Originally Posted by cassie:
(1) You need to distinguish between MSPs who sit in the Scottish Parliament, and MPs who sit in the Commons by reason of the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1998. The number of MPs representing constituencies in Scotland will be grudgingly reduced over ten years late in 2010. The Scottish Parliament may only deal with devolved powers, other powers being 'reserved' to the British Parliament.

Without differentiation, MPs are able to vote on any matter brought before the British Parliament. The argument advanced for this is that all MPs must have equal status. In fact this became untrue in 1998 when non-England MPs could continue to vote on matters affecting England, but neither they nor England's MPs could any longer vote on the same matters where they had been devolved to Scotland etc.

(2) As far as I am aware, all MPs elected in Scotland are either Labour, SNP, Lib Dem or Conservative MPs. Therefore, I would say that political representation is pro-EU. [The Euro is a currency. Therefore, it is more accurate to say 'EU-phile'.] Incidentally, by reason of being EU Regions, both Scotland and Wales have direct contact with the EU which England does not have!

(3) I hope my earlier explanations will have cleared this up.

(4) I am not a member of any political party now for a number of reasons, although I support the objective of obtaining a separate parliament & executive for England.


I trust that these responses will provide some clarification.

As a matter of interest, where are you presently domiciled?

_______________________

Thanks again for the info cassie, you've really helped me out in this area.

Why do you want to know where I am domicilied ?

Let's just say it's "up north" but not too far north.

Suppose I just wondered if the SNP had the publics best interests at heart or whether they were playing the same phoney game as the big 3 parties.

I am not attached to any political party either - I can't find one that I think would make any real difference to the political process though maybe I should examine e.g. the English Democrats policies or something.

Call me loopy if you like but I think we need to uncover the gross crimes committed by this and previous governments (I'm mainly thinking loss of liberty, membership of the EU and 7/7 here)

Thanks again.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Thanks again for the info cassie, you've really helped me out in this area.

Why do you want to know where I am domicilied ?

Let's just say it's "up north" but not too far north.

Suppose I just wondered if the SNP had the publics best interests at heart or whether they were playing the same phoney game as the big 3 parties.

I am not attached to any political party either - I can't find one that I think would make any real difference to the political process though maybe I should examine e.g. the English Democrats policies or something.

Call me loopy if you like but I think we need to uncover the gross crimes committed by this and previous governments (I'm mainly thinking loss of liberty, membership of the EU and 7/7 here)

Thanks again.

Your answers are good enough for me.

I have no reason to believe that Salmond and the SNP are not genuine about wanting separation from England. To that extent, they are not playing the same phoney game as the big 3 Brit [Unionist] parties.

MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. I would not now vote for any of the big 3 Brit party candidates, not even tactically. I will only vote for a candidate if I believe he/she will represent the constituency. Otherwise, I shall abstain again rather than add credibility to a system which does not yield a candidate I wish to be elected.

In elections, my aim is to see support for big 3 Brit party candidates significantly diminish - the parties might then start listening to voters and try to heed their wishes. My other aim, is for alternative credible candidates to be supported and, where this is not possible, for dissatisfaction to be demonstrated by even fewer voters participating. Remember: the big 3 account for 95% pf MPs and a small coterie in each party controls who is selected as candidate. They need to be taught that they cannot continue to exercise this power in the way they have indefinitely by selecting unrepresentative party lickspittles!


-
[Rep]

Originally Posted by cassie:
Your answers are good enough for me.

I have no reason to believe that Salmond and the SNP are not genuine about wanting separation from England. To that extent, they are not playing the same phoney game as the big 3 Brit [Unionist] parties.

MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. I would not now vote for any of the big 3 Brit party candidates, not even tactically. I will only vote for a candidate if I believe he/she will represent the constituency. Otherwise, I shall abstain again rather than add credibility to a system which does not yield a candidate I wish to be elected.

In elections, my aim is to see support for big 3 Brit party candidates significantly diminish - the parties might then start listening to voters and try to heed their wishes. My other aim, is for alternative credible candidates to be supported and, where this is not possible, for dissatisfaction to be demonstrated by even fewer voters participating. Remember: the big 3 account for 95% pf MPs and a small coterie in each party controls who is selected as candidate. They need to be taught that they cannot continue to exercise this power in the way they have indefinitely by selecting unrepresentative party lickspittles!

