that SIMPLE Mathematics on the Moslem issue, but see the MORE powerful Mathematics (in that Singapore puzzle) which we COULD in theory be bringing to the Social Cohesion fight?
Presently with Moslems though we have the governing algorithm of garbage Janet Daley v garbage Ken Livingstone and then EVERYBODY - including The Police - just following the "accepted narrative" of that linear algorithm
Gordon Murray was the guy who created Trumpton, Camberwick Green, and Chigley - right?
Well if you know Formula 1 properly, you'll know the abstract-thinking other guy called Gordon Murray
If a car DELIBERATELY stops halfway through a race, it CAN'T possibly defeat a car which doesn't stop at all in the race.
And every fortnight weekend in the Summer we see that linear-thinking decisively proved wrong.
Gordon Murray wasn't prepared to just follow the "accepted narrative" of existing Formula 1 - so he created his own, and it worked, and thereby forced the other teams to follow if they wanted to beat him
(Alain Prost v Ayrton Senna - two drivers with different styles during a stoked internal rivalry which made their McLaren team win nearly EVERY race - that is the battle which we need to "gate-crash" into Westminster)
And exposing Police ignorance to a WIDE audience should now do that.
56. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Will Fleet Street's ability to decisively hit BACK when attacked by the Police mean the Police in future now being tempted to harass ONLY those who CAN'T hit them back (e.g. Moslems) whilst leaving Fleet Street alone?
Note an innate power imbalance in the country - when Fleet Street is attacked by the Police, it hits back HARD at the Police in an influential manner - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6416685/Sun-journalists-cleared-of-charges-as-CPS-boss-accused-of-witch-hunt.html
Which of course is not an option available to Colin Stagg, Christopher Jeffries, the Moslems raided at Forest Gate etc - they CAN'T decisively hit BACK at the Police like that when attacked by them.
("Nailing" concepts such as the coined "Air Hockey Game" were designed to even out that innate power imbalance in the country - originally designed to act against Murdoch endlessly acting as "kingmaker" in General Elections).
In the abstract game, ANY citizen (referred to as "The Nailer" in the abstract concept) can decisively and viably WALLOP Westminster on demand and on on the SAME scale as Black Wednesday etc PROVIDED their actions are in the UNDISPUTED Public Interest.
Anyway though - the PRESENT position is this;
Will the Police NOW be tempted to LEAVE Fleet Street alone (whatever the circumstance) but CONTINUE to harass powerless others (e.g. Moslems) - based on the knowledge that any continuing wrongful arrest and harassment of the powerless WON'T have meaningful consequences?
And will anyone in the Police themselves be looking out for that possibility?
57. (The Sixsmith Missile). Note every St George's Day how Rupert Murdoch
newspapers rant about the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 etc not showing any themed
shows when Rupert Murdoch's OWN channel (Sky 1) DOESN'T show any either -
wouldn't it if Murdoch REALLY cared about St George himself?
(The suspicion of course is that the ranting in Murdoch newspapers - which CAN sometimes trigger community trouble - is just about wrong-footing Ken Livingstone etc RATHER than any innate celebration of St George etc)
e.g. Here is the Sky 1 evening schedule for St George's Day 2015;
5pm, The Simpsons
6:30pm, The Simpsons
7pm, The Simpsons
7:30pm, The Simpsons
10pm, Wild Things
11pm, The Simpsons
11:30pm, The Simpsons
So a TV schedule absolutely over-flowing with Englishness there - not.
(The Simpsons is set near Chicago - not Chichester).
So, spot the St George ranter in a Murdoch newspaper every year (easy), but spot the actual St George themed shows on a Murdoch TV channel each year (hard).
(Given events in the last few years you'd have thought that the dopey Police would've by now spotted ALL such anomalous factors re community trouble and Rupert Murdoch - clearly they haven't though)
You'll find the same anomalous pattern re St George TV shows when Daily Express newspaper owner Richard Desmond previously owned Channel 5 - again unnoticed by the dopey Police.
58. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Media inconsistencies concerning Biker Gangs who cause trouble and Moslems who cause trouble
(Moslems disgruntled about being treated differently by the Media from OTHER
people who cause trouble WOULD be a factor in further community trouble - so is
a factor the Police should know about)
Some Moslems cause trouble of course, and some Biker Gang members cause trouble too (Google for the many examples of both doing it) - we can limit the issue to Moslems causing trouble DUE to being Moslems and ditto Biker Gangs (so ignore cases of a lone Biker who breaks the speed limit or a Moslem spraying graffiti about their favourite band etc - we are talking about trouble caused in the name of Islam or due to Biker Gang loyalties and rivalries etc - that type of trouble).
However of course MOST Moslems DON'T cause such trouble, and ditto again Biker Gang members - small numbers of other Moslems and Biker Gang members cause trouble saying it is in the name of innocent Moslems and Bikers too.
So you'd expect the SAME media algorithm towards Moslems and Biker Gangs to
occur in the aftermath of such trouble incidents - but that is NOT what happens
if you notice
(e.g. When some Moslems cause trouble COMPLETELY innocent Moslem leaders are pursued by the media and are challenged to condemn those other Moslems etc - but leaders in the Biker Gang community are NOT challenged and pursued like that by the media after violence involving that group though - why not?)
It should happen with BOTH or happen with NEITHER
59. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Unwitting televised clues re Moslem trouble from
Superintendent Springer (Metropolitan Police) re the Hatton Garden jewels raid
(The Police can be routinely caught out in unguarded moments - coined The Intercepted Pass - they are much too careful at other times - so like that senior officer in Glasgow unwittingly letting it slip on live television that he's on first name terms with Scottish reporter James Matthews of Sky News whilst that Christmas bin lorry tragedy unfolded there. So we can see there a cause how the corrupt Phone Hacking relationship began between Police and journalists - they clearly come to be on routine first name terms with many of them. How many Police Officers are YOU on first name terms with?)
So re Superintendent Springer and the Hatton Garden jewels raid - his thin-skinned remarks about the police being called "Keystone Cops" by the media - a useful confirmation there in an unguarrded moment. He thinks that he's retaliated against the media claim by making quick arrests etc - but in fact he's unwittingly given something useful away;
The Police DON'T like being mocked by the media (they are VERY thin-skinned in that regard actually - as Springer has now publicly confirmed for us on television)
It means this;
Look at this online LONG list of factors in Moslem trouble - over FIFTY things which the Police CAN'T see - so each one a "Keystone Cops" potential.
So establish just ONE to be true, and the media etc can then bash The Police with ALL the others. - unless the Police REALISE themselves that there is a list of such of things and start examining and acting on it FIRST (hence I've placed the list online so everyone can make a beeline for it when the time comes - including the Police).
i.e. Westminster will be smacked and Smacked and SMACKED - by The Police (frantically trying to head off a media, disgruntled Moslems, and New Age people armed with the long list too) - surely?
Jack Straw WON'T start a BIG row with Moslems on Budget Day - knowledge which can now trigger an "avalanche" onto Westminster
(The CORRECT move by that dopey policewoman was this - WAIT until Budget Day to see if Jack Straw indeed doesn't start a major Moslem row then and CHECK all the past Budget Days post-9/11 too - does the asserted community trouble pattern fit? No big Moslem rows on Budget Day. The silly cow didn't understand the abstract game - so much for that idea that women in uniform think more abstractly than their male uniformed counterparts - they are as dopey as the men)
60. (The Sixsmith Missile) The News Agenda - its daily construction and its relationship with community trouble
(This has actually been sent to BBC Radio 4)
On a typical day - study all of Fleet Street such as The Sun, Mirror, Star, Times, Express etc - see the typical INCONSISTENCY in their running orders
(e.g. a story on Page 1 of The Daily Mirror might be on Page 16 of The Sun and
ignored completely by The Daily Express etc)
But then also on a typical day - see BBC News, ITN, and Sky News etc - see the typical CONSISTENCY in their running orders (e.g. a story which is Item 1 on BBC News might be Item 2 on ITN and Item 1 on Sky News - then Item 2 of BBC News might be Item 1 on ITN and Item 3 on Sky News etc)
e.g. the Jack Straw/Veils row - it was Item 1 on all three TV news networks - for several days running.
(A constant unwitting clue about how such things are decided comes from the Newspaper Review shows at 10.30pm and 11.30pm on weekdays on BBC News and Sky News - the journalist reviewers really are hit and miss when stating what WILL top the News Agenda the following day when given early selections of all possible stories which will)
That pretty much mirrors what SHOULD happen with BBC News, Sky News, ITN etc but actually DOESN'T.
(DIFFERENT groups of senior journalists from each of BBC News, Sky News, and ITN all see stories coming in from The Press Association, Reuters, and their own journalists etc all globally - but they somehow all come up with broadly the SAME running order EVERY single day? The process MUST be concocted in some way)
It seems that the BBC Radio 4 Today programme at 6am each day DECIDES The News Agenda - and the rest of BBC News, ITN and Sky News then all copy that (certainly on quiet News Days where no further breaking news then alters that anyway) - but of course that leaves the question of HOW Radio 4 makes the daily decisions in the first place.
(It is suspected that senior political journalists at BBC News, Sky News, and ITN are bribed by Westminster with Knighthoods and Peerages etc in order to get their stories placed high etc - that WOULD explain the obviously concocted running orders - especially the SUDDEN major Westminster rows which flare up with Moslems like Jack Straw/Veils)
i.e. Moslem women did NOT start wearing Veils in 2006, Veils were not factors in the 7/7 bombing in 2005, and there had been NO sudden increase in Veil wearing in 2006 either.
So when Veils famously became major news in late 2006, it was CLEARLY simply down to Jack Straw's continuous ranting becoming Item 1 in The News Agenda for ages (via the fawning Radio 4) - and community trouble then erupted of course.
Given that community trouble is often triggered MERELY by The News Agenda then (e.g. Jack Straw with Veils) it means in theory that The Police can be FORCED into making Radio 4 reveal the overall algorithmic construction process to them in The Public Interest (and thereby to all of us too).
FORCE The Police to UNDERSTAND that abstract fact (how the clearly concocted News Agenda triggers community trouble), and in theory they'll then approach Radio 4 themselves, DEMANDING to know the algorithms and justifications for when Moslems become news - given the community trouble which usually results - because what Moslems actually do and WHEN they do it is clearly NOT the only factor at play - Westminster just arbitrarily forcing them into the News (via Radio 4 with ITN etc then fawningly following) is CLEARLY a factor too.
One useful piece of advice to give The Police on the
issue would seem to be be this;
IF Radio 4 brings up Moslems at 6am, community TROUBLE is coming later THAT same day, but you'll have a few hours from 6am to be ready for it - and you'll have to split your resources with whatever trouble Al Qaeda, ISIS and The EDL etc might already be independently planning for that day.
IF Radio 4 DOESN'T bring up Moslems at 6am, community TROUBLE via THAT (Westminster) source isn't coming later THAT same day, giving you a few hours from 6am to be ready for anything else regarding crime etc - and you WON'T have to split your resources with whatever Al Qaeda, ISIS and The EDL etc might already be independently planning for that day.
That IS useful daily knowledge gained VERY early at 6am IF you are the Police - but alas they are too clueless to see it though - and so are continually caught out DAILY by that Radio 4 algorithm.
61. (Air Hockey) - How to hack FBI, CIA, and West Midlands Police computers - in theory
(June 2015) This issue has been in the news recently - the Yanks are blaming the Chinese - but how difficult is it?
Being able to view the website "source code" WOULD aid the endeavour (it gives you clues and info etc about the hosting computer at the end of a website) and just right-clicking the mouse displays it to you.
Here is some of the dopey FBI website html source code;
<style type="text/css" media="all">@import url(http://www.fbi.gov/portal_css/FBI%202010%20Theme/ploneCustom-cachekey-5570b8b557b2e5a987a871b7512c4120.css);</style>
Here is some of the dopey CIA website html source code;
type="hidden" name="site" value="CIA"><input type="hidden" name="output" value="xml_no_dtd"><input type="hidden" name="client" value="CIA"><input type="hidden" name="myAction" value="/search"><input type="hidden" name="proxystylesheet" value="CIA"><input type="hidden" name="submitMethod" value="get"><input type="submit" value="Search" class="submit"></fieldset></form>
Here is some of the dopey West Midlands Police website html source code;
<header><div id="container-brand"> <a href="http://www.west-midlands.police.uk"><img class="header-crest" src="/img/system/header-crest.png" width="55" alt="West Midlands Police - Homepage" title="West Midlands Police - Homepage"/></a> <div class="brand"> <h1>West Midlands Police</h1>
Simply right click on the webpage, and then click "View source" - that simple.
So a website to help them then - How to Hide your Source Code - www.htmlgoodies.com/beyond/article.php/3875651/Web-Developer-Class-How-to-Hide-your-Source-Code.htm
(How did the Edward Snowden and Wikileaks malarkeys occur? Wonder no more)
62. (The Sixsmith Missile/Air Hockey) WHY is there typically more ranting at Moslems by Fleet Street on Sundays than on Weekdays?
(The chances are that the dopey Police have NOT even noticed that there IS more ranting at Moslems by Fleet Street on Sundays than on Weekdays - let alone have tried to figure out why)
Probably the best example is from the 3 Mirror Group newspapers (especially as they are all ostensibly liberal publications) - Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Sunday People - typically there is MORE Sunday Mirror and Sunday People ranting at Moslems combined on ONE Sunday than in a WHOLE month of Daily Mirrors!
One possible explanation which people might put forward to explain that anomaly;
Sunday is the chief Christian day, and so anti-Moslem sentiment in the country is accentuated then.
Typically though, there are MORE Sunday Mirror and Sunday People sex stories on ONE Sunday than in a WHOLE month of Daily Mirrors too!
(i.e. If actual Christianity per se was the key driving factor in overall matters then that wouldn't be the case - typically there would be LESS sex stories on Sundays than on Weekdays in Fleet Street - not more)
And then this - THINK of the people whom YOU know who are always ranting at Moslems. Are THEY typical actual church-goers themselves? (Largely no they won't be) - and then, do the typical Christian church-goers whom you DO know always ranting at Moslems? (Again that will largely be a no).
I mean, Jack Straw - that famous Christian church-goer, and the Archbishop Of Canterbury - that famous anti Moslem rabble rouser.
See what I mean?
So anomalies galore there.
So whatever the explanation is re that disproportionate Sunday ranting at Moslems by Fleet Street - the dopey Police certainly aren't looking into it - because they haven't noticed.
(Presumably then there is MORE Moslem-related community trouble on Mondays than on say Thursdays etc if that disproportionate ranting by Fleet Street is actually influential? How many UKIP-type boring people essentially bring the News Agenda into work with them every day as conversation and thereby cause arguments and trouble with colleagues etc?)
IF a Fleet Street newspaper franchise (e.g. The Daily Mail/Mail On Sunday) gets
a Jihadi John video or other such useful and relevant terrorist info etc on a
Weekday, DOES it run the story immediately, or WAIT until the next Sunday and
run it THEN?
(I think what happens is this - if the info arrives on say a Thursday, the Fleet Street newspaper WON'T run the story until the SUNDAY because that would generate MORE sales overall - in keeping with the stated maxim that ranting on a Sunday is better for Fleet Street sales than ranting on a Weekday. In fact they MIGHT even be waiting until Sundays to print if stuff actually arrives on Mondays!)
I think that dopey MI5 are NOT being told immediately by Fleet Street when they have potentially useful info, but are being made to WAIT until Sundays - so obviously a potentially dangerous delay by Fleet Street there re sending MI5 the info or making them aware of it by printing.
If a Jihadi John video etc arrives in a Fleet Street office on a Monday, and Fleet Street then holds onto it until alerting MI5 on the subsequent Sunday there is clearly an issue there. The ONLY genuine Fleet Street justification would in theory be if the delay somehow assists in some extra way which either balances out or over-rides the potential danger caused by the delay - but how can that be? Certainly Fleet Street should be challenged on the issue to see if MI5 concurs with any stated justification given the stated risk in not publishing immediately but waiting until Sundays.
Remember that it is Number 62 on the list actually by dint of MI5 etc not knowing about that Sunday/Weekday ranting difference by Fleet Street.
Friday is the chief Moslem day, Sunday is the chief Christian day - so ranting about Moslems to a (post) Christian population chiefly on a Sunday is counter-intuitive IF claiming that the ranting is driven ONLY by the actual ACTIONS of Moslems.
(I've not tabulated out all Moslem terrorist attacks re the days of the week they have occurred - but consistently ranting at Moslems on Sundays MORE than on Weekdays does NOT fit such a pattern if merely spontaneous ranting. e.g. 9/11 was on a Tuesday and 7/7 was on a Thursday - ranting on the subsequent Sundays MORE than on the following Weekdays would clearly expose the concocted pattern - but check the Weekdays and Sundays after 9/11 and 7/7 and you'll probably find that Fleet Street did that - it ranted MORE some days after those attacks than immediately after them simply due to Sundays being a better day to rant for some reason)
I'm not quite sure WHY there is more Fleet Street ranting on a Sunday (though of course Fleet Street itself will be louse with people who DO know the reason).
One of the journalist newspaper reviewers on Sky News and the BBC News Channel might unwittingly let slip the reason on any Saturday night - always worth watching to see. Whatever the reason is, the dopey Police and MI5 etc aren't aware of it anyway.
The seemingly typically Fleet Street weekly schedule;
Mondays - a slow News Day, so old hackneyed stories tend to be endlessly re-visited (the Princess Diana car-crash, The McCanns etc)
Tuesdays - not known yet
Wednesdays - the "Wednesday Witches" all appear (bitchy female columnists)
Thursdays - not known yet
Fridays - not known yet
Saturdays - stories about TV dominate even more than usual
Sundays - a weird "vicarious" anti-Christian sentiment day dressed up as backing Christianity actually. (Sex. Jealousy concerning the successful lives of others. A hatred of minorities and women, etc). e.g. Imagine an Essex fish-market worker who says gays are "Un-Christrian" - but then buys a Murdoch Sunday paper with women's bare breasts in it, and how Fleet Street caters to that hypocrisy over Christianity and Sundays.
i.e. WHAT is it about say WEDNESDAYS specifically which makes women particularly bitchy (chiefly about other women) ?
Answer of course - NOTHING.
So CLEARLY the day on which the `Wednesday Witches' all appear is NOT governed by some actual aspect OF women (either the columnists or the readers), but by some particular aspect OF Fleet Street.
(The convention seems to have started from an arbitrary Daily Express decision taken some decades back to print Jean Rook's regular bitchy columns on Wednesdays - it is currently transparently unknown why that particular day of the week was chosen above say Tuesdays or Thursdays etc though. Her bitchy column was a big success and so the other newspapers in Fleet Street started copying the idea as not to lose sales to The Daily Express. Certainly a big Wednesday rivalry then existed with bitchy Lynda Lee-Potter at The Daily Mail - who may have been the first "Wednesday Witch" actually. The both started around about the same time anyway and CERTAINLY on the same day of the week - Wednesdays)
You'd be checking national Anorexia appointments and enquiries etc as a "Sixsmith Missile" with that issue
i.e. are such appointments enquired about by women MORE on Thursdays (just after the Wednesdays Witches have all appeared and been influential over body image etc) than on say Tuesdays (just before the Wednesdays Witches all appear and their weekly influence has therefore waned most) ?
Surely there is no obvious other reason why women would have image problems MORE on a Thursday than a Tuesday if not down to the `Wednesday Witches' ?.
In fact I'll contact The Priory etc with that theory - to see if anyone wants to do the research in an academic way.
More about the `Wednesday Witches' algorithm here;
2008 article - Unleashed and unrepentant: Fleet Street's bitch goddesses. They're the Wednesday Witches, the queens of mean; the female columnists from whom no woman is safe. But they operate under a strict code of conduct, says one leading exponent
(I'll send that article to The Priory etc - it explains much of the `Wednesday Witches' algorithm)
Anne Robinson was a "Wednesday Witch" previously (at the Daily Mirror in the 1980's) - and then became the presenter of Watchdog. She then went to the US and re-invented herself in The Weakest Link. In fact I devised this satirical nursery rhyme about that;
(To the Undertones song called Wednesday Week)
Here she comes, bringing Watchdog to our homes
To viewers, too many to mention
Here she comes, bringing Watchdog to our homes
But failed to notice, Maxwell nicking her own pension
But Wednesday Witch the Yanks now love you
As if you being a Wednesday Witch
Never happened at all
The actual Undertones song - www.youtube.com/watch?v=FswDoZKFXVc
The (dopey pair) Archbishop of York John Sentamu and former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey have certainly even been tricked by the complex algorithm over Sundays in Fleet Street - Sentamu writing regular columns in Murdoch newspapers, and Carey siding with Murdoch against Max Mosley.
(Max Mosley and Harvey Proctor - on Judgement Day I'd stand with them over the dopey tricked archbishops Sentamu and Carey any day. Mosley rejected his father's extremist politics to govern a sport whose first black world champion was then British like himself, and the attacked Proctor single-handedly dismantled Operation Midland in retaliation against all the Met's reactionary horses and all the Met's reactionary men - a God who rejects them is a God who doesn't get my backing)
63. (Air Hockey) - Another risk with Cobra meetings.
When Cobra meets (after major terrorist attacks), fawning `knighthood chasers' like Norman Smith at BBC News often state beforehand WHERE and WHEN that upcoming Cobra meeting will be.
We then see prominent Cabinet members etc travelling on the ROAD or PAVEMENT to the Cobra meeting at the time and place which was given!
i.e. dopey Norman Smith unwittingly tells you WHEN and WHERE to ambush Cobra members with a bomb or sniper etc.
