Thursday, 31 December 2015


I don't know quite what to say about 2015, other than for me it felt like a rite of passage. For the first time in many years, I genuinely have no idea what the New Year will bring for me - only it will bring change, and I must now for better or worse, learn to embrace a new way of life. I won't lie, it's fairly daunting. I don't believe in God according to any religion, but would nonetheless ask Him or Her if they're listening to please hear my prayer for 2016.

Agnostics and atheists pray too.

For myself.... I would ask they please grant me the strength to meet my new challenges and find new purpose with positivity and humility, and to leave demons in the past where they belong. To beloved friends I've lost touch with and only see in the odd survey of a newsfeed or exchange of comments, I hope to catch up with some of you in 2016. Friendship truly means more to me now than it ever has, even if I don't know quite how to show it. There are many people I'd like to speak to, but don't know where to begin. First and foremost, I wish health and happiness for my two beautiful girls Lucy & Poppy, who are truly more wonderful and vibrant than anything this grumpy old soul ever deserved.

For the world.... my prayer is for reason, equality & humanity to emerge victorious over all the hate, greed, prejudice and injustice we see around us - in every walk of life. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". If everyone even vaguely tried to live by that rule, regardless of opinion or preconception, regardless of their religion, wealth, position or class, what a place it could be.

The world can alter in a heartbeat, as quickly as our own lives change. I think it's important to take stock of coming changes before they've been made, not once the damage is done - tomorrow may be too late. Don't bury your head in the sand. More than anything else, each one of us has a responsibility to the next generation of people living on this planet, whether we have children or not. If you see things grossly wrong with the world that's being left for them, stand up to it, any way you can - no matter how thankless or lonely it may often be. Don't let them break you.

Happy New Year everyone. Here's to new beginnings.

Wednesday, 30 December 2015


Residents captured the collapse of this 300 year old bridge in Tadcaster, Yorkshire.

Sometimes it gets quite tedious, continually criticising this Tory government. It would be nice to occasionally feel compelled to write about something cheerier, or to be able to say they've done something positive for the country.

Trouble is, time and time again they simply do the unthinkable.

Already battered by Storm Desmond earlier this month, the UK is currently facing unprecedented flood damage - yet more evidence climate change is going to be one of the greatest threats facing our world in forthcoming generations.

Many have been quick to point out that despite growing awareness of that global threat, Darth Osborne hacked away at the budget for UK flood defences just like he did everything else protecting normal, everyday citizens.

The Environmental Agency in Nottingham apparently even rejected offers of free flood defences from a local firm when the level of danger became evident. No doubt concerns of "red tape" were prioritised above peoples' desire to save their homes:

Even I'd find it a bit of a push to blame Tories for bad weather - though in fairness, some of them are probably still blaming gay marriage (and no doubt Jeremy Corbyn too). However, it undeniably IS their arrogant/elitist insistence on inflicting "austerity" that's directly responsible for the level of damage and destruction caused here - you get what you pay for.

That by itself should be a wake-up call, or at least give pause for consideration. Maybe (God forbid) an apology, or a promise from the government to help any way they can?

Nope. To add insult to injury, Osborne now refuses to waive VAT charges on flood repairs.

Instead of providing a much needed tax break that would at least slightly ease the burden on affected residents and businesses, this greedy Tory government licks its lips - salivating at the prospect of expected £150million profits off the back of disaster and misery.

On top of that, they've slashed investment in renewable energy sources, dragged us into another war in the never-ending quest for middle eastern oil, and also just green-lit controversial and potentially dangerous fracking initiatives across the UK - despite all the promises, all the widespread opposition. They quite literally don't give a damn.

I honestly don't know how we can tolerate this. It begs belief.

Sunday, 27 December 2015


Steve McFadden as Fleshcreep, in Jack and the Beanstalk at The Hawth in Crawley (2015)

This afternoon I did something I haven't done for a very long time: I went to see a pantomime. 

Oh yes I did. (Had to be done, apologies.)

I genuinely can't even remember the last time I was in the audience to watch one: I've appeared in many more than I've ever sat through. However, now having a two year old daughter (and an extended family who simply love the campness and tomfoolery of it all), I decided this year to not be the archetypal grumpy old man sitting at home refusing to join in, and came along with them to a matinee performance of "Jack and the Beanstalk" at our local theatre, The Hawth in Crawley. 