-

I commend your stance on the big 3 cassie and agree wholeheartedly with what you say.

The trouble we face is a largely dumbed down(or even the miguided middle class) population who believe at face value what the media is telling them, and have been indoctrinated by the lies of the system.

I think I know what we need to do in order to wake people up but am unsure of how to do it and now if it is even worth trying to do so.

I fear that people want to willfully remain ignorant whilst their lives remain largely bearable, and will continue to rely on their old sources of information(i.e. the mainstream media).

I also fear that it will only take personal pain for people to start to sit up and pay attention but by then it may be too late for them to respond
More worrying is that they may still buy the propaganda after any such event(I'm thinking specifically of an economic crash here and how it came about).

Do you agree and if so what do you think can be done (if anything) ?

P.S May I recommend the video I have posted on the Talk About Anything section !
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
(1) The trouble we face is a largely dumbed down (or even the misguided middle class) population who believe at face value what the media is telling them, and have been indoctrinated by the lies of the system.

(2) I think I know what we need to do in order to wake people up but am unsure of how to do it and now if it is even worth trying to do so.

(3) I fear that people want to willfully remain ignorant whilst their lives remain largely bearable, and will continue to rely on their old sources of information(i.e. the mainstream media).

(4) I also fear that it will only take personal pain for people to start to sit up and pay attention but by then it may be too late for them to respond
More worrying is that they may still buy the propaganda after any such event (I'm thinking specifically of an economic crash here and how it came about).

(5) Do you agree and if so what do you think can be done (if anything)?

(1) Yes, the media have much to answer for by its highly selective and frequently unbalanced treatment of events, AND its suppression of fresh initiatives. The recent By-election in Haltemprice is a case in point, where hugely disproportionate coverage was gratuitously given by the BBC to David Davies. In such elections, including general elections, we go through the pantomime of all sitting MPs being deemed not to be MPs as though there is a 'level playing field' for all candidates! However, actual broadcasters' practices run counter to this, and give almost all coverage to established politicians. What chance is there of new candidates making a break through in these circumstances? Worse, the choices of electors are effectively restricted. It may be argued that the media are undemocratic in their coverage of election ballots.

I'm not sure that I agree with your reference to 'the misguided middle class'? ALL classes in England have been deceived! We were led to believe that everyone in Britain was equal, that we all received the same treatment, and that we were all British. Not so! For example, the general election manifestos in England differed from those in Scotland and Wales. Were you aware that the one ethnic group denied opportunity to record its origin in the 2001 Census was the English? Yes, you could your ethnic origin as Irish or Scottish or Welsh, but not English! True there is a large segment of society diverted by the commercial activity known as sport, but there is an increasing group of citizens who are better educated and better informed than they have ever been, because of university education and the internet. These people are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with how they are being treated by government.

(2) People in England are waking up and becoming frustrated because they do not know what to do about the situation. They are casting around for alternative solutions which the Big 3 are not supplying. Indeed, the established parties are playing their usual game of feigning concern, pretending they are fundamental different to each other, but contriving to manipulate the electorate collectively. This is where the suppression of English voices, of representatives from English political parties is so sinister! In all of the Big 3 there is a Scottish section, a Welsh [or 'Wales'] section but no English/England section.

(3) This is a somewhat pessimistic view not supported by certain developments. The vast growth in the number of home computers and the use of increasingly sophisticated mobile phones means that communications and the accessibility of information have never been as extensive. With modest resources Obama is reputed to have used these to mount his successful campaign to become the Democrat candidate in the face of millions if not billions of dollars used by other candidates using old style campaign resourcing methods. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here by the EDP, FEP and UKIP?

Another heartening development is the increasing number of established journalists writing about the disparity of treatment within the UK and the need to remedy the constitutional deficiency adversely affecting England and its people! The Big 3 parties are becoming isolated in their steadfast refusal to properly and directly address these issues . . . so why should anyone vote for them?

(4) There may well be an element of truth here, but those who have the interests and welfare of England at heart should not sit idly and passively by, but should take or support initiatives to remedy the situation.

(5) I remain optimistic. The first thing that should be done is to seize every opportunity to discuss these matters. The second thing is to look around for a political party to support.

----------------
[Rep]

Originally Posted by cassie:
(1) Yes, the media have much to answer for by its highly selective and frequently unbalanced treatment of events, AND its suppression of fresh initiatives.

