Bercow endorsed democracy theft when he allowed Independent Group amendment

Today, there were several votes in the House of Commons related to Brexit.  An amendment to one bill was tabled by a member of private company Independent Group (TIG).  Most of the supporting signatories of the amendment were members of TIG – the exception was Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake.

The amendment will be voted down.

The eleven members of TIG occupy seats in parliament they stole from voters in their respective former constituencies.  They are democracy thieves.  Their collective refusal to call by-elections is also an act of cowardice.  Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow’s decision to allow the TIG amendment to be debated and voted upon in parliament was an act against democracy. 

Bercow did not have to accept the amendment – he rejected a different amendment to the same bill.  There are several reasons why the Speaker can justify the rejection of an amendment to any bill.  However, he did not think that he could find a reason to reject an amendment from a private company whose members are stealing parliamentary seats.

The presence of the TIGgers in parliamentary exposed British democracy as a farce.  Bercow’s endorsement of them exposed him as not a supporter of democracy.  Bercow has defecated on democracy.

Related blogs
Independent Group: Theft of democracy
Independent Group: Centrist cheerleaders ignore theft of democracy

Bercow endorsed democracy theft when he allowed Independent Group amendment

Karen Bradley: Historical inaccuracy and ignorance

On the morning of 12th October 1984 an IRA bomb detonated in the Grand Hotel, Brighton that housed many delegates attending the Tory Party’s annual conference.  The bomb operated via a pre-set timer.  It killed five Tories.  Several Tories were injured including Norman Tebbit.

The Brighton Bomb was a significant event in The Irish War.  It demonstrated that the IRA was able to hit the government directly but of greater significance was the reaction from the British public: Many cheered who would not normally be supportive of the IRA’s actions, aims and politics.  The broadcast clip of Tebbit, in pajama bottoms and a vest, being carried from the hotel’s wreckage on a stretcher was an image that was not distressing to many viewers of early morning TV news bulletins.

The key consequence of The Brighton Bomb was that the reaction to it described the division in Britain between those who supported the Tories and those who hated the Tories.  The hatred of the Tories was so intense that a bomb did not lead to universal condemnation.  However, opposition politicians, led by hapless Neil Kinnock, fell into line with scripted criticism and “outrage.”  An opportunity to focus on and make use of the divisions in Britain was dodged by Kinnock; cowardice was the main facet of his political career.

Today, Tory Northern Ireland Minister Karen Bradley spouted deliberate nonsense in the House of Commons, some of which she retracted later for legal reasons, where she differentiated between deaths caused by the two sides in The Irish War.

Over 90% of the killings during the Troubles were at the hands of terrorists, every single one of those was a crime.  The fewer than 10% that were at the hands of the military and police were not crimes.  They were people acting under orders and under instruction and fulfilling their duty in a dignified and appropriate way.”

Bradley’s motivation for her reprehensible comments was entirely political.  Every Tory MP takes every opportunity to create enemies to distract the public even if that requires reaching back into history to point at the “enemy.”  A current particular reason for Bradley’s comments is that parliamentary votes from the DUP are needed by the Tories in order to avoid losing a vote of no confidence. 

(After a chat with a legal advisor, Bradley “clarified” her comments.  She was forced to do so because of outstanding criminal cases against former British soldiers who operated in Ireland.)

Karen Bradley and her good friend Ian Paisley

Bradley’s recklessness is matched by her venality.

The cheers that greeted The Brighton Bomb, from people who were definitely not supporters of the IRA, showed the hatred that existed in the 1980s for the Tories.  The 2019 Tories are worse.

Related blog: Who takes the blame for Brighton bomb?

Karen Bradley: Historical inaccuracy and ignorance

The Last Leg wants to humanise Amber Rudd

Channel 4’s satire/slapstick/chat show The Last Leg attained nominative determinism, unironically, several series ago but the show’s presenters, writers and producers persist with their objective of stupefying political satire.

On the most recent show (Friday 1st March) the presenters issued an invitation to Tory chief of Social Murder Amber Rudd to appear on the show.  Rudd acknowledged the invitation but has yet to confirm whether she will accept it.