The "big name" for this particular production turned out to be none other than the absolute kingpin of British celebrity pantomime culture, Eastenders' Steve McFadden. A man notorious within the industry as being one of the very highest earners, his better known pseudonym of Phil Mitchell commands astronomical pay-cheques the likes of which most of us will never ever see. 

In fact, Mr McFadden's salary for a few weeks of festive chicanery will be more than the average UK earner makes in 7-8 years of working full-time.* 

The gravity of that is just immense. I for one simply cannot get my head round the idea that one recognisable actor (who with the greatest respect, has hardly led the most varied or interesting career) should earn more in a single Christmas season than the average person does in almost a decade of their entire adult life. 

Every year. 

In addition to his main salary on Eastenders.

It's absolutely grotesque. 

Mr McFadden is by no means alone. It's one of those "accepted" industry norms that all theatre performers are well acquainted with, myself included. 

Of course that also meant I knew full well the hard-working dancers and ensemble, the puppeteers/stilt-walkers and technicians, set and costume designers, the band, the theatre staff, even the other lead roles who lacked a prerequisite name-tag, all of their salaries combined for the entire run probably wouldn't even cover half the Mitchell brother's panto wage. The kids who made up the ensemble numbers wouldn't have been paid at all. 

I cannot deny that leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth. It did as a cast member, and it did just as much today as an audience member. Perhaps it's the socialist in me. I do see it as the most gross and deplorable inequality. As so often in every aspect of our society, it's the "little people" who do all the hard graft, creating inordinate wealth for a minority whilst only receiving the barest and most disproportionate remuneration: often barely enough to get by. This rule of thumb, like countless other aspects of mainstream UK politics has been deemed "simply the way it is" by the controlling parties - no further justification is deemed necessary. 

I've played the odd panto villain myself...
Sadly my Abanazar's wage packet wasn't quite as oversized as the hat (or that of the "celebs" involved)
It's as if by making a corruption so brazen, so widespread and frequent, it somehow ceases to be such. (Or at least ceases to be viewed as something the "little people" can change.) I find myself wishing every single "faceless" performer/technician/creative working in the industry today would stand united and refuse to tolerate it; the people at the top would undoubtedly reassess the situation and share the wealth a little more evenly, were they left with no platform from which to amass their own vast fortunes. 

That is, of course, what unions are all about. And is why our current Conservative government are in the process of trying to irreparably cripple them. 

Back to showbiz though, in the 21st century age of post X-Factor arts/culture, those at the top of the industry have no need for concern. The performers' unions are powerless. The industry is no longer seen as a profession, or even a vocation subject to the same rules and regulations as everybody else. When just about everyone and their brother considers themselves an aspiring singer/actor/presenter/artist/musician, and there's consequently a queue round the block of people willing to suffer any manner of degradation in return for their "15 minutes" or a shot at stardom - fairness, ethics and working rights cease to matter. 

Like many professional performers, I'm immensely saddened how the cult of celebrity carries far greater currency than the art-forms do themselves these days. I would much rather see a spectacular and well-crafted piece of theatre performed by genuinely talented unknowns than a disjointed incoherent mess loosely held together by the periodic appearance of a one-trick pony off the telly. 

I'm apparently in the minority though, judging by the trend of UK ticket sales year after year.

Of course, many will say the inflated fees attached to celebrity pantomime roles are simply a case of supply and demand, like everything else in a "free market". After all, it's celebrity involvement and presence on the bill that guarantees a vast majority of bums on seats (applicable to a lot of musical theatre as well these days), so some might argue those celebrities are directly responsible for the fact anyone else makes an income at all. It's very comparable to theory of "trickle-down economics", eg: a warped perversion and far kinder spin on what is essentially divine right or feudalism, eg: entitlement and elevation justified by no more than birth or circumstance.