I couldn't have put it better myself.
They constantly push the myth of democracy and fairness, whilst constantly trying to put negative spin on those policies which are the benefir of the country and it's people.

Originally Posted by cassie:
The recent By-election in Haltemprice is a case in point, where hugely disproportionate coverage was gratuitously given by the BBC to David Davies. In such elections, including general elections, we go through the pantomime of all sitting MPs being deemed not to be MPs as though there is a 'level playing field' for all candidates! However, actual broadcasters' practices run counter to this, and give almost all coverage to established politicians. What chance is there of new candidates making a break through in these circumstances? Worse, the choices of electors are effectively restricted. It may be argued that the media are undemocratic in their coverage of election ballots.

Oh it can definitely be argued (and it's obvious) they are undemocratic and biased in their coverage.

Whilst it's very difficult to give the same amount of coverage to each individual candidate, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the only policies they support in their are those of the big three through their ""analysis" and selective media coverage.

I am suprised you say that the BBC was biased in favour of Davis Davis though.

All the news coverage I have seen have all seeked to discredit his line of argument, so whilst they don't want his agenda in the public view, they are forced to cover it ?

But am I missing something here because DD has said he supports liberty, but has never(as far as I know) wanted us out of the EU, and still is a member of the Tory party.

So what is Mr Davis's reason for makign this liberty stance if he is a libertarian ?

Is this (for example) a publicity stunt (by the Tory party) to give the impression that they support liberty and support the people ?

Maybe I have been fooled - I certainly feel I'm missing an important link somewhere.

I'd be interested to know you're opinion on this....

Originally Posted by cassie:
I'm not sure that I agree with your reference to 'the misguided middle class'? ALL classes in England have been deceived!

Oh absolutely - I meant in addition to the working class.
I was really making the point that large numbers of the middle class see themselves as informed or part of some elite, and support a system that seeks to exploit them as well.
It's that feeling of superiority, self importance and ignorance that makes them largely as ignorant as the dumbed down working class Sun reading population.

Originally Posted by cassie:
We were led to believe that everyone in Britain was equal, that we all received the same treatment, and that we were all British. Not so! For example, the general election manifestos in England differed from those in Scotland and Wales. Were you aware that the one ethnic group denied opportunity to record its origin in the 2001 Census was the English? Yes, you could your ethnic origin as Irish or Scottish or Welsh, but not English! True there is a large segment of society diverted by the commercial activity known as sport, but there is an increasing group of citizens who are better educated and better informed than they have ever been, because of university education and the internet. These people are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with how they are being treated by government.

I didn't realize that about the census no thanks for sharing. Yes obviously there is a big push to take away the identity fo the English people. I am only suprised that the Scots, Welsh have been allowed to retain theirs ?
It is no suprise though that cultural identity is largely being eroded, as the plan is obviously to push for people to accept themselves as EU citizens and ultimately part of a one world government (as per the New World order policy and agenda)

Originally Posted by cassie:
(2) People in England are waking up and becoming frustrated because they do not know what to do about the situation. They are casting around for alternative solutions which the Big 3 are not supplying. Indeed, the established parties are playing their usual game of feigning concern, pretending they are fundamental different to each other, but contriving to manipulate the electorate collectively. This is where the suppression of English voices, of representatives from English political parties is so sinister! In all of the Big 3 there is a Scottish section, a Welsh [or 'Wales'] section but no English/England section.

Again I fully agree.
Though people are waking up to a certain extent by what they witness and trying to set up their own political parties to preserve England and it's historic liberties, I still feel they are totally unaware of the motivation, and who is ultimately reposnsible for the political decisions made that affect their lives. Yes I'm talking about the illuminati and international and corporate fascist business elite here, which seeks to weaken and destroy any remaining power of the middle class.

Originally Posted by cassie:
(3) This is a somewhat pessimistic view not supported by certain developments. The vast growth in the number of home computers and the use of increasingly sophisticated mobile phones means that communications and the accessibility of information have never been as extensive. With modest resources Obama is reputed to have used these to mount his successful campaign to become the Democrat candidate in the face of millions if not billions of dollars used by other candidates using old style campaign resourcing methods. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here by the EDP, FEP and UKIP?

With all due respect cassie, you've proved my whole point in relation to Obama.