Admittedly dopey Norman Smith etc only ever gives about 2 to 3 hours notice - so hard in those circumstances to plot a big ambush - but in fact why not plot with the original attacker who forces the Cobra meeting in the first place? If you arrange the DAY of the original attack with him, Cobra will inevitably then meet later the same day - so you can be waiting and armed in the Whitehall area to start with - dopey Norman Smith etc will then unwittingly tell you exactly WHERE and WHEN to ambush Cobra - remember that some of them will arrive there by road and pavement. Get a sniper with a rifle - easy.
(The "star-struck clowns of Cobra" concept seems to be revealed again there. First of all no Cobra member has spotted that - and a member of Cobra from MI5 etc pointing THAT out anyway would inconvenience Philip Hammond or Michael Fallon etc - forcing them to use a hidden back entrance etc - inconvenient especially given how useful publicly travelling to a Cobra meeting is regarding Tory Party factional fighting by Cabinet rivals. So WOULD the risk of being seen as an over cautious nuisance - thereby risking being thrown out of Cobra - PREVENT those MI5 members from speaking up EVEN if seeing that risk?)
64. (The Sixsmith Missile) How Westminster ranting after trouble has occurred is sometimes stalled (or accentuated) by coinciding leadership contests in the 2 main Parties
The rioting in Lozells in October 2005 occurred during the latter stages of a Tory leadership contest (where David Cameron ultimately defeated factional rival David Davis), whilst the Tunisian beach massacre in June 2015 occurred halfway during a Labour leadership contest (where candidates Liz Kendall, Andy Bunham, Yvette Cooper, and Jeremy Corbyn came from a range of Labour factions).
For essentially as long as anyone can remember, The Tory Party has had within it many leading people who RANT about a multi-ethnic Britain etc (John Townend, Enoch Powell, Norman Tebbitt etc) - right?
Views which when expressed get concurrent opinions from many other Tory Party members - again, right? Certainly before UKIP came along and drained the Tories of many such people anyway.
Black people start fighting Asian people in Lozells (in October 2005) - that would normally be Psephological `manna from heaven' for many Tories - surely? (This was mere months after 7/7 in July 2005 too).
But IF you remember and noticed (and the dopey Police didn't) NO senior Tory figures really started ranting about that Lozells trouble at all - how it vindicated Enoch Powell etc.
(Tories DO sometimes say that Enoch Powell has been vindicated of course - but counterfactually they DIDN'T say it THEN)
Meanwhile - Labour;
They were in govt when 9/11 (and then 7/7) happened - they wanted 90 Days detention without trial, invaded Afghanistan, invaded Iraq, Jack Straw ranted about Veils, John Reid `stormed' a Mosque. THEN they started blocking the bombing of Syria when Ed Miliband was leader etc etc etc - and they WEREN'T exactly shy in TELLING us all of that at the time of course.
Then some Moslem bloke guns down a load of British tourists in Tunisia - and the Party overall effectively says NOTHING at all about it!
(e.g. where is all the big Labour ranting/comment on Newsnight and Sky News etc one way or the other? There ISN'T any - we've had about 15 seconds of Harriet Harman and that's been it)
i.e. these SUDDEN mysterious silences which we get from the 2 main Parties (during their leadership contests notice) when normally major unfolding events would cause them to be all over the air-waves ranting and raving about them.
Here is what I think is going on;
e.g. That Tory contest in October 2005 - by the time of the Lozells rioting later that month, it was CLEAR that David Cameron was going to win, and also it was clear that he WOULDN'T then favour out and out Thatcherites when it came to promotion in the Party etc - which massively ranting about Lozells WOULD have signposted you as - hence the silence.
Meanwhile the Labour leadership contest now;
If say Liz Kendall says that she'll now bomb Syria (side with Cameron to do it) if she wins, and Andy Burnham says he won't, and YOU in Labour go on Newsnight and Sky News etc and start massively ranting that we SHOULD - and pesky Andy Burnham then wins - your chances within Labour of a good job off him etc vanish. Right?
Again, hence the present silence - that way you can side with the leadership winner over Syria when you know WHO it is.
That'll get you a decent Labour Party job - eh?
i.e. Their OWN career chances at Westminster govern whether senior Party figures rant about major events or not during leadership contests.
65. (The Sixsmith Missile) Post-9/11 - do Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, and Jeremy Corbyn etc have a `cosy pact' NEVER to agree with Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie etc on anything - especially Social Cohesion and vice-versa?
i.e. does that `cosy pact' exist between ALL of them? And therefore will agreeing with EITHER side over Social Cohesion AUTOMATICALLY bring failure due to the constant innate resistance of the other - and in truth resistance from both - due to that `cosy pact'?
(Post-9/11 it is said that you CAN'T get all British people to agree over Social Cohesion - however I think that you CAN achieve that if abstracts govern the responses - though it seems that firmer abstract moves are then needed later - i.e. mere mass agreements over initial aabstracts isn't enough in itself)
Another piece of evidence is that decent arguments which AREN'T part of THEIR rigid ideology are constantly ignored BY them all.
(That seemed to occur in the 2015 General Election - the seeming `utter clownery' of Ed Miliband - e.g. where chancellor George Osborne had said on the record just before the 2008 financial crash that HE'D spend as much money as Labour, but then later blamed Labour over-spending for causing the crash, with `dopey'' Ed Miliband NEVER pointing out the earlier Osborne remarks during the campaign despite Jack Straw for one urging him to say it. Was THAT utter clownery and stupidity plain and simple - or just Ed Miliband sticking to rigid ideology in the election campaign concerning Finance?)
Ask Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, and Jeremy Corbyn a question - and they'll NEVER agree with Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie on anything (try it and see).
(Strongly suspected on witnessing events when pop-star Madonna was trying to adopt that little African boy - rather like in the 1983 US film War Games, the suspicion is that a secret "Game Theory" computer exists or similar mechanism - governing the ideological responses of prominent political people).
In Game Theory, two sides essentially NEVER agree by themselves - and only annihilation of one or both can ultimately occur and therefore force agreement - the Cold War eventually came to be governed by such powerful but grim machinations.
e.g. the very real risk of mutual nuclear annihilation during The Cuban Missile Crisis ultimately leading to the destruction of Communism in the Soviet Union to be replaced by Capitalism based on the US model.
"Nailing" by contrast set out to achieve the SAME type of outcomes, but WITHOUT the innate grimness risk of Game Theory ever being a reality.
e.g. In "Nailing" the grimness is forced into view (or forced to be envisaged) BEFORE the actual endemic fruition of it - and SO can then be avoided long before it actually occurs - a powerful concept if the ONLY other path available is then the large scale fruition of the grimness.
(Like concocted Moslem trouble being PROVED outright in the `Sixsmith Missile' concept - the PROVING in itself forces the KEY response and reaction from people - revulsion and a desire NOT to side with the Politician who concocts it. Siding with a Politician who transparently does it can only ever deliver a grim outcome of course - for one that Politician can then FREELY keep deliberately concocting subsequent trouble with Moslems KNOWING that they'll KEEP being supported).
i.e. that is the `Welcome To Ulster' outcome (itself a deterrent once envisaged). A risk which mainland British people can always be relied upon to reject on sight.
e.g. Ultimately, the Unionists in Ulster were forced to cite solely the democratic argument and entirely abandon anti-Catholic bigotry as their key message when addressing mainland British people regarding Ulster and justifying its existing status - and neither side in Ulster could draw ordinary Dutch or Italian people or those govts etc into their stupid Protestant v Catholic war either.
(By comparison - note how current events are drawing all and sundry Sunni and Shia Moslems flocking to fight each other in Middle East areas and with the Saudi and Iranian govts acting as proxies in events too. I don't think that the difference in those 2 sets of Sectarian dynamics - Ulster not drawing Dutch and Italians in but The Middle East machinations drawing all and sundry Sunni and Shia in - is down to innate differences between the Christian and Islamic faiths. I think that cold hard Politics governs both dynamics - and therefore the answers lie in Politics and not Religion too)
That said - asking deeply Religious but ordinary Dutch, Spanish and Italians etc of a certain age what they made of the Troubles in Ulster and why they ignored them and weren't drawn in (nor acted as terrorist proxies against the other key Sectarian nations in Europe etc) IS a question worth asking them - to see what their potentially valuable answer actually is.
But as I say I think the answer to that question would be counterfactual, and not explained by innate differences in psyche between "sophisticated" Christians and "unsophisticated" Moslems - which always sounds like cultural arrogance to me - and the fact that Hazel Blears, Carole Malone and Phil Woolas etc from `whippet racing land' all say it only confirms my argument as far as I'm concerned.
(Ian Paisley used to hold major rallies in Ulster with the Dutch flag waving prominently at them - what was going on there and why did it cease long before the Good Friday Agreement? Was it just Dutch govt fear that the trouble might spread to there and so they vetoed its use? That doesn't explain why all ordinary Dutch people acted as they did over Ulster though - ignoring it instead of then attacking Italians and vice versa etc. I seem to remember that Paisley did get into some sort of major trouble with the Dutch govt at some point when trying to drag them into things in Ulster? WHY did THEY and ordinary Dutch as key Protestants reject him and his Sectarian arguments though?)
The abstract test then;
Housing - Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, and Jeremy Corbyn - Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie - NEVER agree - yes?
Finance - Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, and Jeremy Corbyn - Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie - NEVER agree - yes?
Health - Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, and Jeremy Corbyn - Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie - NEVER agree - yes?
Education - Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, and Jeremy Corbyn - Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie - NEVER agree - yes?
Crime - Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, and Jeremy Corbyn - Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie - NEVER agree - yes?
Social Cohesion - Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, and Jeremy Corbyn - Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie - NEVER agree - yes?
A. Does the issue of Social Cohesion really still DIVIDE communities in the country because Sikhs are different from Buddhists are different from Jews are different from Christians etc?
B. Does the issue of Social Cohesion still DIVIDE communities in the country because the key people whom we primarily take our cues from on the topic (Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie) - NEVER agree on IT simply because they NEVER agree on ANYTHING?
Proved by that list of other things above which they don't agree on too - Social Cohesion being just another thing (from many) which they don't agree on.
So I think that the answer to that question is the counterfactual B, not the A which you hear from the fawning `knighthood chasers' on ITN and Sky News etc - but what is YOUR answer?
(If you still think that the answer is A to that - then explain why a Sikh's bank account in this country doesn't differ from a Hindu's bank account but Ken Livingstone and Janet Daley etc ALWAYS innately disagree over Finance?)
Doesn't siding with Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn OR Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie over Social Cohesion actually GUARANTEE subsequent failure over it?
(Because agree with Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn - and Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie will innately and constantly resist and argue. And agree with Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie - and Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn will innately and constantly resist etc).
So BOTH possible outcomes there automatically result in NOT producing Social Cohesion - and actually never will.
So ONE initial key to Social Cohesion then is this - don't agree with Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, and Kelvin McKenzie over how to achieve it.
(If you SEE that abstract point and also answered B instead of A in Part 1 above - and it seems possible that all sophisticated people outside of an Essex fish-market will answer B rather than A when asked that abstract question - then I got you ALL to agree over Social Cohesion - sorted. Essex won't matter on the topic when everybody else realises they are dummies who can't see abstracts and who keep being fooled into endless failure over Social Cohesion by Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Littlejohn, Janet Daley, Kelvin McKenzie)
66. (Air Hockey) - No ranting by MI5 case A
(Given that MI5 etc often runs off to The Daily Telegraph etc to publicly bleat about something, it IS legitimate to point out spotted circumstances where they DON'T publicly rant IF that failure to rant by them when they demonstrably should be doing in theory might damage National Security. i.e. if they NEVER rant about anything then they could in theory counter argue that forcing them to publicly rant at any point would alter their existing thought out security pattern - that argument is destroyed though by MI5 running off to The Daily Telegraph to publicly rant about something every so often. Perfectly legitimate then to point out any circumstances where they DON'T rant but SHOULD rant when it comes to guarding National Security)
The US federal govt sometimes carries out military exercises locally somewhere in the US (via The Pentagon of course), but is actively being disrupted for blatant partizan motive by local US politicians (under pressure from bizarre voters) mobilizing the local military to actually DISRUPT the exercises !!!!!
My. God. Miss. Jones - (I thought this was SURELY incorrect when I heard about it - but it is actually TRUE !!!!! - I thought the American Civil War ended in 1865? Not to some utterly bonkers Texas governor though by the look of it)
If you or I actively disrupted the military exercises of say The Royal Marines etc (if they were sent to Birmingham from London to train etc) - WHAT would MI5 etc do or say about it? A lot - exactly.
And if Birmingham City Council actively disrupted the military exercises of The Royal Marines etc (if sent to Birmingham from London to train etc) - WHAT would MI5 etc do or say about it? Exactly.
(I'd have thought post Lee Rigby that your feet wouldn't touch re the counter actions of MI5)
However, note the stunning SILENCE by MI5 etc regarding THIS astonishing current malarkey in the land of our biggest ally The USA;
(August 2015) The Pentagon are currently carrying out routine military exercises in the US (codenamed Jade Helm) - and the (dopey and no doubt dinosaur-denying) distrustful Politicians of Texas have ordered the Texas State Guard to chase them about etc - “To address concerns of Texas citizens and to ensure that Texas communities remain safe, secure and informed about military procedures occurring in their vicinity". !!!!!!!!!!
More - www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/13/jade-helm-texas-monitor-military-training-government-plot-
(It is like the MoD sending The Royal Marines to Sutton Park on exercises and Albert Bore thinking it is some secret plan to occupy Birmingham etc and so sending the Mercian Regiment along to spy on them and disrupt it etc! So suddenly Albert Bore doesn't seem so bad!)
And our `great' Westminster and MI5 etc on the topic of our clown-like biggest ally turning one part of its military on the other like that? Tumbleweed
When Blair was slagging off Corbyn the other week why did none of the "knighthood-chasers" put it to him?
More - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theories#Exercise_details
("Recently closed Walmarts are to be used by the US military to stockpile supplies for Chinese troops who will be arriving to disarm Americans of their guns" - and yet Blair followed such Right-wing conspiratorial clowns into a war)
Cameron says that he'll challenge conspiracy theories etc - see if though (typical Tory) he only bullies people in inner city Britain on the topic, and then bows and scrapes to all the "You were in WW2 in 1940" Yanks when it comes to acting on conspiracy theories spread by dopey governors in Texas.
67. (Air Hockey) - No ranting by MI5 case B - surely this nation can't really nation-build in the lands of others if all of its peak viewing time Network TV is forever clogged up with Celebrity Shepherding etc instead of foreign issues?
(There are various explanations of why 9/11 occurred - but one theory is that in the full on race for Saudi oil every bonkers issue in that foreign land was suppressed or hidden from US public view since a major inconvenience - then one day a rather bonkers aspect of Saudi Arabia decided to violently pop its head around the US door and suddenly come fully into sight. There are other theories about the causes of 9/11 of course but that one certainly has some merit to it)
Jack Straw - remember him? When Afghanistan was invaded by us (kids - ask your dad about it - there was this man called Tony Blair who said that he'd sort the entire planet but only sorted his own bank balance) Jack Straw said we could sort Afghanistan as a country, then sort the next Third World country, then the next Third World country, etc - thereby sorting all Poverty and all Terrorism over time.
All very laudable, but it hasn't come to pass of course - it fact it got hopelessly stalled after just 2 attempted goes post-9/11.
Why the failure is a complex issue overall - but surely ONE factor is the fact that RATHER than be concerned about Afghanistan on a day to day basis, the peak viewing time Network TV schedule in the UK was and is perennially taken up with Britain's Got Strictly Big Brother Baking etc? The viewer is the voter, after all.
(It got to stage where Noel Edmonds and Simon Cowell were saying that they'd make TV shows about why we invaded Afghanistan - I ask you. And even then neither of them actually did)
We don't get MI5/MI6 etc running off to The Daily Telegraph ranting about that foreign policy vacant peak time Network TV schedule though when surely they should - so on with the celebrity shepherding etc then which leads to everyone taking their eye off the ball
68. (The Sixsmith Missile) - how fawning "knighthood chasers" at BBC News, ITN, and Sky News incentivise contentious community announcements from Westminster entering in the News Agenda
(A good example of this was David Blunkett over Date Rape - but John Major previously provided endless other examples. Blunkett said that he'd sort Date Rape once and for all - but of course didn't. The pledge ANNOUNCEMENT topped the News Agenda though, but the subsequent failure DIDN'T. In fact even when failure on the issue was actually cited much later, Blunkett's earlier pledge was NOT cited and never is even today when the issue routinely arises. In truth Blunkett was totally derailed by his cowardly silence when Jordan was ostensibly stringing Peter Andre along - or not - for night after night at peak viewing time in front of literally millions of potential Date Rape jurors and NO-ONE knew her motives for sure. As ever Fleet Street was adamant but divided on the topic. WHAT was she up to? Stringing him along or really interested? She had EVERYBODY guessing - Blunkett SHOULD have intervened but the coward DIDN'T - for me he lost the Date Rape argument at THAT point - in any case the pledge utterly failed certainly)
(August 2015) Some non-entity minister has said he'll clamp down on illegal immigration. He TOPPED the News Agenda with the pledge, but if he fails, that announcement will place MUCH lower down (so the standard fawning knighthood chasing algorithm by BBC News, ITN, and Sky News there)
i.e. a contentious announcement in a community sense can FREELY be made by senior figures at Westminster, because any subsequent failure will place LOWER in the News Agenda than the initial pledge.
If pledges and their subsequent success/failure were always made to occupy the SAME item number in the News Agenda though, there would be LESS incentive to invent ones which will fail certainly.
(i.e. a pledge over illegal immigration which places at Item 1 should subsequently lead to the reporting of the ultimate failure/success of the pledge ALSO running at Item 1 later on. Ditto any Westminster pledge actually. The current position where a pledge runs at Item 1 but subsequent failure then runs at Item 6 etc due to the "knighthood chasing" by the senior journalists involved just incentivises the making of contentious Westminster pledges on community matters - and we need the dopey Police to SEE that ongoing situation)
69. (The Sixsmith Missile) The abstract relationship between The News
Agenda and the Despatch Box Combination at Westminster
(A good example of this next one is to compare a typical News Agenda when a Blairite leads Labour and a Thatcherite leads The Tories, with when Old Labour leads Labour and a Cameroon leads The Tories - news events like a volcano erupting in Mexico etc though are NOT governed by such Westminster factors of course - clearly showing therefore some level of overall concoction in The News Agenda since a Mexican volcano shouldn't really have its presence or place in the running order altered by such things IF The News Agenda is as spontaneous as its creating journalists constantly make out)
During PMQ's at Westminster - the Tory leader fights the Labour of course. WHATEVER topic is chosen for the fight (by the Opposition leader) then BECOMES news MERELY by dint of it having been the PMQ's topic - and is then examined by the fawning "knighthood chasers" at BBC News etc.
But the topic can be anything, and CERTAINLY which factions run the 2 Main Parties at the time can govern the topic and the attack.
(e.g. Jeremy Corbyn will demand tough measures over Moslems from David Cameron? No he won't - but Blair did that with Cameron quicker than a Parmalat-Brabham. Corbyn will pick OTHER topics to attack Cameron over - which THEN will become news themselves).
The resulting News Agendas reflect the DIFFERENT Westminster confrontations then. i.e. so The News Agenda EXAMINATION of an issue will CHANGE mere by dint of those clashes, even though the issues themselves WON'T have altered - AND that has a knock-on effect with OTHER News Agenda items covered that day.
(e.g. if Corbyn attacked Cameron over Housing, and by coincidence the BBC had a Housing report done anyway, they'd then run THAT report alongside the Corbyn attack - but would run it LOWER or not at all if Corbyn attacked Cameron over say Trident - so the PLACE in the News Agenda of the Housing report CLEARLY will have been affected by what Corbyn chose as a topic to attack Cameron over - destroying the spontaneous argument re News Agenda creation).
Remember that Corbyn v Cameron would produce DIFFERENT clashes from Blair v Cameron.
That dependent news creation process MUST occur too at some point with news reports which trigger community trouble - hence the abstract link which the dopey Police haven't seen.
70. (The Sixsmith Missile) If Labour picks Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, it will EMPOWER Thatcherites in The Tory Party to erupt Moslem trouble (for several reasons).
Remember that putting only potential Westminster scenarios on the Police list
even if they don't then (immediately) occur IS valid due to reasons like this;
e.g. if the notorious soccer violence rivals West Ham Utd and Millwall might end up in the same league in a following football season, beforehand late during the current football season the (Metropolitan) Police WOULD at least make some early initial plans for the following football season when the 2 teams might play each other twice, just in case, even BEFORE the various Relegation/Promotion vagaries then resolved the situation for sure.
Ditto with Villa/Blues, Notts Forest/Notts County, and Dundee/Dundee Utd etc etc with other police constabularies up and down the country
Obviously local rivals like Liverpool and Everton have perennially played in the SAME league for decades with no real sign of a change yet - so can you see how DIFFERENT overall planning (both short-term and long-term) would occur over time by Merseyside Police on that matter than say the Metropolitan Police with West Ham and Millwall?
i.e. the online list simply concerns all Moslem trouble factors which MIGHT occur at some point but which the dopey Police AREN'T aware of at all, when by contrast the dopey Police AREN'T like that (or a less like that) with soccer violence and nightclub trouble etc.
The key point with the list is to highlight the LACK of Police understanding over some Moslem trouble factors (compared to other things the Police deal with which produce trouble).