No-one's saying those at the top of any important institution shouldn't earn well, or enjoy greater wealth and luxury. There are virtues to the capitalist model that have spurred mankind to areas of great success and practicality, and created order amidst chaos. Aspiration and betterment are important aspects of functioning society. However, it's a model now totally derailed and hijacked by an acutely different mentality: namely the legal ring-fencing of outrageous and disproportionate greed. No-one's saying the elite can't have more, but they don't need SO much more. Not when our entire economies are depressed and literally crumbling around us. That goes for sportsmen and women, musicians, actors, politicians, businessmen, even royalty. 

Oh yes, the panto... it was fun in places, there were a couple of good gags, some very impressive on-stage giants/trolls, the backdrops were pretty, and the band were great. Not that we could see them. (Maybe I'm biased due to my background and favoured genre of music, but I always like to see the instrumentalists - if music is featured in a live performance, they're as integral as anyone.) 

Steve McFadden? Well, as many of his offhand gags referenced, he's apparently wasted owing to his training at RADA (Royal Academy of Dramatic Art), the veritable Eton of UK drama schools. However, I found it rather an odd boast, considering the man tends to gabble his lines in a seemingly endless wave of virtually indistinguishable guttural cockney noises absent of any diction whatsoever. Or occasionally even consonants. He's personable enough, and has a voice like razor blades being dragged over glass that's highly suited for a pantomime villain, but an inspired or even vaguely impassioned performance, it was not. I definitely wouldn't go and see his King Lear.

Most of the cast were passable, but I'd be lying if I said any performance blew me away. A bit amateurish, under-rehearsed and unimaginative, if I'm being painfully frank. Distributing lightweight tennis balls in act two. telling the kids they were huge garden peas we could throw at the baddies was a nice touch - but it also opened the door to an anarchy the actors were hard pressed to act through from then on to the end. 

Sadly, it was only too obvious where most of the budget went. It wasn't the beanstalk.

* Based on the average UK earnings published in 2014 of £26,500, and Steve McFadden's reported earnings of £200,000 for the role of Abanazar in Aladdin, 2011.

Wednesday, 23 December 2015


The somewhat controversial "broadsword" lightsaber of Kylo Ren.

OK, I'm a bit late to the party here.

Apparently more committed nerds than myself have been debating this one on forums for a full year now, but as the entire world goes Star Wars mad (more than I would have expected), I can only say I'm thoroughly despondent at what Disney and J.J Abrams have done to our new Sith Lord's trusty lightsaber.

"A broadsword lightsaber?? Sacrilege!" I cried out, like a monk discovering the Playboy channel. It honestly felt like a grievous insult, or a beloved family member had just been violated in open view of, well, everybody in the world.

A bit dramatic maybe, but you catch my drift.

I haven't managed to catch The Force Awakens yet (I have tickets booked for Dec 29th), but I'm chuffed to hear everyone saying it's so good. However, I do know this one thing will stick in my craw as might a large hedgehog.


It's fair to say I'm a bit of a Star Wars geek.
This is a wall in my home.
It's the definitive and most iconic of all Star Wars symbols (at least to me). It's like the Sword of Greyskull, or Excalibur. The space crafts can change, the soldiers, the robots, the costumes, the laser guns, the characters... all of it's interchangeable in the Star Wars universe. But absolutely not that holy grail of Sci-Fi/Fantasy weaponry, the lightsaber. How dare you.

NB: For the record, I did NOT feel this way when Darth Maul's double-bladed lightsaber was introduced in The Phantom Menace. In fact, I thought it rocked, and was probably the best bit of the whole film. (Suffice to say, it would have been wonderful if our red-faced alien ninja friend had used it to dissect Jar Jar Binks in an extended torture scene. "Meesa like that idea.")

There are several reasons I find the broadsword lightsaber so offensive.

First and foremost, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is a vast Star Wars sub-culture existing beyond the films in comics, books, cartoons, video-games, and I for one have never seen such a fundamental aesthetic messed with so brazenly.