If you think Obama is not a puppet of the New World Order and does not have exactly the same agenda, then I suspect you are totally wrong. When you consider he is pro-war(yes he wants to pull troops out of Iraq and re-deploy them to Afghanistan), is in favour of one world government, supports domestic spying, the New World Order etc etc and is advised by the most evil of people.

Whilst I can't re-post all the articles I have already posted on Obama, please do some searching on him under my username with respect to Obama to see that the picture the media paints of him, is in total opposition to the probable reality.
I doubt anything wil change whether McCain or Obama(or even Bush for that matter) is the next president.

This is what I mean when I say they are all batting for the same team - i.e. the New World Order.

Please, I urge you to research into my claims more (infowars.com is a good place to research)

Originally Posted by cassie:
Another heartening development is the increasing number of established journalists writing about the disparity of treatment within the UK and the need to remedy the constitutional deficiency adversely affecting England and its people! The Big 3 parties are becoming isolated in their steadfast refusal to properly and directly address these issues . . . so why should anyone vote for them?

Whilst I agree there are some jouranlists which write about such disparities and injustices, I am not convinced the public aren't being fooled here too. Often these journalists will either provide no real solutions to the problems and just report on the apparent injusticies, or will provide a fake solution in conjunction with the agenda of the establishment.

Whilst I may be cynical, or this may not be the case all the time, I think it is still a most valid point.

As you mentioned above, the power of the internet is allowing more people than ever to be informed and expose the propaganda, hence the estabishment and NWO want to shut it down and take away the last vestiges of free speech.

Are you aware of the threat to the internet we face right now ?

Originally Posted by cassie:
(4) There may well be an element of truth here, but those who have the interests and welfare of England at heart should not sit idly and passively by, but should take or support initiatives to remedy the situation.

Oh i fully agree. I was feeling particularly downhearted when I made that statement, and was getting frustrated at the ignorance of people and their unwillingness to wake up and smell the coffee.

But again, I do not think that much will change until people realize how they have been lied to about "terrorism", "global warming", "the ecomonic system" etc etc and that the New World Order and the corporations really pull the strings of power and the 3 main political parties.

Originally Posted by cassie:
(5) I remain optimistic. The first thing that should be done is to seize every opportunity to discuss these matters. The second thing is to look around for a political party to support.

But what is the platform to discuss these issues ? The mainstream media certianly is not. The democracy forum just isn't far reaching enough ! :-)
I believe only a political party that can start a revolution similar to Ron Paul in America, can result in a mass awakening of the masses to allow them to discover the extent(even more than I think you may even know) we have been lied to.
Have you (for example) looked into the facts surrounding the government's cover up of 9/11 ?

I urge you to go to infowars.com cassie, listen to Alex Jones and learn the truth about what maybe even you don't realize is happening around the world, in the interests of pushing the one world government agenda.
I also urge you to watch the video I posted too.

Thanks for the discussion by the way - most interesting and enjoyable !
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I couldn't have put it better myself.
They constantly push the myth of democracy and fairness, whilst constantly trying to put negative spin on those policies which are the benefir of the country and it's people.

Oh it can definitely be argued (and it's obvious) they are undemocratic and biased in their coverage.

Whilst it's very difficult to give the same amount of coverage to each individual candidate, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the only policies they support in their are those of the big three through their ""analysis" and selective media coverage.

I am suprised you say that the BBC was biased in favour of Davis Davis though.

All the news coverage I have seen have all seeked to discredit his line of argument, so whilst they don't want his agenda in the public view, they are forced to cover it ?

But am I missing something here because DD has said he supports liberty, but has never(as far as I know) wanted us out of the EU, and still is a member of the Tory party.

So what is Mr Davis's reason for makign this liberty stance if he is a libertarian ?

Is this (for example) a publicity stunt (by the Tory party) to give the impression that they support liberty and support the people ?

Maybe I have been fooled - I certainly feel I'm missing an important link somewhere.

I'd be interested to know you're opinion on this....

Oh absolutely - I meant in addition to the working class.
I was really making the point that large numbers of the middle class see themselves as informed or part of some elite, and support a system that seeks to exploit them as well.
It's that feeling of superiority, self importance and ignorance that makes them largely as ignorant as the dumbed down working class Sun reading population.