Also, remember that concepts like `The Sixsmith Missile' are based on Westminster perceptions concerning Moslems and the role that cynically attacking them post-9/11 can play in dictating the outcomes of Westminster (factional) power struggles, rather than any certain prediction that the perception is true regarding the aftermath.
(i.e. Opinion Polls are indeed sometimes wrong and Labour didn't subsequently lead in Opinion Polls immediately after the Veils rows when the Newsnight focus group indicated that if Labour suddenly concocted a Moslem row it WOULD then lead - Westminster simply does what it THINKS will work even though of course sometimes it fails to actually work)
The idea is to understand Westminster perceptions and what IT is being "told" to do by Psephology - and see too how the dopey Police CAN'T see it.
71. (Air Hockey) - When Jewish people in Britain or their property etc are (physically) attacked merely by dint of them being Jews, there are TWO possible explanations as to why that has occurred;
(This was added BEFORE the major Ken Livingstone row on the matter)
A. That they actually are Jewish as a people (i.e. that the attacker believes
some bizarre conspiracy theory about Jews etc and maliciously and
opportunistically singles out Jews whom they mistakenly believe to be all part
of some wider conspiracy against non-Jews).
B. That the attacks are governed by anti State Of Israel sentiment - e.g. due to its widely reported (mis)treatment of The Palestinians - Jews wherever they live and whatever their own personal views (about Palestinians etc) are then often erroneously seen as the personification of Israeli govt policy at any given time (or are personified as the State Of Israel itself) by attackers.
(This one on the list was placed here BEFORE Ken Livingstone's bizarre
comments about `Hitler
being a Zionist' etc in 2016 and the big row which followed - so note how the
dopey police didn't `head off' that big row by seeing this concept first)
I say that the dopey Police understanding the difference is important - and that if they don't, they should.
(I don't think it is acceptable to say that if someone say smashes a Jew's window believing them to be part of some global Jewish conspiracy etc is the SAME as someone who smashes a Jew's window due to Israel's treatment of The Palestinians just because the property damage is indeed the SAME and is a breaking of the SAME law - which again it is - as I say understanding the DIFFERENT motives can be key over dealing with the violence)
One reason why the motive difference matters;
Someone smashing a Jew's window believing them to be part of some global Jewish conspiracy etc is likely to do it during prominent calendar times for Jews (say during Passover or Yom Kippur etc), whereas someone smashing a Jew's window due to Israel's treatment of The Palestinians is likely to it WHEN that mistreatment flares up - and those occasions are typically at DIFFERENT times.
e.g. Israel CAN'T per se launch military attacks based on a timetable of Jewish festivals, because that timetable knowledge is transparent to its enemies. In fact it was once actually caught out like that on the battlefield - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Lack_of_Israeli_pre-emptive_attack
i.e. if wanting to GUARD Jews from attacks (which is the job of the dopey Police obviously) you'd want to know WHEN most attacks were likely - thereby making understanding the different motives key because that does (or might if studied) govern the typical timetable of attacks and the amount of them.
Psephology `says' that deliberately creating confusion over the motive SUITS certain people.
(I'll give one example - a Right-wing Israeli in govt actively garnering Holocaust sympathy if Jews are physically attacked due to an Israeli govt attack on Palestinians can cynically use that enhancement sentiment to DEFLECT attention FROM the ongoing Israeli govt attack on Palestinians - and in fact I say that cynical practise often occurs by Israeli govt ministers).
Actually though that seems to be common Psephological knowledge to most ordinary UK people - but DO the dopey Police understand it? They might not
Another reason why it matters though;
People like Richard Littlejohn, Jeremy Clarkson, and Kelvin McKenzie etc - THEY actively create that motive confusion too over anti-Semitic attacks.
And they are ALL past or present Rupert Murdoch employees.
i.e. even after Phone Hacking, are the dopey Police STILL being fooled by Murdoch lackies - this time over criminal attacks on Jews in the country?
A 2007 satirical cartoon on the topic
Ascertaining whether the Police understand such satire is key, or whether it dumbfounds them when everyone else will understand.
72. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Has a "news grid" been used in the past (and is
one still being used?) to instruct the ruling Party at Westminster WHEN best to
rant at Moslems - and have "neutral" Civil Servants been constructing such
things WITHOUT first telling the Police (and leading Moslems) in advance when
and if the big ranting is coming?
This issue arose from abstract observations of the factional Labour Party fighting which was dogging leader Ed Miliband in late 2014. In his Sunday newspaper column, John Prescott unwittingly gave away how a "news grid" had helped Labour make major public announcements in the past.
Trying to find out what a "news grid" is at Westminster isn't easy (Google it and see) - but I've eventually found this newspaper article which explains how the process worked during that Prescott era in govt;
i.e. Jack Straw WON'T rant about Veils on Cup Final day etc - it confirms the
suspected logic at work.
Remember the "Sixsmith Missile" logic - you have to predict WHEN Jack Straw will erupt Moslems when the key triggering factor is NOT actually Moslems but some sort of rivalry at Westminster.
Which days WILL he pick? Which days WON'T he pick?
Predict correctly - and the Police will witness a vindicated prediction which otherwise will catch them out - THEIR subsequent reaction is the key. The expected move is that they'd want to know HOW the prediction was made - and THAT would expose the concoction at work.
(See the "Winchester 73" nature of John Prescott there over National Security? When openly stating that a "news grid" existed he can't see that he's unwittingly setting The Labour Party up for a BIG "ambush" by the Police - this from a clown who started a war in Iraq - so it explains a lot. His "prism" over National Security is just to do what wrong-foots Tories in front of dumb Essex fish-market workers)
See how the "news grid" mentioned in that newspaper article
was routinely constructed by a named Civil Servant - who are supposedly
Politically neutral and serve The State not political parties.
Gridding the free/best days available for the ruling Party at Westminster to massively rant at Moslems without then giving prior notice to the Police and leading Moslems etc is a BREACH of that Civil Service neutrality?
(Tony Blair was the prime minister when Jack Straw ranted about Veils and John Reid "stormed" that Mosque)
73. (Air Hockey) - Prematurely announcing the drone strikes on British renegades in Syria has merely warned the remaining others like Jihadi John etc?
Obviously Cameron coming out with that Syria drone malarkey just as Labour picks its leader (Jeremy Corbyn) is down to Psephology - I'll give just one piece of proof;
If the timetable of the attacks and his announcements was MERELY about National Security (as Cameron falsely claims), you WOULDN'T effectively `warn' Jihadi John and the remaining others at large that a "hit-list" exists and that some on it have ALREADY been taken out - Jihadi John etc now KNOWS for certain that his existing hiding measures are NOT enough.
The BEST procedure would be to take out each terrorist figure WITHOUT giving any clues about lists or their existing precautions and how good they were at hiding etc (but of course in terms of Psephology that isn't the ideal procedure as it won't wrong-foot Corbyn as much as announcing the start of the policy now - so SEE how Cameron has put Psephology ABBOVE National Security?)
A parallel is the Baedeker Raids in WW2 in early 1942;
The air-raid targets were places like Exeter, Bath, York, Norwich etc - but German radio propaganda broadcasts unwittingly gave away the full intended list after the FIRST city attack - which obviously undermined the subsequent attacks on the others (they could then be guarded better etc).
How would the defending RAF etc otherwise know that it wouldn't be London, Cardiff, Aberdeen, Belfast etc next? The Germans narrowed it down themselves about what would soon happen.
(Surely you'd only announce the full intended target list after the LAST raid occurred?)
But that isn't what Cameron has done - he's potentially undermined the subsequent hunt for the others - they now KNOW they are being very actively hunted and that their existing hiding precautions WEREN'T good enough
It might not matter in a practical sense of course - but it is a National Security risk.
As I say, if you know what to look for, you an see the fraud by Cameron - he's just trying to wrong-foot Labour in front of the Swing Voter.
74. (The Sixsmith Missile, Air Hockey, CIA/Malaysia Strategy etc) Re MI5
ranting at Universities - I'll pass this online `Police list' to any named
MI5/The Tories/UK Govt have just tried the old hackneyed tactic of shoving named Universities into the News Agenda in an attempt to intimidate them
Any University so named will be contacted by me personally, and made aware of my (now VERY long) online `Police list' - where the items marked "Air Hockey" show how MI5 (and The Tories) themselves are damaging National Security whilst simultaneously accusing Universities of doing it.
75. (Air Hockey) How To Obtain The DNA Of The US President
(2015) The US Secret Service goes to VERY extreme lengths to prevent the DNA (and fingerprints) of the president from being obtained by anyone (e.g. if he drinks from a glass in a public area it is kept and cleaned or destroyed etc).
More - www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/02/cia-secret-service-guarding-obamas-dna/
And that isn't just true of the president who is currently incumbent Barack Obama either, it has been the case with many previous ones too.
So how to do it then? Well like this;
Pretty much 99 times out of 100, the president is either a (much lower profile) Senator, Congressman/woman, or Governor beforehand.
Barack Obama - a Senator in Illinois beforehand - defeated Senator John McCain and then Governor Mitt Romney to be president and remain so (and defeated then Senator Hillary Clinton before that)
George W Bush - a Governor in Texas beforehand (defeated vice-president Al Gore who was a Senator in Tennessee beforehand and then Senator John Kerry to be president and remain so)
Bill Clinton - a Governor in Arkansas beforehand (defeated incumbent George Bush Snr who had been a Congressman earlier and then Senator Bob Dole to be president and remain so)
etc etc etc
So like I say - whoever wins is a Senator, Congressman, or Governor before (George Bush Snr who was president from 1989 to 1993 was a Congressman who did many things in between but was never a Senator or Governor. I think that Gerald Ford was a Congressman immediately before being president in the mid 1970's - but see the link below where that seems to be rare - certainly the preceding Watergate had led to a tumultuous decision over who the next president should be and Ford was the eventual choice).
i.e. If I had discreetly taken Barack Obama's DNA (and fingerprints) in say 2006 when he was FAR less guarded Senator, it'd be JUST as much use to me NOW as if I took them today when he is very closely guarded as president.
Of course, I'd have to follow a LOT of Senators, Congressmen (and women), and Governors etc about to collect DNA and fingerprints from all of them, but a determined enemy State WOULD etc have the resources to do it - I believe that at any one time there are 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen/women, and 50 Governors.
(You'd find Senators and Congressmen/women etc often in Washington DC and that is where all the foreign embassies in the US are too - so you can see the viability of the idea building up there - over time foreign embassy staff could just follow them all into bars and discreetly swab their empty drinking glasses for saliva etc - you could get their fingerprints off the glass too).
As long as you kept every sample, it wouldn't matter that most of the process would be a complete wild goose chase of course, one DNA and fingerprint sample from the group WOULD be that of the (future) US president - and a rolling collection programme would work indefinitely. The US is overloaded with Safe Seats which rarely change hands like we Limeys are? That would make it even easier.
List of the Presidents of the United States by other offices held - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_other_offices_held
From that list it seems that not many Congressmen and have made the straight jump to president in the past, most have become Senators in between.
I believe that Donald Trump would've foiled the stated plot if he wins in 2016 (he subsequently did of course) - since he wasn't a Senator, Congressman, or Governor beforehand - and the 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot was likewise none of those too - but they are they are the exception rather than the rule. And in any case such people are closely guarded on immediately announcing their candidature? I think not.
It seems that the Ulster terrorist group The INLA figured something similar when killing Tory Airey Neave (the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) in March 1979;
Labour were in power (so the actual serving Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland was FAR more guarded than Neave) but a Confidence Vote had just
collapsed that govt. The Tories looked certain to win the resulting General
Election, but the heightened security given to an actual Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland did NOT guard Neave in time, since a General Election campaign
takes weeks to decide the winner.
(i.e. The INLA seemingly knew to get to him just 2 days after the Confidence Vote - so before the somewhat inevitable General Election outcome of a Tory victory could heighten the security around him)
So effectively they knocked out Neave with a pre-emptive strike while the guard was down at an earlier stage in his career than when he could become a relatively certain fully-fledged and fully-guarded threat in their eyes later.
(So what happened concerning subsequent General Elections re guarding the
Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland compared to guarding the actual
serving Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where the outcomes were more or
less certain beforehand? e.g. 1983, 1997, 2001 etc - and those where the outcome
was more vague beforehand - 1992, 2010, 2015 etc. Is the terrorist tactic still viable
then as in 1979?)
76. (The Sixsmith Missile) - `Traffic Lights' Tories and `Pelican Lights' Labour?
In Britain, normal Traffic Lights follow this sequence: red, red and amber, green, amber - red, red and amber, green, amber - etc
(And the Pelican Crossing is slightly different in both look and light sequence - red, amber, green, flashing amber - red, amber, green, flashing amber etc etc)
e.g. the Pelican light sequence -www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI3FiOf4rJI
Does the SAME type of thing (broadly) occur with the Tory Party and the Labour Party - regarding which factions the leaders come from over time?
i.e. is the Labour leader faction sequence this - Old Labour, Old Labour, Blairite, Blairite, Old Labour, Bennite - Old Labour, Old Labour, Blairite, Blairite, Old Labour, Bennite - Old Labour, Old Labour, Blairite, Blairite, Old Labour, Bennite - etc etc?
And is the Tory "traffic light" factional leader pattern broadly this one - Thatcherite, Thatcherite, Thatcherite, Cameroon, Cameroon - Thatcherite, Thatcherite, Thatcherite, Cameroon, Cameroon - etc etc?
(i.e. like The Tory Party and the Labour Party being similar in structure like a Pelican Crossing and Traffic Lights being similar - but their light sequences are slightly different - hence the coined name of the abstract concept - `Pelican Lights Labour and Traffic Lights Tories')
If those ARE the two broads factional patterns - it has implication for this already given concept;
(From concept Number 3 in this list)
A. If the Tories are led by a Thatcherite and Labour by a Blairite, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - BOTH Westminster leaders will rant and rant and really RANT about it.
B. If the Tories are led by a Thatcherite and Labour by someone from the Old Labour/Bennite faction, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - only the Thatcherite leader will RANT about it.
C. If the Tories are led by a Cameroon and Labour by a Blairite, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - the Blairite leader will rant and rant and RANT about it only IF Labour are LOSING in opinion-polls at the time. In the event of any such massive ranting by the Blairite, the Cameroon will then instantly MATCH it and join in.
D. If the Tories are led by a Cameroon and Labour by Old Labour/Bennite, and Moslems do some terrorism or other etc - NEITHER leader will RANT about it that much
(Obviously MORE additional community trouble erupts when say Combination A exists compared to D due to the different level of Westminster ranting in response to that "Constant" of Moslems doing some trouble themselves)
i.e. in theory you can call that factional "Despatch Box Combination" (Thatcherite/Old Labour, Cameroon/Blairite etc etc) LONG in advance by examining the "Traffic Light" sequence, and therefore know about that additional associated community trouble LONG in advance too
(e.g. if the Tories are being led by their 3rd Thatcherite in their sequence and Combination B already applies - then the NEXT Combination will be either C or D and not A providing Labour doesn't ditch its leader first)
Examining the issue further, with some examples;
When the Tories LOST the two 1974 elections, they moved RIGHT
When Labour LOST the 1979 election, it moved LEFT
When Labour LOST the 1983 election, it moved RIGHT
When Labour LOST the 1992 election, it moved RIGHT
When the Tories LOST the 1997 election, they moved RIGHT
When Labour LOST the 2010 election, it moved LEFT
When Labour LOST the 2015 election, it moved LEFT
i.e. They both seem to perennially but instinctively make the WRONG move after any single defeat, UNTIL a string of defeats seemingly BLUDGEONS them down the correct path and so to (eventual) victory.
e.g. when Labour were incumbent and lost in 1979 to the Tory Party - that clearly showed an Electorate moving Right - so why move LEFT in response? Nonsensical.
Similarly - when the Tories were incumbent and lost in 1997 to Labour - that clearly showed an Electorate moving Left - so why move Right in response? Again nonsensical
And here are successive examples - Labour were incumbent and lost in 2010 to a Tory Party but not outright - that clearly showed an Electorate moving partially Right - but Labour moved Left in response. They then lost in 2015 to the Tories even more, but moved even FURTHER Left in response to that!
It is as if each deluded Party thinks the Voter will have an `Epiphany' after just a few years and make the exact OPPOSITE spectrum choice from the one they've just made! And that DOES fit the bizarre logic forever stated by both (grass-roots resonators) Janet Daley and Ken Livingstone over time if you listen to them both - though of course NEITHER is ever vindicated in the immediately subsequent election until mere chance alone provides a better form guide than them over time
(See one reason why "Nailing" was initially invented? Two clueless Main Parties exist)
So the "form-guide" governed by responses to election losses suggests this;
Labour probably WON'T move Right much (to produce either Blairite/Cameroon or Blairite/Thatcherite) until after the 2020 election at the earliest - an election loss may likely produce Blairite/Cameroon or Blairite/Thatcherite though
The Tories WON'T move Right much (to produce either Old Labour/Thatcherite or Blairite/Thatcherite) until after the 2020 election at the earliest - an election loss may likely produce Old Labour/Thatcherite or Blairite/Thatcherite though
i.e. (the crucial bit which the dopey Police haven't noticed) if trying to work out between now and 2020 and the time immediately beyond WHEN petty rows about a teddy bear called Mohammad in Sudan etc WILL top the News Agenda or WON'T be in the News Agenda at all (thereby producing DIFFERENT amounts of community trouble when the rows occur), then you have got SOME sort of rough guide there, given that only during SOME factional Despatch Box Combinations does it happen.
The dopey Police aren't aware of THAT very abstract potential concept concerning predicting community trouble - so it is added to this online list
(See how that is a DIFFERENT type of Politics in terms of The Voter then having an additional way of dictating outcomes? Presently Labour picks its leader, the Tories pick their leader, and The Voter then just gets to pick either leader every 5 years or so from that very narrow choice of the 2 leaders thrown up by the vagaries of the 2 Party contests - and certainly Tory leadership contests can be very Byzantine processes indeed - and that's your lot as The Voter).
77. (Air Hockey) - Could studying Psephology have warned the SAS about Russian air-strikes on Syria earlier than the "Starstruck clowns of Cobra" actually warned them?
(October 2015) I wonder if some SAS members (fighting alongside the rebel Syrians fighting ISIS but now attacked by Russia) were caught out by those air-strikes? Russia did give the US some notice of the attacks - an hour or so I think - so in theory that was how long David Cameron had to warn the SAS to get out etc.
Could Psephology have warned them EARLIER though?
(e.g. when Putin saw the refugees causing overcrowding havoc in Germany and Hungary etc DID he figure that him then causing MORE refugees himself via a bombing campaign of his own would put pressure on the EU over Ukraine? "I'll then stop the bombing to decrease the burdening refugees if you lift the sanctions over Ukraine"? If so it meant that the Refugee Crisis when it started some weeks earlier could've warned the SAS in Syria over what Putin might be planning - it sounds plausible).
David Cameron can in theory counter though by a straight refusal to state anything concerning the SAS and whether they were warned by him and when etc - the accepted policy. In theory though the SAS could have been warned that the Russian attacks were imminent earlier than Russia itself said so.
("Starstruck clowns of Cobra" - it can be asserted that because MI5 clearly do NOT know how Psephology works in the UK, that equally MI6 do NOT know how Psephology works in Russia either. Further - the constant failure by both the Irish Garda and the PSNI to spot how the Drumcree march produces UNIFORM annual trouble IRRESPECTIVE of Psephology but on the UK mainland the annual Easter and Christmas produce NON-uniform annual major rows with Moslems DUE to Psephology suggests that ignorance of such abstracts is actually endemic in security services. That said though - Jo Moore's 9/11 email and John Prescott's unwittingly musings about "News Grids" DO show how Civil Servants know about Psephology - so maybe Civil Servants just aren't telling the Police and MI5 for some reason? That point can be pushed in the Public Interest of course).
78. (The Sixsmith Missile) Was the murder and mayhem across Ireland in the early part of the 20th Century (and the subsequent murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland in the latter part of the 20th Century) caused NOT just by innate arguments about Religion and Irish Nationalism etc of course, but ALSO a consequence of wider Victorians and Edwardians at Westminster just trying to wrong-foot each other? And does studying a 2015 era Westminster stuffed with SNP members give clues over that assertion?
(This one was explored after noticing a proudly stunt-pulling veteran Tory MP called David Maclean, now called Lord Blencathra, who seemed to assert that he could wrong-foot ANY Westminster process via his stunt-pulling IRRESPECTIVE of who actually ruled at the time etc - and who seemed to take great pride in that seeming ability despite being a fairly non-entity MP himself. He was a Chief Whip at one point I believe. How many more like him? And historically what major community trouble consequences have they caused the country doing stunt-pulling things like that at Westminster?)
The Religious division in Ireland essentially goes back (several centuries) to Catholic Spain falling out with Protestant Holland, and that war then spreading across Europe by proxy - and so yes well done if you've noticed the utter stupidity that these days Spain and Holland themselves are both in Nato, both in the EU, and have Embassies in each other's capitals etc and have done for donkey's years - all whilst the divisions in (Northern) Ireland have persisted.
In modern times the issue of Irish Nationalism essentially goes back to the Potato Famine in Victorian times.
Obviously much murder and mayhem resulted directly from the issue, but DID some of that many decades of trouble also stem from the fact that since the issue would've enabled wrong-footing at Westminster by rivals in wider power-struggles, that such wrong-footing INDEED occurred and thereby AGGRAVATED the existing trouble? And therefore also WOULD a MODERN Westminster simply `re-run' those algorithms re any other defecting part of the UK with a large nationalist representation at Westminster?