Secondly, the European "broadsword" was in stark contrast to many other regions of the world, where slimmer and lighter weapons were favoured: specifically like the sabre (ahem, the correct English spelling), the scimitar, the rapier, the cutlass, the katana etc - all of which could be argued are more "graceful" one-handed weapons, clearly absent of a large hilt. The huge two-handed sword with giant cross-shaped hilt is far more characteristic of brutal, bludgeoning knights swinging about wildly to penetrate heavy armour: a bit unnecessary if your sword happens to be a concentrated laser beam that cuts through steel like butter. I can see why it made sense on the basis the dark side is all about wild untapped fury and brute force, but still... no, just no. They already get Force-tastic upgrades of telekinetic choke-holds and fingertips that emit lightning.

Also, whereas swords with hilts had always existed, there's a lot of evidence to suggest Christianised Europeans of the middle ages definitely favoured the huge oversized hilt, specifically because it made the sword look like a cross; much in the same way the cross became the blue-print for churches and other buildings. It undoubtedly has a distinctly Christian flavour: again something that has no place or relevance in a Star Wars movie.

If the Catholic Church announced Jesus was a Jedi, it might in fact boost their ratings.
On brief glance at forums, it seems many in favour of this travesty argue it's in fact quite useful to have a hilt. No doubt. It can catch or hook a blade, prevent a blow from landing, and acts as a hand-guard. Some bright spark even pointed out more than one Jedi/Sith Lord in the films had a hand or hands severed (Anakin, Dooku, Luke) by an adversary who capitalised on the lack of hilt, sliding along the blade. "It's practical, and the dark side is all about defeating the light by any and all means."

Aw... how cute, conjoined baby lightsabers.
Totally ineffective hilt when you're fighting with
frickin' laser swords though.
Great point. Except that if you look closely, the cute little baby lightsabers poking out the side do not run flush with the main blade - the mechanism sticks out. Ergo, if a pesky Jedi swipes straight down, it'll cut the wee heads off, and probably destroy the lightsaber too. Ergo, a rather miffed Sith Lord.

Whereas the hilt of a normal sword is quite practical, that's because if it makes contact with you while you're swirling away in the heat of battle, it's not going to give you a piercing big enough to fit a tube of toilet paper, or provide quite the same smell of seared flesh.

On the other hand, Kylo Ren's lightsaber might double as an excellent handheld flambé - particularly if the mini-sabers can be operated independently.

Now that's an accident waiting to happen.
My question is, if it's so plausible to have a lightsaber with multiple beams, then surely that should be the definitive answer for any aspiring Jedi or Sith seeking the most effective technology?

In fact, why not a handheld mesh of lightsabers in an all direction 360 degree angle? Seems eminently practical.

Of course, once you move into the realms of the ludicrous, you've opened the floodgates to all manner of ridicule and silliness. Which, I suppose, one could argue Star Wars already is, but we'll put a pin in that. What we demand is rational, serious silliness.

So, my romantic notions of the noble, graceful lightsaber of what was (according to Obi-Wan Kenobi in Episode IV) a "more civilised age" have been forever tarnished by some of the reactionary images doing the rounds. Some of them made me chuckle - but my fear is I will never be able to watch a lightsaber duel again without recalling them. That sucks.

The Saber of Uncertainty looks like it could actually be quite useful around the home.
The man or woman who came up with the "Benedict Cumbersaber" is an untapped genius.

But not you, Disney and J.J Abrams. No, I hold you directly responsible for this most ignoble corruption, however good the movie is. God damn you.

Don't mess with my lightsaber buddy.

If that wasn't bad enough... if I hadn't seen enough defamation of the mighty blade, then someone sent me this. Some things can never be unseen.

Laser surgery at its most traumatic.

Sunday, 20 December 2015


This article in The Guardian presented me with a dilemma. Rarely, I can't actually decide which side I'm on.

We've undoubtedly turned into a nation of consumers, and it's grossly affected attitudes in all walks of life. Thanks to Ofsted and governments of the past 10+ years, teachers are the ones in the firing line when students don't perform nowadays; it's really quite warped. Responsibility of the individual has been eroded, and the result is mollycoddled students can treat teachers/academics with little or zero respect. They effectively see them as salesmen or store clerks, and can consequently blame "poor service" for their own lack of achievement. Students going into higher education need to realise they are paying for the opportunity to get a degree: not "buying" a degree itself.

