RNC: Trump paints Biden as a ‘radical’ candidate and a danger to America | US news | The Guardian


President accepts Republican presidential nomination in event staged at White House, raising ethical concerns

Source: RNC: Trump paints Biden as a ‘radical’ candidate and a danger to America | US news | The Guardian

Brexit: Petition to remain in the EU hits one million signatures in just one day | Euronews


The response of Chris Sterry to this Euronews article

So, a Petition has received more than 1 Million signatures, but the 2016 Referendum received more than 17 Million votes. The 17 million were accused of not knowing what they were doing because the information that was produced in support of leaving, was, we are told not completely correct. But neither was the information supporting remain.

It is assumed by persons wishing to remain that if we stay in the EU, that the EU will continue as it is, but what about the threat to proceed to further political union, what will this entail, have we been informed. Will we be in control of our military forces, will we still be able to decide on our own legislation, will taxes and other forms of obtaining finance still be within our control. Will we still have an independent Government, or will it be so depleted to be as Local Government is today.

These are major issues, which currently we have not received any information on, so voting to stay is as much in the dark as voting to leave. I voted in the 1975 referendum and voted to stay within the EEC, now transformed to the EU. Did I vote for the EU, no I did not and nobody did. We could have voted on these issues, but, one, Tony Blair and other Prime Ministers did not allow a public vote. We are now told because of the lies and misinformation we should have a peoples vote, as though the vote in 2016 was not a peoples vote, so what did vote in 2016, were they not people?

We are told there are now people who were too young to vote in 2016, so they should now be allowed to express their vote but was this not the case in 1975. In 1975 there were also lies and untruths, for were we told of the wish or desire to proceed with Political Union, which we are now advised was known in 1975. I voted to stay in the EEC, but not the EU, I and many others have been denied that right since 1975.

All that is being said about the wrongs in 2016 could also be said of the 1975. But there is a major difference, in 1975 the vote was to stay, was this what the Establishment wished for, but in 2016 we voted to leave and that appears to be not what the Establishment wished for. Sour grapes by the losers in 2016, but not the losers in 1975. As 1975 was allowed to stand, so should 2016, whether it be right or wrong, just as in 1975. To say otherwise means that the democratic principles are not being adhered to and that means why should anyone really vote again, as it appears no matter what the result the Establishment will do as they please, is that not the ideals of a dictatorship?

 

Source: Brexit: Petition to remain in the EU hits one million signatures in just one day | Euronews

I told a lie to claim benefits. Now I am an MP and I want to tell you why : Guardian.


Good on you Metiria Turei and no people should not falsely claim benefit but many do to survive and all cases some be looked at on their merit.

Fraud for greed should be pounced on, but fraud to live should be different. These people need help and the Society in which they live is not producing that help. It may be that they need help to run their life better so that fraud is not the manner to exist.

Punish the true fraudsters not those just wishing to live.

Society does look down on fraudsters and in many cases rightly so., but many in that Society are also fraudsters. How many try to avoid paying tax or should I say minimize our tax payments, for there are some legal ways to do so, such as ISAs.

But some of the biggest fraudsters are those who appear to have plenty to live on. Some have been MPs in the UK by fiddling expenses, some are Corporations who use many ways to minimize their tax liability many of them being legal, but for a few some that are not.

But why does it appear the person in the street is more likely to be charged than the Corporations, is it because they are easier targets, while Corporations can afford to bring in legal experts to argue when they are suspected of fraud.

Surely all should be equal in the eyes of the law and all should be prosecuted if fraud is suspected and the punishment fit the crime taking into account the circumstances.

The reality of needing to claim benefits also needs to looked at, as for some the need to claim benefits is a necessity not a luxury, as even with benefits they will never be anyway near a luxury status.

All in Government and also the press need to reflect on this and then and only then will the stigma of claiming benefits be lifted and also will the public view of persons on benefits.

The majority on benefits do need these benefits and the fraudsters and certainly so called scroungers are the very few, especially the latter. But are real people who need benefits newsworthy, unless there is a dramatic story more than likely leading to loss of life. The occasional benefit scrounger story is so more apparently newsworthy, so what does this say about ourselves and our so called Society.

SUBSTRATUMS

A homeless person in the centre of Auckland.
A homeless person in the centre of Auckland. Photograph: Phil Walter/Getty Images

Last weekend I revealed a lie, a lie that I decided to talk about because of the situation we as a society find ourselves in.

I am the co-leader of the Green party of Aotearoa New Zealand – the third biggest political party in our small democracy. We are two months from our general election, and we’re in a tight tussle to change the government.

Over the weekend, at our party’s AGM, we launched an incomes policy which would create the most significant changes to New Zealand’s welfare system in a generation. It’s a comprehensive piece of work that…

View original post 596 more words

Tony Blair, The Libya Question


Is this the final deal?

Is it again that ‘Teflon Man‘ Blair, to whom nothing sticks, will walk away from this issue unscathed? Did he tell any truths while in office? From the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction‘ to this. This man should pay for what he has been reported for doing, except he is running around the world earning millions.

One assumes he is paying his full amount of tax, but if he says he is, who can believe him.

I agree a full enquiry should be held, but this time one he can not escape from. He should be made to pay for what he has done in the furtherance of his rise to power.