The purpose of Rudd’s invitation to appear on The Last Leg is not to do the following

  • Attack her for her full unconditional support for Social Murder via her administration of Universal Credit
  • Expose her constant lies, misdirection and obfuscation regarding the effects of Universal Credit
  • Expose her multi million pound tax-dodging and bill-dodging via convenient bankruptcies prior to her political career
  • Publicise and criticise her commitment to the Tories’ racist policy against the Windrush generation when she was Home Secretary

The Last Leg’s presenters and producers intend to avoid an honest discussion on the effects of Social Murder, effects that have been felt the most severe by people with disabilities, and they intend to avoid an honest discussion on the devastating effects on livelihoods and lives of those affected by the removal of British citizenship for the Windrush generation.  

Humanise the enemies of humanity
The purpose of Rudd’s invitation to appear on The Last Leg is to humanise her.  

The Tories are defecating in the faces of the majority of the British people while laughing their heads off.  Any TV or radio show that includes a Tory in a light entertainment scenario is laughing along with them.  A faux interview with a character like Rudd, interspersed with knockabout comedy, is unsuitable and offensive.  

The Last Leg’s protagonists know that its TV viewers are aware of how Universal Credit, benefit cuts, bedroom tax and benefit sanctions have caused thousands of deaths and that people with disabilities and people with chronic illnesses have been hit hardest.  Rudd’s political image is accurate: A typical thieving, heartless, dishonest, venal Tory who doesn’t notice the bodies piling up and the livelihoods destroyed.  The Last Leg’s invitation to her to appear on the show is an attempt to alter that image.

Criticising a Friday evening light entertainment show is not trivial if the intent of the show is to provide a PR platform for someone who has repeatedly shown utter disdain for humanity.  If a comedy show is comfortable with providing such a platform then it is party to normalisation of anti-humanity behaviour.  

A mass Social Murderer does not deserve to be humanised.  A relentless liar about the effect of vicious government policy does not deserve to be humanised.  A glib functionary of the racist citizenship policy against the Windrush generation does not deserve to be humanised. 

Run of the melt
Run of the melt comedy is rampant on British TV.  Flat, predictable comedy is a consequence of the coalescence of careerism and limited wit aided by TV executives’ aversion to invention and to risk.  It is safe. 

Mock The Week pushed out its only inventive comedian, Frankie Boyle, because he didn’t stay safe, Stewart Lee’s TV series was cancelled because he was too intellectual for the safists, Have I Got News For You – a factor in the creation of Boris Johnson’s wacky persona – enjoys the comfort blanket of comedy actor luvvies as presenters, and careful comedy trundlers like Josh Widdicombe, Matt Forde and Jon Richardson have their own series while the brilliant Janey Godley doesn’t.

The Last Leg’s Josh Widdicombe displayed his intellectual prowess on BBC’s This Week

In Britain, popular post-watershed comedy is intellectually and emotionally catatonic. 

A consequence of focussing on safe comedy is that its perpetrators erase the crimes of extremists by indulging in chatty smiley encounters with them; a few mild barbed comments are the extent of the verbal challenge handed to disreputable guests.

Nothing is exempt from comedic observation or satire but humanising those responsible for thousands of deaths, while they continue to cause more deaths, is unacceptable.

Recommended reading
The Poor Side Of Life
Universal Credit Sufferer
Universal Credit Diary
Fighting Universal Credit
Disability News Service
Blue Annoyed
Govt Newspeak blog
Kate Belgrave blog
LeftGreen blog
Politics And Insights
Calum’s List

run of the melt adj. Adequate but unimpressive, applied to the talent of a melt working in the arts or show business
melt n. Centrist who is disproportionately critical of left-wing politics

Related blogs
Amber Rudd
Social Murder
Universal Credit

The Last Leg wants to humanise Amber Rudd

Brexit: An opportunity for scammers (part 2): Eurotunnel

Today, failing Grayling revealed that £33m of tax-payers’ money will be handed to Eurotunnel, the “business” that operates the publicly funded rail tunnel under the English Channel.

The Tories claimed the money was compensation paid to Eurotunnel because the correct legal procedures were not followed in an abandoned government deal with Seaborne Freight for post-Brexit transport of vital goods.  

But, Seaborne Freight was always just a scam.  It was never a real enterprise and the the government never intended to use it.  It was invented and the government contract with it was invented.  Correct legal procedures re. Seaborne Freight deal were avoided deliberately by the government in order to lead deliberately to the scenario where millions of pounds of tax-payers’ money was handed to a private business: Eurotunnel.

The government’s intent was to manufacture the Seaborne deal fiasco to give them an excuse to give money to Eurotunnel.

There will be many more scams like this before and after Brexit.  Any and all opportunities will be taken by the Tories to fleece the tax-payers and feed the Tories’ corporate friends and donors.