I didn't realize that about the census no thanks for sharing. Yes obviously there is a big push to take away the identity fo the English people. I am only suprised that the Scots, Welsh have been allowed to retain theirs ?
It is no suprise though that cultural identity is largely being eroded, as the plan is obviously to push for people to accept themselves as EU citizens and ultimately part of a one world government (as per the New World order policy and agenda)

Again I fully agree.
Though people are waking up to a certain extent by what they witness and trying to set up their own political parties to preserve England and it's historic liberties, I still feel they are totally unaware of the motivation, and who is ultimately reposnsible for the political decisions made that affect their lives. Yes I'm talking about the illuminati and international and corporate fascist business elite here, which seeks to weaken and destroy any remaining power of the middle class.

With all due respect cassie, you've proved my whole point in relation to Obama.

If you think Obama is not a puppet of the New World Order and does not have exactly the same agenda, then I suspect you are totally wrong. When you consider he is pro-war(yes he wants to pull troops out of Iraq and re-deploy them to Afghanistan), is in favour of one world government, supports domestic spying, the New World Order etc etc and is advised by the most evil of people.

Whilst I can't re-post all the articles I have already posted on Obama, please do some searching on him under my username with respect to Obama to see that the picture the media paints of him, is in total opposition to the probable reality.
I doubt anything wil change whether McCain or Obama(or even Bush for that matter) is the next president.

This is what I mean when I say they are all batting for the same team - i.e. the New World Order.

Please, I urge you to research into my claims more (infowars.com is a good place to research)

Whilst I agree there are some jouranlists which write about such disparities and injustices, I am not convinced the public aren't being fooled here too. Often these journalists will either provide no real solutions to the problems and just report on the apparent injusticies, or will provide a fake solution in conjunction with the agenda of the establishment.

Whilst I may be cynical, or this may not be the case all the time, I think it is still a most valid point.

As you mentioned above, the power of the internet is allowing more people than ever to be informed and expose the propaganda, hence the estabishment and NWO want to shut it down and take away the last vestiges of free speech.

Are you aware of the threat to the internet we face right now ?

Oh i fully agree. I was feeling particularly downhearted when I made that statement, and was getting frustrated at the ignorance of people and their unwillingness to wake up and smell the coffee.

But again, I do not think that much will change until people realize how they have been lied to about "terrorism", "global warming", "the ecomonic system" etc etc and that the New World Order and the corporations really pull the strings of power and the 3 main political parties.

But what is the platform to discuss these issues ? The mainstream media certianly is not. The democracy forum just isn't far reaching enough ! :-)
I believe only a political party that can start a revolution similar to Ron Paul in America, can result in a mass awakening of the masses to allow them to discover the extent(even more than I think you may even know) we have been lied to.
Have you (for example) looked into the facts surrounding the government's cover up of 9/11 ?

I urge you to go to infowars.com cassie, listen to Alex Jones and learn the truth about what maybe even you don't realize is happening around the world, in the interests of pushing the one world government agenda.
I also urge you to watch the video I posted too.

Thanks for the discussion by the way - most interesting and enjoyable !

I'll try to be brief.

1. My point about David Davies, leaving aside policy, is simply that he had more exposure. In the week before polling, he appeared on BBC2's "Question Time" and, subsequently, Radio 4's "Any Questions?, both of which gave him opportunities to expatiate on his position. These opportunities were not offered to other candidates, and who knows what the result would have been had the English Democrats' candidate been afforded similar treatment?

2. My point about Obama was only that he did not have the resources other candidates had - notably Hilary Clinton - and apparently made up for the deficiency with the use of new technology ie the internet and mobile phones. Maybe he was pointing a way out for small, fledgling political parties here?

Finally, the link to the online video was broken as you predicted might be the case. You might care to follow this link:

End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon...

I'm glad that at least one person enjoys my posts! Anyway, there's plenty of time yet for someone to set me straight!

In the meantime, I'll have a look at infowars. :-)

-
[Rep]

cassie,

If this isnt going to sound too patronizing (oh gawd it is ! :-)) you don't need to be set straight by anything by the sound of it - I agree with everything you're saying.

Yes that is patronizing isn't it ? Sorry !

I suppose all I'm doing is to suggest that you go even deeper down the rabbithole of corruption.

Yes, I agree with your sentiment about equal time - I suppose David Davis was big news, but those on the liberty platform should have been allowed an equal opportunity to make their case too.

I take your point on Obama but did you hear of the "Ron Paul Revolution" over the internet ? It was absolutely huge too !

Thanks for the video - I will watch ! :-)
[Rep]