(Rather like the post-1974 Hung Parliament assertion by many in Labour that The Queen ultimately sides with The Tories whenever the chance arises being proved BOGUS by The Queen summoning incumbent Gordon Brown FIRST after the 2010 Hung Parliament despite Tory David Cameron having MORE Seats - thereby proving that The Queen's given 1974 explanation of her Hung Parliament algorithm indeed fits) the assertion that modern clues of how Ireland spiralled into trouble can be tested by observing the 2015 Commons stuffed with SNP members.
So let's sit back and watch for clues - will any anti-SNP stunts at Westminster erupt Scottish trouble on the streets? Would they have erupted Irish trouble if copied in Edwardian times?
(In December 2011 certainly George Osborne instigated a BIG row over Scottish Nationalism MERELY due to Psephology - and there is actually written Court evidence that the dopey Police didn't understand THAT one)
79. (Air Hockey) - Are the Canadian security services as dumb as the
British, Irish, US, and French ones when it comes seeing links between
Psephology and community trouble?
Here is senior Canadian politician Stephen Harper ranting about Veils - www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/03/10/stephen-harper-dismisses-trudeaus-charge-of-dividing-country.html
Now I don't know the domestic Political context and timing of that rant
exactly, but it IS conceivable that MERE Psephology at the Canadian parliament
prompted the outburst - and if so, DID it catch out the Canadian police?
(We can surmise a yes to both of those questions)
A. Our dopey Police in the UK can't judge ALL the times when Jack Straw will trigger a big Veils row (especially the times governed merely by Psephology)
B. The CIA in the US don't know that an enemy of NATO would be wise to launch major attacks when either Tory/Democrat or Labour/Republican are simultaneous Political ruling pairings
C. The secret service in France seemingly haven't examined the seeming advantage in attacking France on those occasions when its Prime Minister and President are from rival Parties (a situation in France called `cohabitation')
D. The Police Service Of Northern Ireland haven't spotted the vagary that the annual Drumcree march triggers a UNIFORM amount of community trouble over time year on year, but the ferocity of rows at Westminster about the annual Christmas and Easter "offending Moslems" are NOT uniform year on year
(i.e. in theory a Blairite in December 2015 can undermine Jeremy Corbyn by starting such a row about Christmas then - but would've simply undermined themselves if starting an IDENTICAL row in an earlier December where say the Blairite faction led Labour but David Cameron led the Tories and Labour was ahead in polls at the time)
E. And the Garda police just over the border in the Irish Republic haven't spotted that vagary over the annual Drumcree march either
F. And now those seemingly dumb Canadian security services too!
That is a LOT of dopey Western security services post-9/11 by the look of it
80. (Air Hockey) - Are the vagaries which dictate General Election outcomes sometimes governing WHAT is recorded as a National Security threat by MI5 etc?
We had a totally surreal situation occur in 1997 after that year's General Election, e.g. people like Jack Straw could secretly examine the National Security threat posed by - someone called Jack Straw!
(During major Trade Union and Student Union turbulence in the 1970's etc MI5 had created files on the ringleaders etc - a certain Jack Straw was one. In 1997 Tony Blair then became PM and made Jack Straw the Home Secretary and therefore responsible for MI5 - and so Straw could then read the earlier MI5 files about himself etc!)
If nothing else that was a VERY great embarrassment for MI5 of course
(Especially if their new ruler Straw could then see for himself just how useless MI5 must be on many other matters IF there was completely wrong stuff in the files about Straw himself - say he had earlier lived at 112 Acacia Road and had a cat called Shirley when the MI5 file said that Straw had lived at 122 Acacia Avenue and had a dog called Temple - in a situation like that Straw would surely become convinced of the utterly clownery of MI5 generally concerning OTHER files he then reads where he has no other knowledge of their veracity?)
Now - let's consider the MI5 which theoretically existed just BEFORE say
Black Wednesday in 1992, with the MI5 which existed just AFTER Black Wednesday
Just BEFORE Black Wednesday (if you remember), it was actually a fairly realistic bet that Labour would NEVER rule again (or certainly not for decades) - whereas after Black Wednesday the idea oof Labour winning the subsequent election seemed almost certain - so an instant utter turnaround.
So imagine that YOU are MI5, and someone approaches you with a load of `dirt' about Jack Straw and Trade Unionists etc - would you write a file with the SAME information before Black Wednesday (when you'd know that Jack Straw himself was unlikely to ever see what you'd secretly written to blacken his name) than AFTER Black Wednesday (when it would be odds-on that Straw soon WOULD see it himself and in fact would actually then be ruling OVER you at the time too) ?
I'd wager that Black Wednesday etc would govern DIFFERENT file contents by MI5 in those circumstances?
So - Black Wednesday, Gareth Southgate, Gillian Duffy, Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich, etc etc (things which dictate General Election outcomes) - are THOSE any factors at all dictating what is in any MI5 files above and beyond the actual merits of National Security threats?
How to undermine a Labour home secretary's own faith in MI5 on demand then - in theory;
Hunt out and befriend a member of the Labour Party or CND etc who will likely be classed as `subversive' by MI5, but who may form a future Labour govt (the youthful Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, Peter Hain etc). When MI5 approach YOU to spy on such `subversives' for them, take up the offer. Then deliberately feed MI5 bits of utter rubbish about them which CAN'T be verified by MI5 in any other way, but which will be known to be rubbish if read by Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, Peter Hain etc themselves.
Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, Peter Hain etc then form a Labour govt later, read the MI5 file and see the rubbish in it about them, and - bingo! They'll think that many other MI5 files must be rubbish too?
That tactic involves major foresight and planning of course (e.g. a grinning Labour man famously walks down a Beaconsfield street in early 1983 alongside Michael Foot whilst agreeing with him on everything - Tony Blair - WOULD you have picked HIM to befriend as a`subversive' who would subsequently win for Labour and 3 times at that?)
So, hard, but not impossible.
Perhaps better to look at other examples definitely known to have MI5 files who ended up in Labour govts - Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, John Prescott etc - any patterns in their youth which could be spotted there concerning who to befriend out of the thousands of Labour Party members?
(See how the `Air Hockey' concept gets its name? The govt finds ITSELF forced under surveillance by the State Instrument that is MI5 in The Public Interest as well as having the ability to do the same to us - true `equilibrium' between The Citizen and The State in a Democracy - like the old frantic arcade game called Air Hockey where shots come from all angles but it is the same for both players).
81. (Air Hockey) - What practical steps are MI5 and GCHQ etc taking to
challenge the legacy of the Zinoviev Letter - which has poisoned the trust
relationship between them and the Left in Britain for nearly 100 years and
If I walked down Erdington High Street, and randomly asked 100 people what the Zinoviev Letter was, I wager that less than 5 people would correctly answer, yet e.g. the associate editor of the Daily Mirror (Kevin MacGuire) has been known to merely cite it by name in his column WITHOUT then elaborating on what it was
(i.e. not feeling that he needed to elaborate - given that who reads his column already knows of it).
So knowledge of it is VERY widespread in certain Political circles DESPITE it dating from 1924 - but it is more or less completely unknown in other social circles
If you don't what the Zinoviev Letter was, you probably do recognise the broad Psephological tactic it involved if I cite identical familiar recent examples;
A. The infamous "Dodgy Dossier" in the run-up to the Iraq War - how it made Iraq seem more of a threat than it was, and therefore that its invasion was an imperative
B. Lib Dem Alistair Carmichael v the SNP in the 2015 general election (falsely citing the French ambassador)
C. Phil Woolas v the Lib Dems in the 2010 general election (where he blatantly lied about their relationship with Moslems - and a court then threw him out)
D. The behaviour of home secretary John Reid in rubbishing MI5 (an organisation he was actually running at the time) during the Hutton Inquiry in order to make out they were trying oust Labour, a ploy by Reid to distract from the obvious Labour lies over Iraq
E. Tony Benn always omitting how the book Spy Catcher actually states that it was the Daily MIRROR owner who plotted with MI5 against an elected Labour govt -
F. Lib Dem Mullaney garbage v Salma Yaqoob in this city if you remember that
(I've been trying to actively get Mullaney garbage to repeat that tactic a 2nd time but where he thereby widely publicises this Police list instead - I'll keep trying to set him up via that trickery - in theory he'll fall for it at some point)
The Zionviev Letter was an early 20th Century example of that sly Psephological tactic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter#Impact
(Notice how the issue was STILL officially rumbling on at Westminster in 1998
and then again in 2006 - all this about a fake letter written in 1924 and
exposed as such at the time !!!!)
So its endless influence in sowing widespread Left-wing mistrust over the Security Service goes on and On and ON (so far for nearly one hundred years and counting) with no sign whatsoever of MI5 etc ever resolving that poisonous legacy
82. (The Sixsmith Missile) - The "Anna Soubry Algorithm" which cynically
exploits the aftermath of terrorist attacks
The dopey Police may ALREADY know about this concept actually - but I'll add it
to the list anyway in case they don't
(This concept originates from former Central TV presenter Anna Soubry - now a minister in David Cameron's govt actually - running around a TV studio in Nottingham every Friday night for 17 years spouting anti-Catholic bigotry onto the streets of Birmingham. Ulster Protestants would gleefully make a bee-line to her side in the studio each week knowing she'd amplify and fawn to them - which she did. So from Ulster all the way to Nottingham - that normal hotbed of Protestantism - each Friday)
Note how when terrorism occurs, ideologues GLEEFULLY seize on it and make a beeline for the victims, knowing that they'll get a better hearing with them than previously
Watching Israeli govt ministers in the wake of terrorist attacks is a good example - they are with the victims rubbishing the Palestinians quicker than a Parmalat-Brabham (Google it)
Ultimately of course, Ulster Protestants COULDN'T convince UK mainlanders of the case for continuing Ireland's division based on anti-Catholic rhetoric - so they were REDUCED solely to a Democratic argument. It was something of a humiliation for them actually - mainland Britain with all its accepted diversities preventing their bigoted strategy from triumphing in another part of the UK
83. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Why is/was Irish Nationalism often a violent cause in modern times, when Scottish/Welsh Nationalism isn't at all and never was in modern times?
(This defeats garbage Blair and Blears etc after the 7/7 bombing - who were CLEARLY just trying to wrong-foot those who said that the Iraq invasion caused terrorism)
When some in a set of people become terrorists, it ISN'T enough to know the algorithms which led THEM to it - surely at least HALF the reasoning (certainly in terms of finding a solution) lies in studying WHY an (almost) identical set of people HAVEN'T resorted to terrorism?
e.g. Irish Nationalism and Scottish Nationalism (Welsh Nationalism) - certainly their causes are identical - they want a small part of the present UK to leave it.
(It really is counter-intuitive when you think about it - Sinn Fein certainly bombed their way into initial negotiations and then became a chief member of a power-sharing govt. But EVEN when the Good Friday Agreement CONFIRMED the viability of that strategy in 1998 violent Scottish and Welsh Nationalism STILL did NOT occur despite their nationalism outright failing at that time)
So in that circumstance, SURELY studying WHY Scottish and Welsh Nationalists NEVER became terrorists is as valid a search for an explanation concerning Irish terrorism (and terrorism overall) as studying why some Irish Nationalists DID become terrorists?
And so logically, you'd study BOTH factors - what made the Irish terrorists, but also what made the Scots and Welsh NOT terrorists at all, when all 3 causes are identical?
I'd say that a solution/explanation over why the Irish became terrorists lies in studying ALL 3 nationalist causes, given that obvious anomaly, not just solely studying the Irish case in isolation in looking for a solution and explanation.
That MUST be true - yes?
So if you cite the causes of violent Irish Nationalism, and are countered by someone citing peaceful Scottish Nationalism by contrast, they HAVEN'T fully countered you really just by citing that - at the very least they'd have to study and state WHY Scottish Nationalism is peaceful - NOT doing that just shows that they AREN'T fully looking for solutions really but are just trying to wrong-foot you.
(At a guess - certainly concerning violent Irish Nationalism in Northern Ireland anyway - I'd say that a chief cause for the difference is that a Scot in England and a Scot in Scotland essentially has IDENTICAL legal status to English people in England or English people in Scotland etc - One Man One Vote and anti-discrimination employment laws etc etc. Which was infamously NOT the case initially in Northern Ireland - Catholics and Protestants there did NOT have equal legal status)
Clueless Harold Wilson then backed up that existing bias with British soldiers in 1969 - what WAS he thinking?
That is the CHIEF reason for the difference?
So I think a BIG error there actually - Wilson should have played hard-ball and told Ian Paisley etc straight away in 1969 that it is One Man One Vote from then on or Northern Ireland would be signed over to the Irish Republic by treaty by Wilson himself - how could Paisley have viably countered that threat and not immediately backed down? I know Paisley derailed some agreements by UK prime ministers but a hard-line threat like that would've always trumped him?
So another Labour leader there who needlessly saddled us with a long war - and that might be a common theme with the Labour Party actually (Ulster, Iraq, Afghanistan etc) - especially as hardly any of them are ever in the Armed Forces before entering Politics.
So re garbage Blair and Blears etc over 7/7 - can you see how garbage Blair and Blears DIDN'T make that particular abstract point? They only made the FIRST part of it - the bit which simply trips up a linear assertion over what causes terrorism
(i.e. garbage Blair and Blears were just that - garbage)
84. (Air Hockey) - Crufts, dopey Belgian diplomats and police, and our dopey police - and how to poison the crowd at The NEC in Birmingham - in theory
(March 2015) Somebody turns up in Belgium saying that their dog was poisoned at Crufts (at The NEC in Birmingham) by a rival dog owner, and the Belgian Police do pretty much damn all - citing that it may not even be a crime, and even if so it didn't occur in Belgium - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31913792
Meanwhile - `West Midlands Police was liaising with Crufts officials and the NEC to secure potential evidence' - so hardly a summoning of Cobra in response etc -http://news.sky.com/story/1441018/crufts-poison-claims-sabotage-not-tolerated
Looking at that situation abstractly, this is revealed;
It means that post-9/11 there are certain circumstances where someone can wander around the crowded NEC with a load of poison, and Cobra isn't summoned etc even if it is suspected afterwards! Belgian Police and West Midlands Police do damn all.
So the seemingly perfect cover for a Terrorist which neither the dopey West Midlands Police nor the dopey Belgian police would spot in time;
A. Become a registered dog-breeder and enter Crufts (or simply befriend someone who already is)
B. Smuggle a load of poison INTO The NEC (the security has NOT been increased that much after the recent 2015 dog poisoning), but you intend to poison all the PEOPLE there.
C. If challenged or discovered beforehand etc, falsely claim that the intended target was rival DOGS - it would ring true, and as we see the dopey West Midlands Police wouldn't thoroughly check the story etc?
(They DIDN'T thoroughly check the LAST dog poisoning which in theory COULD have been a Terrorist the way I say. In fact the dopey Belgian police wouldn't hinder the plot IF ostensibly against dogs anyway and was somehow discovered by them beforehand - thereby all freely allowing repeated attempts on people).
Admittedly you'd need to know something about the air-conditioning, food supply, or water supply at The NEC etc to get the poison distributed in there once smuggled in.
So all that LAX response by the Belgian Police and West Midlands Police to that Crufts dog poisoning - in theory it creates THAT possibility for a terrorist?
A classic case of `Air Hockey' there - spot the transparent risk and point it out before the Terrorist uses it - though with the dopey Belgian Police and West Midlands Police you can see how such a strategy wouldn't work UNTIL a Terrorist poisoned people at The NEC.
Oh, I'd better explain the `dopey Belgian diplomat' bit in the title;
A senior Belgium diplomat specialising in
protocol has been arrested for tearing off the full-face veil of a Qatari
princess after she asked him for directions.
‘I don’t talk to anyone if I can’t see their face,’ said Mr Jean-Marie Pire.
(So it must be very hard for
Belgium's diplomats to do their jobs without telephones and radios etc then -
perhaps he has a brother called Jacques Paille).
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728932/Senior-Belgian-diplomat-arrested-tearing-face-veil-Qatari-princess-asked-directions.html
With even its diplomats acting like THAT who needs ISIS to encourage Moslems to attack Belgium - eh?
(That reminds me of a police officer I worked with - after a car crash he attacked the other person's car assuming that they couldn't do anything back since he was a police officer - and it turned out to be a magistrate! That was his job gone)
After the Paris attacks I see it is Continental Europe which is left to give us all the lead on racial and religious tolerance - so god help us all!
85. (Air Hockey) - One of the Paris attackers ringing Birmingham beforehand and thereby sending the West Midland Police etc to an address in Sparkbrook etc quicker than a Parmalat-Brabham - and that info then being made public by the security services
So the NEXT terrorist attacking a European capital city now knows in theory to simply make say THREE HUNDRED random phone-calls to Mosques all over Europe beforehand, and it will DEFINITELY send every member of Europol etc on a MASSIVE wild goose chase afterwards - eh?
In fact knowing the dopey Belgians they'll alone probably shoot every Brazilian plumber in Brussels on sight afterwards for a start off - adding to the havoc.
86. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Are there MORE Daily Mail/Daily Telegraph etc
rants about British soldiers being turned away from pubs etc when Labour rule
than when the Tories do?
It seems that either whoever is in Downing Street OR the factional Despatch Box combination governs the amount of ranting by those newspapers.
(e.g. anecdotally there are MORE such rants when Labour rule than when the Tories do - and more when Thatcherite/Blairite is at the Despatch Box than when Cameroon/Old Labour is)
Psephology `tells' The Daily Mail/The Sun to totally go off on about soldiers in
uniform not being allowed into pubs etc when Labour rules, but not to rant about
it (as much) when the Tories rule.
Such rows sometimes embroil BBC News, ITN, and Sky News into reporting them too - inevitably leading to wider community trrouble.
So, two questions, which the dopey Police need to ascertain but haven't;
A. DO The Daily Mail/The Sun actually follow the designated Psephology like that (i.e. rant about it when Labour rules but not when The Tories do?)
B. ARE there as many incidents (post-9/11) of soldiers in uniform not being allowed into pubs etc when Labour rules than when the Tories rule?
What SHOULD be the sole governing factor is the ACTUAL number of incidents of course - the MORE refusals and snubs etc by bar staff towards soldiers the MORE rants SHOULD be the pattern IF the Daily Mail/Daily Telegraph STATED motives for ranting about it are correct.
Have the dopey Police noticed the seeming anomaly? Do MI5 raise the anomaly
with The Daily Telegraph whenever always racing off to that particular newspaper
to whine about security matters generally? Has dopey MI5 even noticed either -
or do I have to point everything out to them which doesn't involve thinking
through the prism and psyche of Jeremy Clarkson?
They have read this - because they read ALL of our communications online - remember? So let them read about me proving how dumb they are.
Speaking of which;
Crimewatch. The show where lots of police officers and lots of BBC crime
researcher staff all mill around in the same TV studio. It started in around
1985, and has been on TV once a month or so ever since - so do the Maths over
how many episodes that is (around 360?)
So that is about 360 times spread over 30 years where NOT one single member of BBC staff on that show thought to quietly take a police officer aside to make them aware of all the widespread rumours they kept hearing about Jimmy Savile, and hint that a subtle investigation by police might lead somewhere - yet NOT one BBC staff member did that on the show
Janet Street Porter unwittingly gave away the fact that the only people that arrogant BBC staff ever thought to approach on the matter was each other - and often they didn't even do that of course.
See her pathetic behaviour here - Jimmy Saville debate on BBC Question Time - www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6RxcNJKms
(A transcript of her weasel words should have been sent to John Whittingdale
the next day as a clear BBC cultural example of why Savile got away with it -
ditto Philip Schofield when picking on David Cameron having said damn all
himself when working at the BBC with Gordon The Gopher in the Broom Cupboard etc
for umpteen years)
And if I'm the first person to make that abstract point to you about Crimewatch and Philip Schofield then that is a scandal in itself - talk about the plank in your own eye
And another Police pattern you might have missed;
The dopey dad of Rachel Nickell roundly tricked by the Police into making public speeches on the Old Bailey steps
The dopey Nick Ross from Crimewatch roundly tricked by the Police into making public speeches on the Old Bailey steps
(The dopey Theresa May thinking she's listed all Police scandals at a Federation Conference but not seeing that one about Police tricking people into making speeches on the Old Bailey steps)
Is it just me or did some dopey Tyndale/Vaughan/Sanders/Hopkins/Malone/Clarkson ranting etc clown actually once complain about British soldiers being turned away from a pub because of the Moslems who were already in there? Think about it.
87. (Air Hockey) - Matter arising from Police shooting at Wood Green court - A. Why not use a decoy van?
(December 2015) If someone told me that a prison van was going to be hijacked, I'd send along a FAKE (empty) prison van instead, and fool the hijackers. It seems that the police didn't think of that - and the genuine van's arrival at the court then complicated matters over who to intercept and when, and the resulting split and rushed Police resources etc - whereas a fake van in theory would've meant ALL Police efforts, time, and resources could've been concentrated on the hijackers.
Prison van windows are pretty much opaque, so you could fool a potential hijacker about who really is on board
Such things are common practice at MI5 etc -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Chapman#Faked_sabotage_of_de_Havilland_factory
(As was shown in the associated movie account of that incident - MI5 couldn't just `damage' the factory themselves and then falsely claim that Chapman had done it, because any unknown German secondary spy would've confirmed to Hitler etc that Chapman DIDN'T go there at all. So they had to go through with the ruse - including getting Chapman to genuinely vvisit the factory - but carrying FAKE explosives not the real ones which the Germans had given him)
So do enough to FOOL the Germans, but WITHOUT risking an accident from the explosives etc
There was a post-9/11 incident where MI5 replaced a real explosive with a fake one whilst they gathered more evidence against Moslem terrorists?