Related blog
Brexit: An opportunity for scammers (part 1)




Brexit: An opportunity for scammers (part 2): Eurotunnel

Independent Group democracy thieves gave themselves fake roles

Independent Group (IG), the gang of MPs who deserted the parties for whom their voters voted but refused to call by-elections, gave themselves some made-up remits. 

None of the respective assigned roles for the MPs has any meaning because IG is not a political party.  The game IG is playing is the antithesis and abuse of parliamentary democracy.  The MPs are democracy thieves.

The job title descriptions adjacent to each member’s name below were taken directly from an IG press release.

Gavin Shuker – Group Convenor

No-one knows what ‘convenor’ means in this context.  Shuker is the owner of shell company Gemini A Limited that owns IG.

Chuka Umunna – Group Spokesperson; Cabinet Office; Government Policy Coordination

If Umunna is a spokesperson then it might be better to have nothing to say.  The third feature of his role appears to mean that Umunna will coordinate with the Tory government; surely, one of the ex-Tory MPs in IG should do that.  His role description is as flaky as he is.

Chris Leslie – Treasury and Trade

An associate of former Prime Minister and financial de-regulator Gordon Brown, Leslie wrote an excruciating paper called Centre Ground for Social Market Foundation think-tank last year that should have been called ‘Not Quite As Nasty As The Tories.’  “It is left to the centre ground to take a more balanced, common sense approach, where taking tough decisions can induce short-term acute unpopularity” is not the language of a socialist.

Joan Ryan – Group Business Manager; International Development

Joan Ryan’s history of international expertise is selective: Joan Ryan and Shai Masot

Luciana Berger – Home Affairs; Health; Digital and Culture

Given Berger’s relaxed attitude to the law, particularly libel law, it must be assumed that ‘home affairs’ is not the equivalent of Home Secretary.

Ann Coffey – Children and Education

Coffey was one of two signatories of a letter requesting a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn in 2016.

Mike Gapes – Foreign Affairs and Defence

Gapes’ foreign affairs are in Riyadh: Gapes on a jolly

Angela Smith – Transport; Local Government and Housing; Energy; Environment and Rural Affairs

Smith’s extensive brief doesn’t include utilities which is surprising given her connection to Anglia Water.  Hopefully, none of the farmers she might meet when working on ‘rural affairs’ will have a funny tinge.

Sarah Wollaston – New Colleagues

An assumption to be made from the assignment of this role to a former Tory MP is that ‘new colleagues’ are likely to be Tories.

Anna Soubry – Brexit and Justice, (and assisting on Defence)

There was an absence of justice for the thousands of deceased victims of Tories’ Social Murder policy that Soubry has supported in every vote in parliament.

Heidi Allen – Welfare and Pensions; Social Care; Business

No Tory should ever be allowed near welfare, pensions and social care.  In parliamentary votes Allen supported vicious and fatal attacks on welfare, she supported the theft of pensions from women and she supported the decimation of social care.  The IG’s decision to assign her these roles is disgusting and a blatant display of contempt for humanity.

Dinner of thieves

Related blogs
The Independent Group
Independent Group: Theft of democracy
Centrist cheerleaders ignore theft of democracy

Independent Group democracy thieves gave themselves fake roles

Wealthy right-wing celebs try to censor left-wing activism: Part 1

Minor TV celebs Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman teamed up with lawyer Mark Lewis to try to censor online communications of left-wing activists.

Celebs’ fragile egos
Both Riley and Oberman have been voluminously active on social media platforms recently where they have engaged in combative political discourse.

The key conclusion from Riley and Oberman’s online engagement is that people with greater knowledge, intelligence and social awareness were able to refute and destroy most of the political points made by the pair.  

Repeated defeat in arguments did not sit well with the respective egos of Riley and Oberman.  The ease with which their opponents dispensed with them led to both adopting an aggressive approach.  

A young Labour activist was targetted by Oberman in a deliberate attempt to intimidate and shut down and Riley joined in with the intimidation of the same activist.  

Tactics used by Oberman and Riley followed a familiar right-wing strategy of encouraging people to target an opponent – dogpiling – and of provoking a reaction from allies of their opponent.  The next step was to use fallacious legal threats against anyone who criticised or exposed the dogpiling tactic. 