It seems that the dopey Police don't know such concepts over prison van hijackings when told about them in advance though
88. (Air Hockey) Matter arising from Police shooting at Wood Green court -
B. Tony Blair's Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and the Police shooting
unarmed people whom they perceive to be a threat - how the algorithmic parallels
can affect public confidence in the Police given everything we now know about
(December 2015) Police shoot dead a man armed with a fake gun - "In an Intelligence-led operation".
Tony Blair invades an Iraq armed with fake WMD - "In an Intelligence-led operation".
So in BOTH cases the Intelligence used was CLEARLY wrong in point of fact - they both weren't armed when the Intelligence said they were.
Tony Blair's defence over Iraq is this - Saddam MIGHT have had WMD, so
leaving him at large risked him using them
So that is essentially the SAME argument the Police used over that man THEY shot then - right?
i.e. the Police use the SAME argument as Tony Blair when killing unarmed people.
So I'd say THAT situation in itself automatically raises an issue of overall public confidence in the Police - given what we now know about Tony `spinning, fake empathy, actor, dodgy dossier', Blair - wouldn't you?
(e.g. if you discovered a businessman acting a lot like Robert Maxwell but not doing anything illegal etc at that particular point - as a matter of routine you'd then check the Pension Fund etc - yes? Ditto with investigating the Police over shooting unarmed people due to Tony Blair then - eh?)
89. (The Sixsmith Missile) - The Daily Mail now ranting about
Foreign Aid whenever some UK place gets flooded - so let's study the News Agenda
dynamics and the Psephology of it - can it predict EDL rioting havoc etc outside
foreign embassies in London?
Obviously, ranting by Fleet Street/Westminster at foreigners (and thereby their respective UK ethnic groups) triggers MORE community trouble the HIGHER up the TV News Agenda that the ranting gets.
(December 2015) Cumbria etc gets flooded, and The Daily Mail massively rants about Foreign Aid (the amount of money given by the UK in Third World aid which in theory could be spent on anti-flooding measures here instead). However that linkage by The Daily Mail is NOT being routinely made by BBC News, ITN, and Sky News - who CONTINUE to ignore Foreign Aid as a linked issue when floods occur.
And that is identical as to when parts of Somerset got flooded a couple of years back - The Daily Mail again huffed and puffed about Foreign Aid, but again couldn't force a linkage in the News Agenda by BBC News, ITN, and Sky News
So when WILL and HOW that linkage in the News Agenda start to routinely occur whenever we get future flooding?
i.e. when will we reach the stage at which EVERY flood brings a MASSIVE routine rant by leading journalists at BBC News, ITN, and Sky News about Foreign Aid - routinely linking the 2 issues in the News Agenda whenever there IS a subsequent flood.
(Psephology `says' this - you are looking at a time of any subsequent flooding which occurs soon after David Cameron has come a major cropper over something. A rival Tory leadership contender - Boris Johnson, Theresa May, George Osborne, Philip Hammond, Michael Fallon, Jeremy Hunt, Nicky Morgan etc - will then thus `storm' the studios of BBC News, ITN, and Sky News to MAKE that flooding/Foreign Aid link - obviously as a ploy to undermine Cameron FURTHER within The Tory Party and enhance themselves amongst Tory members in the upcoming leadership contest)
From then on I'd say that BBC News, ITN, and Sky News would ALWAYS then routinely make the same link whenever flooding occurs.
What Psephology further `says' on the issue;
When the Tory ranter(s) rants due to that algorithm over the leadership contest and flooding etc, it'll be a `scatter-gun' attack at first (i.e. the attack on Foreign Aid will be general and not single out particular countries) - however it will soon become clear WHICH nations when attacked over Foreign Aid galvanise Tory support best - at which point the issue of Foreign Aid to THAT nation will be swarmed all over by the Tory leadership "buzzards".
Then (like that fake WWF wrestling trick which Westminster uses) ethnic members of that nation can be tricked into confronting the Tory ranter on Sky News etc, the Tory ranter knowing that THAT situation will simply enhance them MORE to The Tory Party at large - FURTHER aiding their leadership ambitions!
Psephology DEFINITELY `says' that Tory leadership contenders should do that - bring the issue up MASSIVELY the next time a flood occurs just after David Cameron has been damaged by something.
Pakistan and Bangladesh are Moslem countries in the Third World with large ethnic populations in the UK (i.e. who can easily be brought onto Sky News etc and confronted by a Tory leadership ranter in front of other Tory members watching it on TV) - so those nations would seem to be the best predicted `targets' in terms of Psephology (the nations which would BEST galvanise Tories in a leadership contest if attacked over the Foreign Aid donated to them by the UK).
Also, their High Commissions (embassies) in London or the immediately adjacent streets nearby would likely become the focus of major EDL disorder etc in the wake of the BIG Tory leadership contender rants about the Foreign Aid given to them during the emotive issue of flooding placing HIGH in the News Agenda - thereby TOTALLY catching out the Metropolitan Police squad whose have the specific job of guarding embassies.
So in theory another `WPC Yvonne Fletcher' could occur due to Police FAILING to understand Psephology and its role in community trouble.
WE know that High Commission trouble is coming and WHEN, but the dopey Police do NOT understand the concept at all.
Look, here are the EXACT roads in London where The EDL will start rioting on cue due to that Tory Party factional fighting over the leadership re that flooding/Foreign Aid malarkey;
High Commission for Pakistan
34 - 36 Lowndes Square
High Commission for the People's Republic of Bangladesh
28 Queen's Gate
So how DUMB are the Police over such matters EVEN after WPC Yvonne Fletcher's
murder whilst guarding an embassy in London when trouble then erupted there?
Answer - very dumb indeed.
90. (The CIA/Malaysia Strategy) - "Loaded" and "Contaminated" words in Westminster-speak
(2013) MP's speak plain English - right? Well in fact they don't - you may have noticed actually.
e.g. the word `unassailable' - its meaning is given here - www.thefreedictionary.com/unassailable
You can see how it is a major compliment - yes? Of course it is - however at
Westminster it is NEVER used.
(Ask PM David Cameron to describe Chancellor George Osborne as `unassailable' and he WON'T do it - despite the fact that in plain English it currently fits. From a 1980's legacy of a major disagreement between then PM Thatcher and Chancellor Nigel Lawson which led to the latter resigning. The word `unassailable' came to define the matter - she had described him as that and then he promptly resigned - and so subsequently the word became taboo at Westminster as a result - especially in describing the PM/Chancellor relationship)
i.e. When ranting at Moslems in a pre-written speech, MP's always follow the designated `rules' over certain "loaded" and "contaminated" words in their Westminster-speak.
So in theory those Westminster language `rules' can be used BACK against MP's too?
(Cameron could CERTAINLY be taunted and challenged 18 times over innately failing to describe George Osborne as `unassailable' in a Jeremy Paxman v Michael Howard type confrontation)
In theory Westminster can be subtlely taunted beyond belief in some demented NLP-type game where a dopey witnessing Essex would wonder why certain plain English words would govern eventual hysterical David Sumberg type outbursts from MP's on demand.
(David Sumberg was one of those very many MP's when TV was introduced into The Commons who didn't realise the famous maxim - "Oh to see ourselves the way others see us").
And disgruntled Moslems witnessing that would in theory then join in the `language structure use' when confronting Westminster JUST to make certain MP's look silly and hysterical in front of everyone?
(Air Hockey) - An abstract DNA issue
(This next one isn't about Moslems per se and I'll remove this one from the Police list if I'm wrong about it - but I think I've got this next flawed Police procedure right - and certainly Blairte "Winchester 73" Tony McNulty can be wrong-footed over it given his innate response to the Sally Anne Bowman case where he MISSED an abstract point re that dopey detective on the Old Bailey steps afterwards)
Imagine at a crime scene that the Police find the murder weapon with some DNA on it. They test it, but (for reasons thrown up by other evidence) they arrest a DIFFERENT person (meanwhile they CAN'T match the DNA with anyone on file nor with the victim nor the arrested person etc) - the arrested person claims the DNA must be from the true murderer, since they AREN'T the murderer they claim - and the DNA isn't from them remember.
The person is convicted by a court ANYWAY though - still protesting their innocence (which in itself isn't impossible nor would automatically be a wrong conviction in all cases if you think long enough about it - e.g. where a murderer has an unknown accomplice is a somewhat obvious example).
In fact all of such things HAVE occurred in Britain actually.
However, wouldn't the CORRECT subsequent procedure be to test the mysterious DNA against ALL subsequent DNA samples taken by police in ALL cases? To see if it EVER matches anyone (who'd be a BETTER candidate for the murder even than the convicted person).
Well the Police DON'T automatically do that in closed cases (they do it with unsolved cases of course) - only if ordered by the Court Of Appeal etc on a case by case basis do they do it at a particular point - and then they STOP doing it again if no match at that time.
(So as is often the case the police seem more about closing cases than proving themselves wrong at later dates)
Another DNA issue;
The police were ADAMANT that Colin Stagg murdered Rachel Nickell - wrong - in fact Robert Napper did.
i.e. with no DNA they charged the WRONG person, the later DNA in fact proved how WAY out their previous assertion was (and note how the police initially accused someone whom Jeremy Clarkson doesn't like - a pagan)
So - the police make much of THESE types of incident;
Someone gets murdered, police have DNA but no existing match. The murderer is then arrested later over an unrelated incident - has their DNA taken. And bingo! Murder solved.
(Well it is if the killer isn't bailed over the existing crime and realises it that will take TIME to match the DNA with the previous crime - time which they then have to FLEE and hide before the police can catch them)
But the police OMIT to routinely point THIS out though too;
Who initially did they (falsely) accuse of the murder YEARS back before they had the DNA? And AGAIN was it someone whom Jeremy Clarkson doesn't like who was falsely accused back then?
e.g. an unsolved murder occurs in say 1994, with no DNA match at the time. The police at the time always make public assertions over WHO they think the killer is - but it remains unsolved.
In 2016 a DNA match is then made, so the killer is known - but DOES it match the previous police assertion - were they EVEN close with their 1994 assertions or WAY OUT over WHO it actually turned out to be?
e.g. Irish people - the police and Jeremy Clarkson - need I say more?
i.e. DNA doesn't prove the police right (Watson and Crick discovered it anyway not the police) - DNA prevents the police from getting it wrong - and might abstractly be showing just HOW wrong they often get it.
Can you SEE the abstract point being made - does the later DNA assertion match the previous non-DNA assertion by the police? Because if it RARELY does, then it is a FAIR bet that those murder convictions with no DNA are RARELY correct too!
That MUST be the case - SURELY?
(See the pattern building up? It seems that you MIGHT have a `licence to commit murder' with the police in this country IF your lifestyle and background is that of Jeremy Clarkson - but if your lifestyle and background is that which Jeremy Clarkson disapproves of, then it seems that you have a `licence to be falsely accused of murder' by the police - ESPECIALLY in those cases which DON'T have DNA and never do).
92. (Air Hockey) - The long pursuit of Jean Charles de Menezes before he was shot - so are the Police typically as dumb as Christopher Columbus in the way he thought that Native Americans and Indians in India were the same people?
Re Native Americans being called "Indians" and people from India also being called "Indians" of course, despite being from a DIFFERENT ethnic groups - that is because when Christopher Columbus sailed for the New World in 1492, he ended up mistakenly thinking that he was in India, because the local Native American people LOOKED Indian to him - though he had never been to India to know the difference.
Do we have THAT routine level of DUMBNESS about ethnicity amongst MOST Police officers in 21st century Britain?
(Native Americans essentially have their origins in modern Mongolia and Siberia etc - a land bridge originally connected those areas to Alaska - it is a fact reasonably obvious when seeing them both side by side. So maybe the dopey Police overly rely on DNA to tell them things - eh?)
So the dopey Police are chasing a Moslem, and spot the Brazilian de Menezes (who looked as typically Brazilian as racing driver Ayrton Senna and footballer Socrates etc) who THEY then ALL think is the Moslem in question - yet the dopey Police all FAILED to notice that anomaly.
(Anglos from South America and Arabs and people from the Indian sub-continent etc do NOT have the same ethnic origins - unless taking into account that all Mankind originates in Africa)
So a wild guess - EVERY Police officer who was involved in that LONG pursuit of De Menezes was White and work at Police Stations with almost no ethnic officers? Certainly another Brazilian would've realised and queried during the chase?
93. (Coined the `Garvaghy/Rhodes' Strategy) - Similar to Anzio with D-Day in WW2 and that
distraction technique etc - is it possible to continually distract dopey
goldfish-brained Essex from endless rows with Moslems merely by deliberately
embroiling dopey goldfish-brained Essex in TONS of ("harmless strain") petty
rows about all and sundry issues?
(Swiftian satire seems completely unread en masse by the dopey UK Police and MI5 etc - arguments about opening an egg from which end and all that etc - perhaps the UK Police and MI5 have never read his satirical works because Jonathan Swift was of course Irish)
Ramadan and the adjusted timetable of Exams - there's no similar Westminster/Fleet Street debate about say the placing of the Water Jump in the 3000m Steeplechase in the Olympics etc, but Westminster/Fleet Street argues the toss about Moslems in similar scenarios - which says something about Westminster/Fleet Street and NOT just about Moslems/Ramadan.
In the Olympic Games (and the World Athletics Championships etc) there is an event called the 3000 metres Steeplechase (the one with the big wooden hurdles and the Water-Jump - that race - usually won by rural Africans as it mimics their previous school-run each day as young pupils on foot - having imitated races around Victorian parish churchyards before. So a British athlete will probably win it again when it becomes the sitting in a Chelsea Tractor for 3000m).
The vagaries of athletics stadium construction worldwide means that sometimes the Water-Jump is on the OUTSIDE of the normal track (to accommodate the big hole with the water in it at one barrier which obviously can't be on the track proper), and sometimes it is on the INSIDE of the normal track.
So that creates an overall issue obviously (i.e. how to always make the World Record for the event uniform on whatever track given that running to the outside of the track to take the Water Jump is a LONGER route than running to the inside of the track to jump it?)
Dealt with thus - they STILL run 3000 metres, by whatever the long or short route at the Water Jump.
i.e. they START in a different place on the track depending, to make that happen (so certainly the first Water-Jump will be jumped at a different distance point in the race depending) - the Finish Line is in the same place in both types of race.
The crucial point - the athletes run the SAME distance (3000m of course), jump the SAME number of barriers, and the SAME number of Water-Jumps, irrespective of it is inside or outside track location (merely the ORDER of jumping them automatically alters depending on where the Water-Jump is).
Wikipedia - "The water jump is located on the back turn, either inside the inner lane or outside the outer lane. If it is on the outside, then each of the seven laps is longer than the standard 400m, and the starting point is on the home straight. If the water jump is on the inside, each lap is shorter than 400m, the starting point is on the back straight, so the water jump and barrier in the home straight are bypassed in the first half lap at the start."
A 3000 metres Steeplechase race with the Water Jump on the OUTSIDE - www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtQp4dnvibE
A 3000 metres Steeplechase race with the Water Jump on the INSIDE - www.youtube.com/watch?v=prB4G-j6oW4
So note how the overall distance is the same, 3000m, the number of hurdles
jumped is the same (28), and the number of Water-Jumps taken is the same (7),
but the ORDER of the barriers (and the distance to the first Water-Jump etc) is
Ever heard an athlete argue about it? (No)
Ever heard Westminster and Fleet Street argue about it? (No)
So - the Ramadan/Exam malarkey - THIS is what is occurring;
Normally - pupils sit a set number of exams in a given period of 1 month or so - the order is arbitrary.
If the Ramadan (fasting Moslem pupils) clashes with the Exam month - the ORDER of Exams with a high entry is shifted, though STILL occurring within the Exam month
Which is EXACTLY like that Steeplechase situation - SAME distance, SAME number of barriers and Water Jumps - just taken in a different order
Yet Westminster/Fleet Street argues about ONE but NOT the other - WHAT explains THAT if not Psephology?
(Dopey swing-voting Essex can be galvanised over Moslems but not over the Steeplechase and the placement of the barriers - hence the anomaly over Westminster arguments - but would just continually taunting Essex over being innately dopey be enough to goad them into countering ANY argument YOU then started with them over ANYTHING?)
A counter-argument by Westminster about "heritage" etc is bogus - the international event the 3000m Steeplechase now run at the Olympics originates from Victorian races around several parish churchyards walls at a time - some of which had moats. What could be more traditionally British than that - the Javelin? Silly me thought that the Greeks put that event into the original Olympics as part of THEIR heritage)
Just as a test it might be an idea to see how many Police officers routinely know how the Steeplechase got its name - from (church) steeple chase, in Victorian times - get it?
(Imagine being on Boldmere Road and jumping over the churchyard low walls by Church Road itself and then running to St Barnabas church on Erdington High Street and doing the same there - avoiding any ditch puddles or moats by each wall as you jump over. The 3000m Steeplechase in the Olympics etc was the way that sort of cross-country race was given uniformity on a track)
The dopey Police when watching the different 3000 metres Steeplechase races probably think that it is like Eric Morecambe arguing with Andre Previn? That the order of the fences really DOES matter! Well it is Kenyans and Ethiopians etc who are normally in it I suppose so maybe they do - anything involving black and brown people in it and the Police therefore will fall for any petty argument started by The Daily Mail about it
94. (Air Hockey) - Do widespread cultural biases WITHIN the dopey Police themselves often dictate WHAT is presented as Prosecution evidence in court cases and what ISN'T - and WHO is accused by the Police?
The (dopey) Police initially thought that Milly Dowler had been murdered by her own father, due to finding (very widely available) Girlie mags in his house -
So, would the dopey Police present say evidence of say American Sniper
memorabilia or a box-set of Jeremy Clarkson's Top Gear if investigating say a
Would the (dopey) Police present THAT as prosecution evidence?
(Probably not - but they DID do it in the Dowler case - i.e. they innately bring their OWN cultural biases into murder investigations)
And in the Jill Dando case, their cultural logic was TRULY muddled (e.g. a BLANK firing gun which was obviously NOT the murder weapon was cited in evidence - and dopey reporter Nicholas Witchell on it ("Where is that gun??? !!!!!") My god Miss Jones.
With apologies to Ian Dury and the Blockheads;
Who bigged up a starter's gun?
Who crawls up Prince Charles's b*m?
Witchell, Witchell, Witchell
Nicholas Witchell makes me sick
Nicholas Witchell what a pr*ck.
Witchell, Witchell, Witchell - Witchell
(If only he would disappear into the `wilds of Borneo' like the song says - permanently)
Think about this too - would the dopey Police have ever accused Colin Stagg of murder at all if THEY were all Pagans (like him) instead of all being C of E etc?
(i.e. share the cultural values of the dopey Police and you've a FAR better chance of LITERALLY getting away with murder etc - but if not sharing the cultural values of the dopey Police and you've a FAR better chance of LITERALLY being wrongly convicted of murder etc )
(And think about The Masons before you answer that question - it at least explains one reason over bully-girl Thatcher and whose cultural values SHE thought we should ALL follow - eh?)
The Pagan Federation website - www.paganfed.org
A bunch of serial-killers etc? Er, no.
Remember Colin Stagg though - Police would probably cite membership in any court case
(Or would they race round there undercover quicker than a Parmalat-Brabham? In order to sleep with the Pagan women if nothing else)
95. (The Sixsmith Missile) - When the Party leader is away (at a foreign conference etc) do the ranters (Party rivals) play?
There WAS such a pattern I believe when Maggie Thatcher and John Major were PM's, but I'm unsure if it still occurs under Cameron etc;
If the PM was away, plotting would start by Party rivals, ESPECIALLY if the PM was already weak at the time (it was how Thatcher got ousted if you remember).
But does that STILL happen? And does the undermining take the form of ranting at Moslems?
96. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Factional fighting at Westminster triggering
community trouble - can "circuit-breakers" be ruthlessly forced at BBC News, ITN,
and Sky News?
(This is another one which John Prescott unwittingly seemingly confirmed as viable when he barged Estelle Morris out that time)
One of the reasons why Lord Lucan was able to make good his escape in 1974, was probably because the first TV reports about the murder etc would have been at around 12.30pm - 1pm the following day. Fleet Street reports would've then been the following day on from that. Only radio would've had early reports - and even then only early the following morning at around 7am onwards.
Compare that with say the Lozells rioting in October 2005 - I arrived back home from the scene itself only to find it already on Sky News etc!
Community trouble triggered by Westminster factional fighting has followed the same pattern - merely the changed media means it occurs both MORE now than it did, and QUICKER too.
Perhaps the best comparison would be between Jack Straw/Veils with Enoch Powell/Rivers Of Blood - SURELY Straw erupted subsequent community trouble QUICKER than Powell did?
The changed media would be the factor in that time difference then - NOT the actual raised issues themselves.
(i.e. Powell would've triggered community trouble as quick as Straw did if say Werner von Braun hadn't been side-tracked by WW2 over where to send his beloved rockets/missiles when deciding to launch them either at London or into Space - a factor NOT governed by Islam etc of course)
That changed media MIGHT actually provide a solution though;
TV News now operates in a VERY competitive marketplace overall (i.e. it is CONSTANTLY under pressure from channel schedulers/controllers who want to encroach into its space with more of Kim Kardashian, Simon Cowell, Strictly etc)
(It is suspected that explains why the "knighthood-chasers" like Tom Bradby and Adam Boulton etc have turned Politics into a constant `Soap-opera' in their coverage of it - ratings. To fight off the threatened encroachment from other topics like Kim Kardashian etc - there's not much call for Adam Boulton himself in reporting about her of course - so get it? Self job preservation).