Malicious ‘legal’ threats
Mark Lewis claimed he issued legal threats on behalf of Riley and Oberman to seventy people including some who had complained about their behaviour.  Jim Waterson reported in Lewis legal threats that Lewis claimed he “is contacting people who have either posted allegedly libellous claims about his clients or repeatedly sent them large numbers of messages, which he says is tantamount to harassment.”  

The actions of Lewis have more than one objective:

  • Shut down political criticism of the views of Riley and Oberman
  • Remove left-wing activists from social media platforms
  • Dissuade others from engaging in left-wing activism and of challenging right-wing rhetoric
  • Distract from and cover-up the intimidation tactics used by Oberman and Riley

Notably, Lewis was aware of the young Labour activist who had been the recipient of Riley and Oberman’s dogpiling tactic.  Waterson reported that “one of the Twitter users describes herself as a 17-year-old girl, earning Lewis criticism from those who accuse him of targeting a child.  He said if the user could prove she is a minor then no action will be taken against her.”

For most people, a threat of legal action is sufficient to shut them up and legal threats against other people is sufficient to deter many activists from expressing an opinion. 

Lewis, Oberman and Riley are indulging in political censorship; political censorship by the wealthy of the less wealthy.

Wealthy right-wing celebs try to censor left-wing activism: Part 1

Revoke Theresa May’s British citizenship

Yet again, Tory leader Theresa May showed utter contempt for parliament and for the British people by postponing the meaningful vote in parliament on Brexit.  The government is legally obliged to allow the vote.

(Update: March 12th: Meaningful vote held in parliament; May defeated by 149 votes)

A further postponement of the oft-delayed meaningful vote on Brexit is part of May’s strategy to dodge progress on a negotiated withdrawal deal from the EU so that Britain crashes into a cliff-fall no-deal Brexit. 

Such an abrupt and unconditional departure would suit disaster capitalists and the vultures waiting to grab what is left of public service infrastructure in Britain.  It would suit exploitative businesses who would welcome the end of workers’ rights, the end of health and safety regulations and the end of food standards regulations.

Capita Group
One of the main players in disaster capitalism is international crime syndicate Capita Group.  Whenever there is war or any other man-made disaster there is money to be made by the most despicable elements in the capitalist machine and Capita is always at the heart of such money-making, taking a cut.  

A no-deal Brexit would be a bonanza for tax-dodgers due to the avoidance (no pun) of EU rules on tax havens.  All of Capita’s clients, and the companies in which it has investments, are multi-million pound tax dodgers.

Capita needs good contacts in or with governments.  For example, its Relationship Manager is Philip May, husband of Theresa May.  If no-deal Brexit were to be lucrative for Capita’s clients, and, thus, for Capita itself, then Philip May would be rewarded very handsomely.

Every step May has taken throughout the Tories’ strategy toward Brexit was designed to lead to a scenario where disaster capitalists and tax avoiders can expect huge windfalls at the expense of everyone else. 

A strong and stable business arrangement: May and Capita

May versus the British people
During the process of Brexit, May was found in contempt of parliament, cancelled or postponed parliamentary votes in violation of legal requirements, lied to parliament, lied to MPs in her party, lied to opposition MPs, lied to the public and lied to the head of state.  She treated meetings with representatives of the EU with disdain and with no preparation or plan.

Social Murder policy, privatisation of the NHS and other vital public services, huge cuts to police numbers, chronic housing shortage, rise in pension age for women, closure of public facilities including libraries, imposition of fracking on communities and refusing to tackle tax avoidance are a few examples of Tory policies that act against the British people to favour a few wealthy capitalists.  

Austerity, started by David Cameron and intensified by May, has been devastating for millions of people.  It has destroyed livelihoods, lives and communities.  Its effects will last years.  Like privatisation and cliff-fall no-deal, austerity is a policy designed and operated to feed a few wealthy capitalists.

May always acts against the interests of the British people.  

Revoke May’s citizenship
Earlier this week, May’s Home Secretary Sajid Javid revoked the British citizenship of ISIS member Shamina Begum.  Javid set the precedent for removing the British citizenship of someone who has helped a terrorist organisation to take actions that led to deaths of British people.

May has worked on behalf of organisations whose actions have cost more British lives than the actions of ISIS have.  If May is allowed to remain (no pun intended) in Britain many more lives will be lost, many more livelihoods will be destroyed and the entire public service infrastructure will be stolen.  The argument to remove May’s citizenship, to protect the lives of British people and as a deterrent to others, is stronger than the argument to remove Begum’s citizenship.

Revoke Theresa May’s citizenship.


Revoke Theresa May’s British citizenship