So, given that powerful TV figures are already motivated to encroach, if you get the Police to "gate-crash" BBC News etc (make them realise how some of the Moslem trouble is being deliberately concocted by Westminster in concert with senior BBC political journalists to further factional power-struggles at Westminster), it damages the overall BBC brand (so soon after Savile too), would the rival schedulers/controllers then have a STRONGER argument - because Strictly etc wouldn't bring the Police to the BBC door when the News constantly would be doing - forcing the Politics in News more towards the BBC "exit" overall - to prevent the Police visits.
i.e. FEWER if any concocted rows erupting at Westminster (if erupting at all) would then trigger community trouble - due to the newly SIDELINED media coverage of them.
Fleet Street in theory will do a runner over Politics too on the Police arriving - Crime has already been booted out as a ffactor with them once the Police came calling over Phone Hacking.
(In fact if the rival media people merely learn of the concept themselves would THEY not secretly tip the Police off themselves about how Tom Bradby is concocting trouble with Westminster etc - to get Politics thrown off the air-waves THAT way and thereby allowing more air-time for them? TV is a VERY back-stabbing environment like that I believe?)
As ever with moves like that though - it STOPS Westminster aggravating community trouble as part of factional fighting, but DOESN'T solve the core problem in communities, though BLASTING out the Westminster aggravation makes an overall solution then easier of course.
97. (Air Hockey) - is a physically unfit demographic innately recruited into the UK armed forces, due to the largely innately physically unfit Reactionary media voices who most resonant with them?
US boxing writer Bert Sugar, about Muhammad Ali boycotting the war in Vietnam - "It was a reason why we lost. Him doing that galvanised those others like him who'd be MOST able to physically fight a war in the jungles of South-East Asia into boycotting the war too - but also galvanised the largely physically UNFIT demographic into deliberately signing up in attempts to spite him."
Here's a wager;
A. Kelvin McKenzie isn't physically fit now of course - but I say that he
NEVER was even when younger?
B. Richard Littlejohn isn't physically fit now too - and NEVER was even when younger?
C. Jeremy Clarkson isn't physically fit now either - and NEVER was even when younger?
D. Ditto Jim Davidson?
etc etc etc
(Leo McKistry - if he ever runs the 100m they'll probably use a sun-dial to time him)
i.e. is the VERY demographic MOST likely to join the UK armed force (due to Right-wing media resonance) actually the very demographic LEAST physically able than their more liberal peers (due to the typically beer-bellied chain-smoking Sunday lie-in etc likes of innately unfit Clarkson resonating with them) - but IS that actually true?
Your average herbal-tea drinking yoga guru etc hardly reads The Sun - but could wipe the floor in a fitness sense with those who typically do.
The idea that Richard Littlejohn, Kelvin McKenzie etc when younger if given army training COULD have brought them up to the existing level OF the already super-fit is simply laughable. They could've trained for 100 years and wouldn't beat Usain Bolt over 100m pal - so that potential counter argument is bogus
(When I joined the Police in my early 20's I'd already been a club athlete for some years - the Police physical training was just TOO easy - but it left my more Reactionary minded colleagues utterly exhausted - and at the end of it all they were STILL not at my level of fitness)
So is THAT really (one reason) why the Yanks lost in Vietnam though? Boxing writer Bert Sugar cited it. And does it explain some UK (recent) gunboat-diplomacy failings too?
Remote places like Afghanistan and Iraq don't exactly have terrain friendly to soldiers who as kids were taken to school every day in daddy's big white van - whilst breathing in all his second-hand smoke etc too. For every bullet fired or bayonet which is thrust in such places too, someone ELSE first has to cart it around such remote hills etc where Land Rovers etc can't go.
So Bert Sugar noticed that innate flaw about the US recruitment demographic in Vietnam and how Muhammad Ali's boycott aggravated it - but what about OUR chiefs of staff? Is it true - and have THEY noticed it?
98. (Air Hockey) - On demand can you force 2016 media reactions to Moslem trouble to mirror their 2016 reactions to Ulster trouble?
The Continuity IRA running around DUBLIN spraying bullets
everywhere with AK47's, and the New IRA blowing up a prison officer, etc - yet
notice Murdoch/Anna Soubry etc saying DAMN ALL about it !!!!!!!
This is a BIG one - and it confirms a few ranting algorithmic things re Moslems now.
(We have TWO factors generating Islamic Terrorism in the country - but can the Psephology factor be BLASTED out so that ALL resources can then be ranged on the remaining factor?)
So let's go back 25 years or so in the concept, and more things are revealed;
Say in 1993 just after Warrington etc - that the IRA ran around DUBLIN spraying bullets everywhere with AK47's and murdered a prison officer in Ulster.
The Murdoch/Anna Soubry ranting algorithm over Ulster would've been VERY different to what is NOW - right?
So WHAT has made Murdoch/Anna Soubry NOT rant like that at all NOW about Ulster, when they WOULD have ranted in the described way back in 1993 given the IDENTICAL shooting/bombing circumstances?
(The answer is two-fold. You CAN'T shove dopey Essex about anymore by ranting about the IRA post the Good Friday Agreement - and also the Good Friday Agreement ITSELF).
Ranting at Moslems shoves Essex about post-9/11.
i.e. wait LONG enough for Essex to lose interest in a terrorist war, and you eventually end up with ONE factor left - the violence itself and spontaneous reactions to it - no Psephology dictating things. It is easier to solve then.
But of course, the OBVIOUS problem with that strategy - the (decades long) WAITING gets TOO many people killed in the meantime.
i.e. the abstract solution in Ulster then was this - to have FORCED 2016 reactions to Irish trouble from Murdoch/Anna Soubry BUT in 1993 - develop decisive viable abstract algorithms which achieve that.
The decisive CLUE comes from SEEING the Murdoch/Anna Soubry reactions IN 2016 to Irish events - it PROVES that they can be MADE to exist - just find OTHER ways than the (too slow) Good Friday Agreement - and they DO exist.
(FORCE Ulster 2016 reactions from Murdoch/Anna Soubry about Moslems IN 2016 - not reactions to Ulster but to the terrorist war we are fighting NOW - it'll then leave ONE factor left which we can throw EVERYTHING at in a unified way)
e.g. In theory, if Jack Straw tries a Psephological move, and gets BLASTED
out (by The Sixsmith Missile), and Richard Littlejohn/Kelvin McKenzie etc were
planning the SAME move but are beaten to it by Straw and then witness HIS fate,
their algorithm would be permanently altered by deterrence?
i.e. Richard Littlejohn/Kelvin McKenzie MERELY survive by dint of NOT being first like Straw - but being first subsequently WILL blast them out (something then known to them from witnessing the fate of Straw) - thereby forcing CONSTANT hesitancy from them - surely?
They'll then ONLY rant when ACTUAL Moslem behaviour prompts it.
("ALL resources can then be ranged on the remaining factor" - they are `nailed' to that path)
Am I the ONLY person who knows how fight Terrorism WITHOUT just re-running Ulster in full?
99. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Is dopey Essex often being made to
attack Moslems MERELY by citing to them that the French AREN'T attacking
Moslems? (And therefore CAN dopey Essex be made NOT to attack Moslems MERELY by
citing to them that the French ARE attacking Moslems?)
(This one was noticed during the 1990's British Beef machinations - it ran like a Charlie Brooker show, AND John Major clearly knew the desired algorithm. It was later spotted being used by Tony Blair in the run up to the Iraq War, AND was partially transparently cited by Clare Short in her evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry).
Essentially, Essex supports the OPPOSITE of whatever the French support once it is cited TO Essex what side the French ARE supporting.
(Whether to eat British beef, whether to invade Iraq, etc).
There is also the related coined `Prescott/Voynet Rule' - which says that The Daily Mail will innately attack Labour AND the French, UNLESS the French suddenly attack Labour - at which point The Daily Mail will suddenly SUPPORT the French.
The origin of the coined `Prescott/Voynet Rule' - named from a stormy year 2000 international conference incident - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1043430.stm
(The Daily Mail supported French minister Dominique Voynet in a sudden
argument with John Prescott despite her previously being completely unknown in
Britain - i.e. it simply supported WHOEVER attacked Labour over a matter).
Basically, given the various existing algorithms, can Essex/the French/Daily Mail ALL be manipulated into NOT attacking Moslems via each other?
Surely it would have to involve somehow manipulating Labour in Moslems arguments.
100. (The Sixsmith Missile) - The Temptation On The Political Right To Forever Trigger Death And Destruction Etc At Universities.
This cynical Psephological tactic was `discovered' after the "Kent State Massacre" in The US in 1970 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
(The US National Guard - essentially the equivalent of our Territorial Army - opened fire on unarmed student demonstrators - killing many and injuring more. Yet the US public at large generally SIDED with US president Richard Nixon afterwards - who had been STRUGGLING politically up to that point - it turned his presidency around in fact).
i.e. if Right-wing and in such trouble, deliberately CONCOCT confrontation AT a University - maybe not with the resulting death and destruction of course, but recklessly via a smaller stoked confrontation (which might then get out of hand though) and where the Political outcome is the same.
(See how senior Trump supporters often HINT at what turned it around for Nixon - though he was later forced out by the unrelated Watergate Scandal of course. They know that a "Kent State Massacre II" might work for the struggling Trump. Therefore see their response after that Neo-Nazi violence at a University campus).
It is known that Tories in The UK know that cynical Psephological tactic (that in effect Universities forever have a "target" painted on them by Right-wing Politicians for that reason). e.g. See how Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't do his reputation with other Tories any harm in that confrontation with students at a University in February 2018 - the dopey UK police don't know it though.
(Tory leader Theresa May in trouble and by coincidence Jacob Rees-Mogg simultaneously INCREASING his kudos with Tories via a University confrontation with students - THAT will signal to OTHER Tory leadership contenders that THEY should start thinking about deliberately concocting such confrontations with students at Universities).
"The Sixsmith Missile" concept of course works like this though - simply PROVE that dead (female) students lying on a campus somewhere is a direct result of cynical Right-wing concoction due to that endless temptation to create "Kent State II" - and a Police acknowledgment of the existence of that algorithm should do that (after all Trump supporters are hardly discreet about the concept).
Also - alerting the parents en masse OF University students - that their children perennially face that particular mortal danger not faced by other young people as a result of cynical Westminster algorithms etc - should again force the dopey Police to at least realise something about the issue.
(The classic Right-wing defence in such situations can be countered thus : Jacob Rees-Mogg etc would simply claim that the REASON that they keep running off to Universities to trigger confrontations is that "Universities are where young people are learning about opinions" etc. So THAT sort of things happens NOWHERE else in the country? Yet they make BEELINE after BEELINE for Universities - yet think of ALL the other places where young people assemble. If not really about trying to create a "Kent State II" situation then why not sometimes run off to THOSE places where young people are gathered? Which they pretty much NEVER do if you notice).
As I say, Universities have "targets" on them and the dopey Police don't know.
(Lastly - IF I'm right - then WHY hasn't `uncle' Jeremy Corbyn WARNED students of the potentially mortal danger to them presented by the very situation I've outlined? It is because Westminster likes to keep things "in house" - precisely where HE Corbyn then gets to react afterwards and THAT reaction and the initial Tory move become the ONLY chief factors in matters. Warning the Police and students and parents etc in advance ceases it as a Westminster "in house" game - hence Corbyn stays silent and simply awaits the coming Tory "serve" - which HE'LL then knock back only AFTERWARDS and NOT BEFORE in a `game' hence kept private between Westminster parties - however many DEAD students result from that failed warning of course though. Proving that about him will finish HIM too of course).
My definition of a truly fair Society;
One where Westminster can "gate-crash" the Police and MI5 etc into every Citizen in the country if in the undisputed Public Interest - but where every Citizen in the country can equally "gate-crash" the Police and MI5 etc into Westminster back if in the undisputed Public Interest too - and I fully intend duly showing EVERY Citizen in the country HOW to achieve that "gate-crashing" into Westminster by MI5 and the Police etc.
They'll think every day is Black Wednesday.
There are 659 of them, but 65.9 million of us - think about that and who'd triumph in such a "gate-crashing" game in The Public Interest once started.
As the captain of the undamaged Monitor ironclad warship said as he immediately reciprocated the Merrimak ironclad warship's attack - and rammed it back - "Might work better for us."
101. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Does the Sun newspaper massively rant in an
Islamic-themed way about Moslem boxer Amir Khan to pressure him into signing to
Sky Sports instead of another TV broadcaster?
(This concerns the coined "Lucky Lady Rule" - the situation where different Murdoch companies act like Roman provinces - backing each other up as part of an overall empire. First spotted/cited by DJ Danny Baker when Sky launched in 1989. He said that NO movie - however bad - ever gets a bad review in The Sun if shown on Sky Movies)
He cited as an example the 1975 movie Lucky Lady, described as an "enjoyable romp" by The Sun when shown on Sky Movies. Here is a review from a neutral source, see the difference - www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lucky-lady-1975
(To be fair there has been some revisionism since 1989 about how bad that
film actually is - though personally I've never seen it)
Anyway, the Moslem boxer Amir Khan;
The theory goes that WHENEVER his TV fight contract is up for renewal, The Sun always carries some front-page big RANT about him being a Moslem etc, designed to intimidate him into signing to Sky Sports (again).
Is that true?
It has certainly happened at least once but it might be a coincidence - his first contract in 2004 was for ITV, and he switched to Sky Sports later, but that first contract with them expired and was renewed, and I don't know many further contracts there have been. I believe they have all been with Sky Sports after that first ITV one though.
Have the dopey Police noticed it if the pattern is true?
102. (Air Hockey) - When arranging anti-terror training incidents in the
wake of Islamic attacks on Paris and Brussels, the Greater Manchester Police
(and it seems the Police generally) are clearly NOT privy to what the MI5 Threat
Level Setting will be in the days immediately afterwards.
I'm not quite sure how that abstract transparent knowledge could assist either Islamic terrorists or Irish Nationalist ones etc, but it can be examined to see;
(May 2016) Greater Manchester Police hold a training exercise where the "terrorist" is CLEARLY suppose to be Islamic. They then apologise to Moslems, but some people (including some Police Officers) assert that since Moslems ARE the terrorists they'd be dealing with, obviously it is a "Moslem" in the training exercise.
MI5 then issue a warning a day or so afterwards - beware of Irish Nationalist terrorists - that threat has just INCREASED whilst the Islamic terrorism threat has stayed the SAME.
(i.e. the subsequent MI5 setting clearly made any protesting Police Officers look STUPID - so such Police Officers surely CAN'T have known that MI5 were going to CHANGE the setting after a day or so. Meanwhile the Police organisers clearly didn't know either - the training `terrorist' would've been generic or `Irish' otherwise)
One possible explanation for the situation though is that Greater Manchester Police did the training exercise, Irish Nationalist terrorists then decided the following day that THEY'D do something, and MI5 found out pretty much immediately about it and quickly issuing a warning. It fits (to a degree) - but how likely is all that scenario?
Far more likely is that Greater Manchester Police simply didn't know what MI5 were going to do re the Threat Setting just a day or so after their training exercise.
It is a bit like the situation when Tory MP Ian Gow was murdered by terrorists via a car-bomb in 1990. The IRA and some Animal Rights terrorists were BOTH running around at the time and Gow's specific duties in The Commons related to BOTH issues. So there was initial confusion by Security Services and the media over asserting who was responsible - it turned out to be The IRA.
103. (The Sixsmith Missile) - In the wake of the Paris and Brussels attacks, has a prominent `Madame Soubrie' type character suddenly appeared in the French and Belgian media who is now regularly massively ranting at Moslems?
(Named from being similar to Anna Soubry if they exist - who is now a minister in David Cameron's govt ironically - who in a previous job as a presenter on Central TV relentlessly chucked anti-Catholic bigotry onto the streets of Birmingham for 17 years from a TV studio in Nottingham every Friday night after November 1974 - gleefully egged on by prominent Ulster Unionists who would of course flock en masse to the TV studio - in the famous Northern Ireland city of Nottingham. I wonder if her new boss David Cameron has seen the tapes)
Lord Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose, Madame Soubrie.
The ITV Network (and the BBC too) has FAR fewer regional opt-outs in the
post-9/11 world than existed during say The Troubles in Northern Ireland. So the
opportunities for a "Soubry II" to regularly rant to a large dedicated Midland
audience etc via ITV (and BBC) is limited anyway (Soubry used to have 90 minutes
on Friday nights via a regional opt-out in the era of essentially 4 channels) -
these days ranters are restricted to mass but piecemeal rants on Facebook and
You Tube etc. London-based national media ranters meanwhile are sometimes
hamstrung by their own parochial attitude to the provinces which can often
betray them even if they do rant about the Midlands etc.
104. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Do Moslems ACTUALLY drop more litter during their parades than Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Gays etc - or is there JUST more ranting about Moslems doing it?
Whenever Moslems parade about, there is usually some BIG ranting about all the litter left afterwards - ranting about litter which typically DOESN'T occur whenever Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Gays etc parade about.
So - have the dopey Police checked (with the Council etc) - IS there actually MORE litter after Moslem parades than others? Or just MORE ranting about it (for Psephological motive)?
The former PM Jim Callaghan famously said - "A lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has even got its boots on."
(And he was speaking before The Internet etc)
So, playing the game out, you can see how a BIG variation in community
trouble could occur IF the dopey Police don't check beforehand;
Garbage Jack Straw could run off to Murdoch etc, ranting about Moslem litter after a parade (dopey Essex not noticing his and their sudden conversion to The Greens - Straw hardly left Afghanistan and Iraq in a tidy state), and IF the dopey Police haven't checked beforehand (and it is subsequently found that the littering is actually equal or less by Moslems) then the false account by Straw gains MORE traction in the meantime before being countered by any proof that he is wrong - whereas the Police routinely having any proof to hand would counter Straw IMMEDIATELY, and any resulting community trouble WOULD therefore be LESS.
105. (Air Hockey) - What's Up Cop? Old Trafford Hoax Farce/Police
Using A "Real" Moslem During Bomb Training (when using harmless obvious fakes
would've sufficed in both case WITHOUT any of the resulting havoc) - so is
egomaniacal meglomania making Security Services ignore what Alfred Hitchcock
said about `MacGuffins' - that they don't really matter but to (dopey) Security
Services matching reality in EVERY respect DOES matter?
(Like the endless chase by The CIA etc in reality often over Barbra Streisand's underwear in the 1972 farce What's Up Doc. The actual KEY to the film IS the constant chasing by everyone and NOT where Barbra Streisand's underwear etc is at any given time - EVEN though that is the thing being chased about with other `MacGuffin' things).
What film director Alfred Hitchcock said about the `MacGuffin' concept;
`It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men on a train;
One man says, "What's that package up there in the baggage rack?"
And the other answers, "Oh, that's a MacGuffin".
The first one asks, "What's a MacGuffin?"
"Well," the other man says, "It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands."
The first man says, "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,"
And the other one answers, "Well then, that's no MacGuffin!"
So you see that a MacGuffin is actually nothing at all.'
(A similar concept to a Shaggy Dog Story)
North By Northwest and The Maltese Falcon are movies with `MacGuffins' in them (they are important things to the characters in the film but NOT important to the plot of the film itself - see that abstract point?)
A 1980's BBC drama actually called The MacGuffin was a story about a kiddie fiddler govt minister being protected by MI5 - so OBVIOUSLY the dopey present Police aren't aware of any of that given the obvious parallel with Operation Midland - the `MacGuffin' in that was a small roll of photo negatives of him doing the abuse
(The dopey Police etc CAN'T see that concept - why NOT just use obvious fakes which CAN'T cause havoc when spotted in the wrong context? Just make all the trainees SEE the right context but use a FAKE thing to do it with. You don't actually NEED to use real things in EVERY respect)
How a terrorist can in theory exploit Police and Security Service stupidity on this matter;
An Old Trafford egomaniacal Security Services clown is loading all of his fake bombs back into a van etc after use for training (he'll have probably told dopey Murdoch etc beforehand about the training exercise both as part of his ongoing egomania and/or leaks etc - so the terrorist can be waiting).
Via SIMPLE distraction techniques, the terrorist could STEAL some of the fake bombs at that point.
Obviously they'd LOOK real - so can then just be left BACK at Old Trafford (or Wembley or Heathrow etc) to cause bomb hoax HAVOC.
(You'd probably place them BACK at Old Trafford, as the Police would then assume that the original Security Service idiot with them just left them behind there - see how they've already assumed that. Placing them at Heathrow etc would alert Police that they had been stolen first)
The KEY point;
If you just used say a rolled up newspaper, and told trainees to IMAGINE it as a bomb for the exercise, it can't then be stolen (or left behind) to cause deliberate or accidental bomb hoaxes, as it doesn't look like a bomb in WHATEVER context - so the question is WHY NOT DO THAT THEN?
(Answer - egomaniacal megalomania by the Police and Security Services etc - to them it is too "Dad's Army" to use something like a rolled up newspaper etc as a prop - EVEN though in reality it IS just as good given the context you are using it for)
Or maybe the Police just like forever chasing Barbra Streisand's underwear - I wonder what undercover Police job that was.
106. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Lynton Crosby's "Dead Cat Strategy"
In 2015, Veils were brought up in Canada (like with Jack Straw here of course) but during a General Election in that country
(I believe that the Right-wing Conservative Party leader who did it, Stephen Harper, still lost anyway - certainly Justin Trudeau is the current Prime Minister of Canada and is the leader of the Liberal Party having won a general election in October 2015 against the Conservative Party, which mirrors our's. And - unlike in say Australia - the Liberal Party in Canada mirrors our Liberal Democrats here. The Liberal Party in Australia is actually the equivalent of our Tories, and fights Labor which mirrors our Labour).
The "Dead Cat Strategy" also was infamously used in the 2015 UK General Election (by The Tories), but did NOT involve ranting at Moslems that time. It was about Trident if you remember - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/lynton-crosby-and-dead-cat-won-election-conservatives-labour-intellectually-lazy
The 2015 Canadian example about Veils - http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/dead-cats-and-the-niqab/
The Wikipedia explanation of the "Dead Cat Strategy" - (To counter) `When losing an argument and having the facts against you was to do the equivalent of "throwing a dead cat on the table": bring up an issue you want to talk about that draws widespread attention from the populace, forcing opponents to also talk about your new issue, instead of the previous issue' (Which you want to avoid because you were losing that argument).
Explained better in widely reported explanations of the Psephological concept;
"There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat onto a dining room table — and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’; in other words, they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and so they will then not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief."
So the fact that a senior Canadian politician used "The Dead Cat Strategy" to bring up Veils, and the fact that (UK-based political guru) Lynton Crosby's name was then widely cited by the Canadian political media etc means that in theory that the tactic in the UK either has potential use with Moslems here OR has already been used with them - and that The Police are NOT aware of that
(Probably not The Police in Canada either - so a potential chance to trip up that Five Eyes malarkey thing there via the Air Hockey concept) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
The resulting BIG rows with Moslems DO trigger widespread public disorder etc, and so ARE a matter that The Police NEED to understand the dynamics of and publicly acknowledge etc.
Hence it is added to this online list.
107. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Which Parties recruit outside Football grounds, which Parties don't recruit outside Football grounds, and is it linked in any way to Football hooliganism?
Typically, you DON'T find the Lib Dems and Green Party etc outside Football grounds recruiting, but you DO sometimes find UKIP and The BNP etc outside Football grounds recruiting - have the dopey Police ever thought about WHY that is? (Given that hundreds of Police stand nearby seemingly not noticing that anomaly). Especially as regards any (abstract) link with that Political situation and Football Hooliganism.
108. (The Sixsmith Missile) - `Boat Race Justice' and the `Chewbacca
Defence' in court cases
Godwin's Law is an Internet adage asserting that - "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"
(i.e. it becomes a certainty after a while)
The recent Ken Livingstone argument was SURELY an example of that?
"Oh, Godwin's Law again" - my guess is that the dopey Police en masse DIDN'T think that during the row?
i.e. widespread recognition of that "law" BY the Police would've been a better situation given the community trouble which resulted?
The `Chewbacca Defence' meanwhile is the (US slang) name given to a legal strategy in which a lawyer aims to deliberately confuse the jury rather than actually refute the case of the other side.
(Alluding to the origins of the Chewbacca character in the Star Wars films - whether he comes from the planet Endor or not) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense#Origin
When I served, police officers only said cynical things to each other like;
"If a trial Judge went to Oxford University but any appeal Judge went to Cambridge University, he/she is MORE likely to throw out a trial Verdict than if the trial Judge went to Oxford University and the appeal Judge went to Oxford University too, or than if both Judges went to Cambridge University. And vice-versa."
(i.e. if that situation was termed say "Boat Race Justice" would the Police understand and recognise the phenomena on sight quicker than the otherwise scenario when it has no name and is just fully explained by officers to each other each time?)
Has official research has been done academically re the Supreme Court to see if that "Boat Race Justice" thing is actually true - do they split along Oxbridge lines?
By a 3 – 2 majority (Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Steyn in siding against Lord Slynn and Lord Lloyd) ruled that General Pinochet did not have State immunity.
Remember that famous legal case? So let's tabulate it out;
Lord Nicholls (he went to Cambridge), Lord Hoffmann (Oxford), and Lord Steyn (Oxford) - siding against Lord Slynn (Cambridge), and Lord Lloyd (Cambridge).
So not quite conclusive and unanimous there - but a little suspicious certainly - and what happens if you add more cases?<
Tabulate out that recent US Gay Marriage one too against their judge's "Ivy League" universities - is it Harvard, Princeton, Yale - and some others too?
The point with the Police being THIS though;
If police officers used a coined term for that, rather than having to explain it to each other each time ("Boat Race Justice" is just my coined term for it) would it be circulated amongst them and then subsequently recognised quicker?
109. (The Sixsmith Missile) - According to BBC News, ITN, and Sky News - does the number of Hate
Crimes get reported as "increasing/decreasing" or "allegedly
increasing/decreasing" (irrespectively of actual Police or Court evidence etc)
but merely depending on whether the Political Party disputing the issue is one
which can or can't hand out Knighthood and/or has influence with Ofcom etc?
(This type of issue was first noticed in 1993 when the then prime minister John Major - as a result of launching Back To Basics - inadvertently started making a clearly rattled Michaela Strachan say that male and female ants and frogs etc literally "fall in love" when she was presenting her wildlife BBC TV shows etc. Obviously reverting back to her normal scientific descriptions of insect mating behaviour etc when Back To Basics then ended in shambles a few months later - and yet we talk about German universities twisting science under Hitler. Then regarding how Michael Howard on the back of the James Bulger murder started stating that black was white on issues and forced the BBC etc to say "the alleged truth" about certain social things no matter HOW obvious the truth about them actually was)
i.e. the situation when the BBC etc is either caught in the headlights of rampaging senior Politicians, or chasing Knighthoods from them.
(June 2016) UKIP aren't presently in a position to offer Knighthoods to BBC journalists (and e.g. The SNP refuses to hand out Knighthoods to anyone mere of out principle). UKIP only have one MP (Douglas Carswell) - and even he doesn't rampage about that much and dispute obvious facts etc.
When it is put to UKIP that firstly, there has been an INCREASE in Hate Crimes after the EU Referendum, and secondly, that the chief factor in that was the provocative nature of the Leave campaign - that (despite much Police evidence to the contrary) they DISPUTE both facts - both any increase and the stated reasons.
However when discussing the issue themselves, BBC News, ITN, and Sky News DON'T dispute those (Police) facts.
(i.e. they DON'T say "an alleged increase" in Hate Crimes but say "an increase" - as if to them the facts are indisputablee).
i.e. is it the case that any senior Tory or Labour figure (who can hand out Knighthoods and affect the BBC Charter etc) can ALWAYS force the BBC, ITN and Sky News to DISPUTE (obvious) facts over community relations etc - but UKIP (who can't hand out Knighthoods and affect the BBC Charter etc) therefore equally can't force the BBC, ITN, and Sky News to DISPUTE (obvious) facts over community relations etc?
The dopey Police SURELY haven't noticed THAT abstract fact?
(New reality show by the BBC - Don't Tell The Bride To Kiss The Frog Until They Are In Love - presented by Michaela Strachan and John Major)
110. (The Sixsmith Missile) - (Opposition) Parties running off to `storm' Mosques (dragging Bradby and Boulton along) with their ranting Manifesto ideas and pledges ages before a General Election actually occurs - but when it comes to their Manifesto ideas and pledges about Health, Education, Finance etc ages before a General Election too they always say - "You have to wait until the General Election to hear what our ideas are" !
(Whenever Opposition Parties rant and rave about anything always remember that they CAN'T actually put their ideas in place until after a General Election which they've won anyway - i.e. essentially absolutely every piece of airtime which fawning BBC News, ITN, and Sky News gave The Labour Party from 1980 - 1996 was irrelevant. So CLEARLY an indication of `kinghthood-chasing' there).
111. Fleet Street differences over stating the threats made by ISIS compared to not stating the threats made by Football Hooligans etc
(BBC News, ITN, and Sky News don't really carry threats made by ISIS against its
enemies nor threats made by Football Hooligans against their enemies either -
there is an issue with Fleet Street over it though).
Clowns like Paul Rouledge and Kevin McGuire at The Daily Mirror get it wrong, and they may in fact be lying. See how Terror attacks typically drive The Voter to the RIGHT subsequently, and NOT to the Left?
(Anna Soubry essentially made a career for herself at Central ITV from knowing that about this city after events in November 1974).
The point being this;
If ACTUAL Terrorism "serves" The Right (which typically it does), it appears that the THREAT of Terrorism "serves" The Right too, and therefore in theory Right-wingers have Psephological motive to STATE threats made by Terrorists.
(The fact that Right-wingers DON'T carry violence threats made by Football
Hooligans etc - which are VERY easy to find and aren't always idle threats -
shows the anomaly).
Imagine that Labour rules, and The Daily Mail decides to run threats made by ISIS, but also threats made by Football Hooligans etc too.
Such carried threats by The Daily Mail WOULD indeed aid The Tories get into govt (would make Labour look weak) but there's a drawback;
HEIGHTENING both sets of threats (neither of which are idle of course) would HEIGHTEN the expectation that The Tories would then SOLVE both ISIS and Football Hooliganism when in govt. But decisively solving Football Hooliganism - painting the Forth Bridge is an easier task? And the public KNOWS that?
(On the back of the Bulger murder case in 1993, the then PM John Major DID pledge to decisively sort all the drunken violence occurring on Friday and Saturday nights - and the fawning BBC News, ITN, and Sky News DID oblige him in making it sound like a viable task then - but it proved unviable of course and no successor PM has succeeded there either. I doubt that they'd be as fawning if say PM Theresa May now says it - they'll probably be openly sceptical)
Whereas presently the public still largely believes that ISIS can be beaten - i.e. stating ISIS threats but not Football Hooligan threats fits the neded algorithm - make threats look BIG enough that it makes The Voter move to the Right, but NOT so big that The Tories then look FAILURES over solving them.
And I think THAT explains why The Daily Mail etc states the threats made by ISIS
compared to not stating the threats made by Football Hooligans etc
112. (Air Hockey) - In appointing (blatant Right-wing ideologue) Liam Fox as a Brexit trade minister (and the circumstances of his previous resignation over dubious partisan activity), has PM Theresa May heard about the Enron Scandal? And do the dopey Police know the risks too? (Public disorder DOES increase during electricity power cuts).
"The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices."
More - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
Imagine that (adjacent neighbours) Spain and Portugal were OUTSIDE the EU instead if inside it;
If Spain has a Right-wing govt, and Portugal has a Right-wing govt too, the Trade Agreement negotiated between the 2 would be - A
If Spain has a Left-wing govt, and Portugal has a Left-wing govt too, the Trade Agreement negotiated between the 2 would be - B
If Spain has a Right-wing govt, and Portugal has a Left-wing govt, the Trade Agreement negotiated between the 2 would be - C
If Spain has a Left-wing govt, and Portugal has a Right-wing govt, the Trade Agreement negotiated between the 2 would be - D
i.e. the Trade Agreement can be different in 4 ways depending on who is elected in both countries
(INSIDE the EU the Trade Agreement between Spain and Portugal is always the SAME of course whoever is elected - which is a strength of The EU over Democracy - certainly it assists with long-term business planning. So counter-factually SEE how Democracy isn't innately superior in all circumstances?)
Imagine that (outside the EU) Spain has a Right-wing govt, and Portugal has a Right-wing govt too, and they easily negotiate (due to both being Right-wing) that Spain should buy Portugal's electricity company. Done deal.
Then say a General Election is looming in Portugal - so obviously the existing Right-wing govt might become a Left-wing one instead.
Can you SEE that the Portuguese electricity company (now under Right-wing Spanish ownership and so not wanting a Left-wing govt in Portugal either) has the Psephological motive to say, "accidentally" cut the power in Portugal when the Left-wing candidate in Portugal has a Party Political Broadcast on etc?
(THAT was the situation with Enron in California - they were "accidentally" cutting the power at times when the timing would in theory bring about certain desired election results. They were trying to aid the Right-wing Republican Party in point of fact. I don't think it actually worked in rigging election outcomes though - the Democrats always won anyway - but it WAS done with that motive)
So can you see the risk in picking a blatant ideologue (Liam Fox) to negotiate Trade Deals between countries?
PM Theresa May presumably hasn't see that risk in assigning him - and the dopey Police certainly won't have.
My guess is that most Leave voters in the Referendum hadn't heard of the Enron Scandal and the possible implications for our trade outside The EU? The Enron Scandal was one reason why I voted Remain.
113. (Air Hockey) - Since the dopey UK police were roundly tricked BY Christian fundamentalists in 1992 into maliciously raiding a group perceived to be opponents OF Christian fundamentalists, what safeguards exist post-9/11 to prevent the dopey UK police from being roundly tricked BY Christian fundamentalists again into raiding the perceived opponents OF Christian fundamentalists but who this time are Moslems?
"Having been encouraged by Christian groups involved in propagating the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic, in 1992, the Channel 4 documentary show Dispatches claimed to have discovered videotapes depicting (occultist) Genesis P-Orridge sexually abusing children in a ritual setting. Police from the Obscene Publications Squad subsequently raided h/er home, and confiscated several tons of art work. At the time, P-Orridge was in Thailand undertaking famine relief work, and fearing that s/he would be arrested on h/er return to the UK and lose custody of h/er children, s/he stayed out of the country for several years, settling in the United States. P-Orridge believed that the Press and police attacks on h/er were as a result of a vendetta conceived by aRight-wing fundamentalist Christian group. It was subsequently revealed that the footage obtained did not depict child abuse. Instead, it was a video artwork titled First Transmissions that had been made in the early 1980s, part-funded by Channel 4 themselves; the footage depicted sex-magical rites between adults, blood-letting performances, and scenes of the filmmaker Derek Jarman reading passages from the work of Geoffrey Chaucer. Embarrassed by these revelations, Channel 4 retracted their initial accusations."
(Genesis P-Orridge identifies as transgender - so again on this long list see how again that is someone whom Jeremy Clarkson doesn't like who is singled out for unjustified Police harassment)
(The Obscene Publications Squad now comes under the Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Command in The Metropolitan Police. The squad called Counter Terrorism Command is the unit which in theory could be tricked into raiding Moslems over Terrorism. See how the police HAVE been tricked before by fundamentalist Christians into carrying out raids against those whom they - and Jeremy Clarkson - doesn't like).
After recent events in Paris (Islamic terrorists murdering a priest) some angry Christians might be getting ideas over how to screw Moslems "in retaliation", and might have realised seemingly how easy an option (post-McPherson and Forest Gate etc) tricking the police into it is (the online list is currently LITTERED with assertions where the police claim to be neutral but aren't - and surely more Christians are police than Moslems?) So we need to get some answers over the police safeguarding procedures with this BEFORE any police anti-raiding of Moslems at the behest of fundamentalist Christians is launched, so that we don't have to wait 27 years etc for The Truth if waiting for the police to act first and THEN querying any raid afterwards etc.
114. (Air Hockey) - Can the Spectator magazine be abstractly used to (repeatedly) embarrass new foreign secretary Boris Johnson?
(The genius didn't actually cite that second far less accepted theory - just
asserted that the first one was a Lefty idea)
Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Ghana etc etc etc - all those Commonwealth nations in Africa
What would their governor generals etc make of such a thing existing on a Boris Johnson owned website? What would happen if they were all told about it?
Whatever - given that Ken Livingstone said that Hitler was friendly with the Jews, I doubt that any Anthropological theory put forward by a Lefty like him would stand too much scrutiny from David Attenborough - so I hardly imagine that his ilk came up with the `Out Of Africa Theory' either.
(What crackpot version of ancient Anthropology was cited in the old Soviet Union? That would be the `Lefty' version in point of fact. Hitler - at the behest of Himmler - asserted that an ancient global anti-Jewish religion based in Tibet and Nepal etc was the origin of Mankind - hence their `Aryan' ideas. That was done in an attempt to limit the power of the Christian church in Nazi Germany and so concentrate power even more around Hitler)
I think the Police know that Reactionary idiots exist online and have the ability to cause some community trouble, but not on demand like Westminster (but dopey MI6 would react only AFTER the row with several African nations had actually broken out and clearly haven't seen that risk beforehand. In theory the plot would be useful for someone looking to upset UK/Commonwealth relations to at least attempt. I'd have thought that someone senior in France angry about Brexit could easily get some of the old ex French colony North African countries to secretly make the sub-Saharan nations aware of it - creating the row both in vengeance for Brexit and to sabotage attempted UK trade deals with South Africa and Nigeria etc and thereby ultimately weaken the UK hand when it later comes to Article 50 and beyond)
(Can the Spectator magazine be turned into "Italy" for owner Boris Johnson? Like the Italy of Mussolini with Hitler in WW2 - useless at fighting in the first place, that uselessness leads to you having to spend resources bailing out the woes it triggers which could be put to better use elsewhere, does having it on your side deter useful others from allying with you who might otherwise consider or even join an alliance with you? Create that situation with The Spectator and Boris Johnson and - like with Germany and Italy in places like North Africa in WW2 - you'd finish both. And see what Boris says about Libyan dead when that happens).
115. (Air Hockey) Fox News and guns, Fox News and socialised health care - The Sun newspaper and guns, The Sun newspaper and socialised health care.
Is that overall editorial situation more or less the OPPOSITE of the scene at the beginning of The Longest Day movie, where Rommel looks out across The Channel early in 1944 and warns his general staff that the Anglo-American invasion IS coming at some point, but he DOESN'T know WHERE and he DOESN'T know exactly WHEN?
"I know it doesn't look like it gentlemen - but believe me - there is a monster out there."
(Since this online list concerns only things unnoticed by the dopey police and MI5 etc which they SHOULD notice, this one details only gun issues and not the NHS too despite the identical circumstances)
Conventional politics asserts that WE don't have guns but the US does, primarily because we (our Parliament etc) takes into account overall public safety as the paramount issue, and the US takes into account its Constitution as the paramount issue - yes?
"Nailing" disputes that though, and makes a counterfactual assertion;
The US takes into account its Constitution as the paramount issue over gun laws - yes (with seeming Game Theory use by Right-wingers to wrong-foot liberals), but in Britain the gun issue is essentially an internal battle within The Tory Party.
i.e. can a Michael Howard "Bulger Tricking" crime algorithm over guns ever trump David Mellor's restrictive strategy over guns as an overall Psephological strategy against The Labour Party?
And also that currently most Tories aren't convinced by the Howard strategy idea over gun policy - preferring the David Mellor strategy, even though essentially that just forces a draw with Labour rather than a win concerning the Swing Voter.
Another deciding issue is that The Tories often rely on the Police to assist
in breaking major national organised strikes, where Trade Unions then may seek
to assist each other etc (the US has no real tradition of that in a national
sense - national unions organising major national group strikes). So The Tories
need to keep the Police onside generally.
(Surely it is beyond dispute that MORE Police would be murdered in the UK by any major gun law loosening IRRESPECTIVE of how many additional armed criminals were then shot by the Police who would be all armed too themselves? i.e. the Police do NOT support any major gun law loosening for that reason, and so any Tory move to do so risks dangerously alienating them should The Tories then ask them to break union strikes later).
So again that strengthens the David Mellor gun law position within the Tory Party - maybe Michael Howard could well trick the Swing Voter onside with a pro-gun angle, but he would then surely lose the Police in doing it - which would then be a problem should the Trade Unions ever want to `play' again.
It is unknown WHY Michael Howard failed to back up Prince Philip after Dunblane occurred - the move seemed logical but didn't occur. Possible reasons are that David Mellor from the same dept (Home Office) had ALREADY made his position clear and wasn't going to back down either, and so Howard clashing within him would have WEAKENED Howard against PM John Major in the ongoing in-fighting chaos of that Tory govt - or that the resonating Dunblane parents had tacitly made it clear that they WOULDN'T be tricked like the Bulgers previously. They wanted GUNS banned, NOT videos of people shooting guns banned etc (or at least that was very much secondary to them) - and they were adamant on that.
(Again counterfactually - The Labour Party will NEVER legalise guns, because even by any resulting major Political violence no good would come of it for them - e.g. the people of Kingstanding and Lozeells etc would have inferior guns to those people in Sutton Coldfield and Little Aston etc who'd be able to afford bigger and better ones)
It MATTERS because if the public/police FAIL to understand the TRUE Psephological dynamics at work over guns, we might end up with guns due to a failing thwarting strategy.
Where Fox News and The Sun unwittingly help us though - remember the D-Day parallel;
The way that Fox News is NOW over guns is the way that The Sun WILL BE over guns should the Michael Howard algorithm ever be adopted by The Tories against Labour
i.e. the EXACT same type of Political attacks and strategy over the gun issue against liberals.
So, unlike Rommel (who is like the dopey Police in the parallel) we DO know in advance HOW and WHERE, and WHEN should be transparent once it starts
(And in fact forcing the dopey Police to immediately notice this one on the list and understand it would mean knowing the WHEN in advance would actually then make it NEVER)
116. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Geordieland and the `Fast Count Factor' on
Another good example here of factors in community trouble which the dopey Police probably miss;
Whenever an issue now arises about Brexit, notice how BBC News, ITN, and Sky News typically run off to Geordieland (Tyne and Wear) to interview people about it - why is that?
The dopey Police (if they've even noticed that at all) probably think it is down to some INNATE fact about EU immigrants specifically IN Geordieland itself etc (that they are in greater number THERE than elsewhere in The UK etc).
Actually why BBC News, ITN, and Sky News subsequently make a bee-line for Geordieland over Brexit issues;
There is a longstanding tradition in Geordieland to `race' over declaring their local result FIRST on election nights. That occurred as normal on Brexit night. It means that any (potential) upset result gets noticed in Geordieland FIRST by the media (as happened on Brexit night). That area then becomes part of the "narrative" of the overall shock result (as did Nuneaton in the 2015 General Election) - so it isn't really about WHERE an election issue is MOST pressing subsequently.
(See if the local authorities in Geordieland subsequently order SLOW COUNTS on election nights IF the outcome of the Brexit decision starts to make Geordies look STUPID in front of a national TV audience whenever BBC News, ITN, and Sky News come calling - so far it isn't really. That way ANOTHER area will always declare first and subsequently look stupid if policy mistakes get made by electorates in future).
That one may not be a prime factor in community trouble in the country, but it is probably another one which the dopey Police have missed.
117. (Air Hockey) - Dopey James Comey and his FBI baloney
Re his late intervention in the 2016 US presidential race - here is the
solution which that FBI Comey bloke obviously couldn't see;
Comey seems to have confused computer Files and computer Emails as concepts - a File essentially sits on ONE computer (the one it was composed on obviously), but a Sent email sits on (at least) TWO computers or servers (the one it was composed on again - but also the one it was sent To)
i.e. if you have a File and destroy the computer, the File is gone - but have an Email and destroy the computer, and the Email isn't necessarily gone - it STILL sits on the other computer.
Comey was hunting around for all those Hillary emails, found that many were deleted, and simply abandoned the search. Re-opening the investigations ONLY when finding another set of emails (which might just be duplicates of ones already checked anyway) - the TIMING looking suspicious or even downright crooked.
What he should have done;
REALISING at the time that the Sent emails may well still exist elsewhere (which he clearly didn't) he should have made a VERY public appeal MONTHS back on realising that - does ANYONE out there have the Hillary emails since THAT possibility exists.
That way, when they then turned up NOW just days before the election, the timing CLEARLY wouldn't have been down to Comey (everyone would have seen his very public appeal months back) but to WHOEVER it was who would've for some reason IGNORED his public appeal months back and has only come forward NOW.
(The FBI would have Forensic evidence procedures PROVING when the laptop came into their possession)
As it is, Comey now both looks crooked and also HAD has to find something incriminating (which he didn't) and so has destroyed the FBI's reputation forever - what an idiot.
Remember too that The FBI, Cobra, MI5. Five Eyes, and CGHQ etc are the ones currently fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda etc - and yet the mere me has just proved how STUPID one of them is.
118. (Air Hockey). The `Dieppe Strategy' - e.g. how a senior politician ranting about Abortion (on cue) can in theory assist Al Qaeda etc to attack an airport etc.
(Essentially devised during the patterned "commando raids" in the 2005 General Election by Tory Michael Howard at the behest of "political genius" Sir Lynton Crosby. Named from the scene of a decisive German counter-attack of the Allied commando raid at Dieppe in 1942. In the concept the overall political game is transformed from the existing hackneyed Janet Daley v Ken Livingstone debate over issues into who can make Michael Howard/Lynton Crosby step on a decisive "land-mine" first).
If say Donald Trump rants at Moslems, he'll SOON inevitably rant about Mexicans/Women/Abortion
etc NEXT (or
if ranting at Women first it will be Moslems/Mexicans/Abortion IMMEDIATELY next etc).
Michael Howard v Tony Blair in the 2005 election was a classic example - as Howard quickly switched to Crime, Asylum, Abortion etc etc.
The key lies in the fact that WHEN Women/Mexicans/Abortion etc ARE attacked, Moslems etc WILL soon be attacked next;
e.g. if a ranter picks Abortion first to rant at, the Police can just be warned that Moslems (and the inevitable community trouble stemming from that) will be immediately next.
If picking Moslems first though, then Abortion will be NEXT or certainly SOON afterwards.
e.g. imagine a Terrorist in the US wanting to attack an airport with guns etc,
but naturally worrying that once any attack is launched, the Police etc will inevitably
SOON arrive in force and start putting up stiff resistance of course - thwarting much
of the raid.
BUT IF KNOWING ABOUT THE HACKNEYED RANTING ALGORITHM OF TRUMP;
When attacking Moslems, then Women/Abortion will be NEXT from Trump and SOON.
i.e. if you are a Terrorist - pick an airport to attack which is FURTHEST from any Abortion clinics (that is transparent knowledge via the Yellow Pages etc), and WAIT and PREPARE once Trump rants at Moslems - when Trump then rants about Abortion next and soon after (you'll know in advance), the Police will all race TO Abortion clinics (to maintain public order THERE due to the high profile ranting of Trump triggering protesting trouble outside them etc).
With the Police then busy THERE - YOU attack the airport.
SURELY you'll then kill MORE people at the airport BEFORE the Police can arrive (you've deliberately picked the FURTHEST airport away from any Abortion clinics - remember?) than if NOT knowing the Trump pattern and just attacking an airport randomly - yes?
The CIA can't see that concept, The FBI can't see that either - so will a Terrorist see it first and use it? After all I spotted it easy enough - and have now told you.
And of course in the concept, "The Nailer" STATES it on sight (I just have of course) - because THAT action can then DEFINITELY force a THWARTING move against any Terrorist beforehand - thereby PROVING that TRUMP risked assisting the Terrorist - so no great patriot he.
(The ACTUAL issues of Women, Mexicans, Moslems, Abortion etc BEING whatever they are is
made irrelevant to the immediate debate - so you do have to solve those issues
ONCE you've knocked out the ranter of course - `Nailing' does cover that issue
with other concepts).
The game becomes about WHO can "land-mine" the ranter FIRST, not arguing the toss with the ranter about whatever they are ranting about.
120. (Sixsmith Missile) -
What is said on-air at 10.01pm on each Polling Day as a factor in Moslem
(This was first spotted during the 1989 Tory leadership contest - Maggie Thatcher v non-entity "Sir Nobody" Anthony Meyer - which the incumbent Thatcher won. On BBC TV - without prompting and INSTANTLY after the result was given out - Thatcher supporter Norman Fowler gave hiis response (she had won easily and he instantly re-enforced that view on air). Politicians DON'T normally act like that on TV if you notice - and such occasions are pretty much ONLY times they jump in and start a conversation without prompting - the interviewer nearly always starts the conversation first. The discrepancy seems to be about SETTING THE AGENDA and QUICKLY. Those occasions MUST be VERY important over that since it ONLY occurs THEN).
The same thing happens at 10.01pm on Polling Day - just after the Exit Poll prediction is given. They clearly have a "crib-sheet" saying what to say depending on the Exit Poll announced seconds earlier.
So e.g. in the 2010 general election, this type of thing occurred at 10.01pm;
Peter Mandelson of Labour (BBC) - "First Past The Post (the type of voting system we have) is on its last legs."
Tessa Jowell of Labour (Sky News) - "First Past The Post is on its last legs."
On THAT occasion it seemed to be about Labour angling to the Lib Dems about a coalition BEFORE The Tories could do it in the Hung Parliament which the Exit Poll was predicting (a deal to ditch First Past The Post which would subsequently help the Lib Dems in elections). The attempt ultimately failed of course (the Lib Dems joined with The Tories instead)
So IF in the 2017 election, THIS type of thing is said at 10.01pm;
"It was those Moslems planting those bombs which caused that result" etc - THAT mean a big ORCHESTRATED Westminster attack on them (from the Party which said it) will come within hours.
i.e. the dopey Police WON'T know that until the trouble STARTS - but we'd know at 10.01pm that night that is it coming - so several hours notice. And that MATTERS over Moslem trouble.
"What is said at 10pm on Polling Day can sometimes look stupid at 10am just a few hours later." - David Blunkett.
It certainly will look a stupid thing to do if it triggers a "Sixsmith Missile" on your Party from the police Mr Blunkett.
121. (Air Hockey) - Moslems "have all been secretly plotting Jihad in Britain at some future point for ages" but whom in fact though all actually said DAMN ALL against anti-gun measures after Hungerford and Dunblane - and also pretty much universally support State measures against gun-toting gangs like The Burger Bar Boys and The Johnson Crew etc.
IF (as garbage like UKIP etc allege) Moslems are all secretly plotting some mass Jihad in Britain at some future point and HAVE been for decades, read me this riddle;
When Hungerford occurred (August 1987) and then Dunblane (March 1996) WHY did Moslems in Britain NOT oppose the (further) gun restrictions which followed BOTH incidents?
(i.e. if you were all plotting some secret future armed battle in Britain since about 1950 etc then WHY freely allow new gun restrictions which will inevitably thwart that plan and therefore force it FURTHER into the distance?)
Any counter argument that (further) disarmament via the UK State of non-Moslems (after Dunblane and Hungerford) would helpfully allow Moslems to ARM themselves via criminal gangs and THAT explains them not opposing gun restrictions falls apart because Moslems constantly IMPLORE the Police to DISARM those criminal gangs (not surprising since they live cheek by jowl with them in Britain's inner cities of course and are often the innocent bystanders in such armed gun battles).
Also - note how in Ulster (a land which WAS actually LOUSE with secret Politically affiliated Paramilitaries at the time of Hungerford and Dunblane) there WAS such reticence about gun restrictions from BOTH sets of ITS Politicians in response to Hungerford and Dunblane - and hence the subsequent gun restrictions operated DIFFERENTLY there.
(Re Dunblane and the subsequent arguments - I didn't know Prince Philip was a Moslem).
So some very well planned Jihad that will be in the future by Moslems then - one with no guns against The Royal Marines etc.
We don't know which Think Tanks etc the dopey Police listen to on this but to me it is fairly obvious - Moslems en masse freely allowed anti-gun measures taken after Hungerford and Dunblane to disrupt any hidden plans for their future violent Jihad in Britain because there WAS no plan by them to do that in the FIRST place. And that piece of abstract thinking is rather good evidence of that fact.Conclusion - 9/11 (which occurred long after both Hunngerford and Dunblane of course) blindsided Moslems in the country as much as it did the rest of us - it wasn't all part of some grand future scheme.
122. (The Sixsmith Missile) - An initially injuncted story subsequently places HIGHER in the News Agenda when the injunction is lifted than a story with no injunction all along - and therefore that tooo would apply to any initially injuncted story involving Moslems.
Do you remember that story about that young girl with terminal cancer who was frozen before death in the hope she could be thawed out in the future and treated? It TOPPED the News Agenda - on mere merit though? No.
(Fleet Street purposely gives MASSIVE publicity to stories where an existing injunction is lifted - as a deliberate deterrent against those who might seek injunctions at some point)
(Yes - that accepted term comes from a 2003 event - so note how that Anne Robinson, Piers Morgan, James Corden etc clearly didn't tell Yanks about Frankie Goes To Hollywood and Relax etc).
123. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Much like with being the Secretary Of State For Northern Ireland during The Troubles (which was ACTUALLY always seen as the "short straw" job itself by Cabinets whilst the likes of Anna Soubry etc constantly ranted and raved about how vital it was and with 20, 000 British soldiers backing it up) - is THAT the truth about the Cabinet position of Communities Secretary today? Again seen as "the short straw" job by the senior Political people who are actually offered it whilst Katie Hopkins etc rants and raves with British soldiers again here and there and everywhere and sometimes are even walking around The Mainland backing it up?
And does that explain much of the Political(Military and Policing) failings over both issues? Have the dopey police considered THAT factor as a possibility in matters?
(John Major was once interviewed on TV about when he became PM in 1990 - he said he that had then made a list of 10 important unsolved things that he should sort out in the country. He was then asked where Northern Ireland with all of its ongoing killing and violence was on that list of 10 things to sort out. Clearly looking flummoxed on camera - he claimed it was at the very top of that list - but do you really think it was? Note how he never actually instantly produced the list himself so that we could see for ourselves where it was on the list though. I'd guess it was at between 7 and 10 with the Poll Tax at Number 1. Northern Ireland certainly wasn't a factor discussed in the Tory leadership contest which made him PM in the first place).
124. (Air Hockey) `The Nailer' Sank Your Battleship - can submerged Trident nuclear submarines be located at sea (by the enemy etc) MERELY by studying Psephology at Westminster?
So, it looks like macho clown Michael Fallon runs off to Faslane nuclear submarine base etc pretty much merely when Psephology `tells' him to (he is constantly eyeing the Tory leadership) - and at least one nuclear sub WAS present in that Faslane port when he prominently did it last - he dragged `Bradby and Boulton' (senior Political journalists) along too.
(The armed subs are very heavily guarded in port of course - but if you attack a moored nuclear sub in a suicide mission etc does the resulting deadly radiation leak simply spread around the port area and far beyond? Al Qaeda etc would settle for that outcome I think).
Of course though, Faslane is NOT like e.g. Area 51 in the US;
(i.e. any moored sub there can be transparently seen by nearby onlookers and therefore Al Qaeda too - so Fallon running off there in a non-classified predictable way to greet a moored sub timed to undermine Corbyn in Labour v Tory fighting or May in Tory v Tory fighting wouldn't help with attacking the sub itself - though it WOULD assist if wanting to attack BOTH defence secretary Fallon himself AND a radiation-filled sub with just ONE set of terrorist attackers)
Notice the complete point-blank reticence of the Royal Navy staff when questioned by Bradby and Boulton etc about WHERE the subs go/are/will be etc - so almost certainly FALLON summoned Bradby and Boulton there - again to undermine Corbyn at the time in question etc - the Royal Navy staff caught on film seemed to treat the journalists as a nuisance when asking such questions.
Nuclear submarine warfare follows Game Theory principles, so although Royal Navy staff of course give nothing away when directly asked, Game Theory principles themselves reveal some things over the sub's LOCATION at any given times;
Wikipedia - "Faslane itself was chosen to host these vessels at the height of the Cold War because of its geographic position, which forms a bastion on the relatively secluded but deep and easily navigable Gare Loch and Firth Of Clyde on the west coast of Scotland. This position provides for rapid and stealthy access through the North Channel to the submarine patrolling areas in the North Atlantic, through the Greenland/Iceland/UK gap to the Norwegian Sea."
But Game Theory says Faslane provides the quickest/shortest route to the huge Pacific Ocean - via underneath the Arctic Circle ice.
(i.e. the BEST place globally to hide a submarine fleet - no enemy can attack us Atomically KNOWING that unless it can find all the hidden subs in the huge Pacific first that it WILL be attacked back Atomically in retaliation for certain - straightforward Game Theory)
e.g. the Wikipedia explanation doesn't explain why a British nuclear sub caught up with the Belgrano in The Falklands War long before the Task Force sailing from here did - so clearly that sub can't have been anywhere near Norway/Greenland etc when Argentina invaded - it was in the South Pacific all along - it only had to sail around Cape Horn to reach the Falklands surely? And to this day Argentina still publicly moans about our passing nuclear subs nearby.
So did dopey Fallon unwittingly `help' in TRACKING the subs somehow - even when they are OUT of port?
When Fallon arrived at Faslane, a sub WAS already there, but one normally is moored anyway I think (while the others are out at sea) - so Fallon KNEW the sub was there at the time (he wouldn't have dragged Bradby and Boulton along to an EMPTY base), but so would any nearby Al Qaeda onlooker know the sub was there too - so nothing doing there.
What would need to happen is something like this;
Corbyn makes a complete public fool of himself over Trident, and Fallon seeks to exploit Psephology over it, but can't run off to Faslane immediately because a sub has NOT yet arrived in port to drag Bradby and Boulton along to, but (known only to Fallon via CLASSIFIED info) a presently submerged sub SOON will surface and moor there within days - and so a busy Fallon sets off up north BEFOREHAND in anticipation of greeting it on arrival.
At THAT point we've got something;
(i.e. in an attempt to wrong-foot Corbyn using Psephology, Fallon unwittingly REVEALS the hidden sub's area location - somewhere in the River Clyde straits area - BEFORE it actually reaches port and surfaces to be seen by everyone - THAT would be a breach of National Security)
A sub travels at only around 30 - 40 knots I think - so you COULD work out its general location if it is heading to Faslane and knowing how many days notice Fallon has unwittingly given you.
Remember those senior Royal Navy staff with those journalists - they gave away NO location info about the subs - past, present, or future - so even if narrowing down the submerged location to somewhere vague like inside The Kibrannan Sound at a given point (a strait between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran which is one of two sea routes to the Faslane base) etc it is STILL a breach of National Security.
Remember too, even after any resulting sunken Trident sub etc, the dopey MI5 etc would be looking for someone IN the immediate Kibrannan Sound area who'd have that unauthorised tracking info about the submerged nuclear submarine (thinking that it was about using Sonar to find it etc - and NOT about studying dopey Tory Fallon and Psephology at Westminster to find it)
So how would MI5 ever know that someone in Birmingham etc was actually doing the successful tracking of the hidden subs? The city is nowhere near Faslane.
`The Nailer' Sank Your Battleship.
125. (The Sixsmith Missile) - Every time a set of Panama Papers or Paradise Papers etc come out revealing previously secret details about the super-rich hiding their money in Tax Havens etc, do The Times and The Daily Mail and The Daily Express and The Sun newspapers all massively rant at Moslems on their front-pages the next day as a straightforward distraction technique for their super-rich owners?
(Just how thick are MI5 and the Police NOT to have already spotted that one?)
Post-9/11 some British people are stuffing secret bank accounts with masses of money in British Crown Dependencies, which in theory could then be funding absolutely anything and may be illegal per se anyway, and MI5 and MI6 fail to spot any of it occurring at the time. Then they storm some into innocent Moslem house in Forest Green and find nothing illegal, but run off to Murdoch with what they find out about their personal lives during the raid
It all fills you with supreme confidence over MI5 etc winning Moslem hearts and minds and keeping us all safe - eh?
126. (Air Hockey) - Has US President Donald Trump endangered many subsequent criminal trials by publicly trashing the reputation of The FBI?
(This one is not specifically about Moslems but I've added it anyway because it appears that MI5 etc have missed aspects which I'm going to point out to you)
So, some US senior lawyers have now already pointed out the obvious - that The President Of The United States Of America Donald Trump publicly trashing the reputation of The FBI (in his opinion) in theory gives Defence lawyers in many other subsequent US criminal trials indeed an angle of defence, that evidence gained by The FBI is innately crooked and EVEN The US President agrees with that!
That defence would most often be rather vague though (it would undermine say FBI fingerprint evidence etc?) A more SPECIFIC resulting example of Trump unduly "helping" Defence lawyers via his assertion would be something like this;
Extradition cases (between The UK and The US) - these pretty much always involve The US Justice Dept (which runs The FBI).
An extradition lawyer IN Britain representing The US Justice Dept routinely gives certain assurances to the British court dealing with the extradition request (that any subsequent US trial will be fair, that only legally admissible evidence will be presented at that trial, etc etc) - so essentially in a BRITISH court that lawyer VOWS as to the innate integrity of The FBI - and on oath etc.
So theoretical consequence A;
If the lawyer seeking an extradition to The US avows the integrity of The FBI to the UK court (routine), the opposing lawyer can therefore now both cite President Trump on that issue, AND therefore too raise OTHER existing controversies involving The FBI - like The Waco Siege and The Ruby Ridge Siege etc.
(The raising of The Waco Siege and The Ruby Ridge siege etc IS in theory already possible in an extradition case involving The FBI but WOULD now be more admissible given Trump's new assertions over The FBI).
The consequences in that set of circumstance though are unlikely to be decisive for the Defence - first of all JUDGES decide extradition cases in Britain NOT Juries. (Judges are less likely to fall for "Johnny Cochran bamboozle games" than a Jury - they'd study the ACTUAL evidence in question gained by The FBI over some vague overall assertion by Trump over the validity of the organisation itself).
And also, so British extradition courts would then officially and often be told about The FBI controversial roles in The Waco Siege and The Ruby Ridge Siege etc. That would be continually EMBARRASSING (for Anglo-American relations etc) certainly, but legally would be unlikely to work as a strategy - so Trump's assertion won't have helped the Defence unduly.
(A typical British judge forced to study The Waco Siege and The Ruby Ridge Siege etc concerning the wider issue of FBI integrity by the lawyer opposing extradition would most likely exonerate The FBI in both cases anyway - and at some point a senior Judge would rule that way and therefore set precedent - preventing it from being a useful Defence strategy from then on - a Defence lawyer would then merely be left to use Trump's vague assertion but couldn't specifically raise Waco and Ruby Ridge etc to back it up).
This theoretical consequence coined B seems more of a goer though;
Imagine an extradition case with TWO sets of circumstantial evidence, one set of evidence from say The Oklahoma State Police, and other independent evidence from The FBI.
The lawyer seeking extradition would KNOW that The FBI evidence is circumstantial, AND that the Defence will cite President Trump in rubbishing The FBI (and therefore potentially undermining that already weak FBI evidence).
So presenting BOTH sets of evidence together is an overall risk over integrity, but presenting ONLY The Oklahoma State Police evidence carries NO risk over integrity - but an obvious risk there though in that it therefore HALVES the amount of overall evidence in the case of course - in a case which is already circumstantial and would then be put to a Jury.
(The lawyer could NOT present only the Oklahoma State Police evidence to the UK extradition court and then present The FBI evidence too in the later trial in The US - not allowed. Also an extradition case where ONLY circumstantial FBI evidence existed would probably be ploughed on with regardless and would most likely succeed though risky given the Defence citing Trump - though an extradition case involving a Right-wing Political suspect with only circumstantial FBI evidence might be successfully undermined since Trump really did emphasise that asserted bias in The FBI).
So I think THERE lie the true legal risks in other court cases over Trump's reckless actions - and note how clueless MI5 etc HAVEN'T spotted it yet concerning UK extradition cases - and no doubt won't until they actually occur.
Baroness Shami Chakrabarti