However on the other hand, if you're going to force students to pay such exorbitant fees for the privilege of education - fees that will likely place them in debt for all foreseeable future and/or run their families into financial difficulty, damn right they're entitled to expect competent administration, teaching and amenities! Students ARE paying for a service, and if education is a commodity bought and sold like everything else, that in turn gives them consumer rights. No two ways about it.

It would also be foolish to suggest there aren't in fact lazy, uninspiring and corrupt teachers/professors & institutions out there feeding on students with aspirations like a cash cow. I know (for a fact) that's sometimes the case.

The problem as always comes down to politics - the general ethos of society. Those of us on the "Loony Left" seem to be the only ones who recognise certain areas of our society do not belong in the realm of profiteering and corporate markets. Eg: our health service, education, emergency services, our judicial and penal systems, the armed forces, our government itself - these entities desperately NEED to be free of vested financial interest. It is literally the only way to stem corruption and work towards a better society for all.

Those are the things our taxes should be paying for: not propping up banks to continue the cycle of elitism, not to pay grossly inflated salaries of fat-cat businessmen with established links to government, not to pay each and every MP in the House of Commons a salary of £70k+ per year along with every claimable expense under the sun??

Those on the Right will argue this that and the other, blame foreigners / terrorists / scroungers / liberals etc, shout about the importance of free markets, social order, geopolitical realities etc, but it's all just bluster. What they're really doing is trying to justify why they should be so well rewarded and others should be treated like human garbage. Or they're so blinded by corporate/media propaganda, that they foolishly somehow believe the financial and government elites give a damn about them.

They do not, we are mere offal to them. People at the top will always mistreat and exploit those they conceive beneath them, unless they are actively prevented from doing so by law or regulation. It's a sad reality of humankind.

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." 
Martin Luther King, Jr.

One day soon my daughter will be off to school, and I want her to have the opportunity of higher education if she so chooses. If things continue this way in the UK, if we keep heading towards the U.S model of relentless unimpeached capitalism, the renowned British education system (once the envy of the world) will be irrevocably closed-shop for any but the rich, and students will in turn become increasingly privileged and spoiled - absent of a genuine desire to learn, just a sense of entitlement.

That should terrify every last one of us.

Thursday, 3 December 2015


Even the naysayers and mainstream media sheep might find this one a little awkward to explain. And for those whose suspicions have been raised... prepare to feel a little more convinced.

As usual, having been made to feel like some kind of fruit-loop for questioning official versions, I've been scouring the internet for videos and independent news reports from sources even the most bullish right-winger would have difficulty in dismissing.

This is an interview with Sam Ramidani, who is not only a refugee from Saddam's regime in Iraq (with first-hand experience of the regional politics), but is/was also a senior lecturer at London's Metropolitan University. He is an educated, rational & intelligent man, and I guarantee he knows a LOT more about this than the average person sitting at home in front of Sky news.

This footage was posted three years ago.


Watch it and tell me everything has not panned out EXACTLY how he feared it would: from the specifics of Russian involvement as consequence to encirclement, western/NATO interjection in Syria, the role of austerity and economic depression, and what would happen if it began to look like the USA could not control Syria.

If you don't watch the whole thing (though I would recommend to, for fuller understanding), watch 11:24—14:42.

Western trained Arab speaking troops posing as Syrian fighters, specifically provided with high-tech weaponry. "Blackwater". Very disturbing stuff that fits a quite convincing narrative.

More chilling than anything is a prediction that if the U.S are unable to remove a Russian sympathising regime from Syria due to Russian military intervention (as has now occurred), the U.S would pursue the utter destruction of Syria - preferring to leave it in ruins than allied and resourceful to "the great enemy".

Three years ago.

It's funny how often the chain of events turn out exactly as the "conspiracy theorists" predict, isn't it?


(Written shortly after the vote for the UK to join the war in Syria)

There are a lot of outraged people on my social media feed right now, and I echo most of their sentiments. There's not much really for me to add.

However, there is one point I feel should be acknowledged, whether you agree with the decision for the UK to go to war, or not.

I was recently called for jury service. Of course I cannot discuss the case I served as juror on, but suffice to say it was a complicated issue with conflicting evidence. It was a heavy responsibility that lay on our shoulders simply to determine ONE person's guilt or innocence, and a very sombre affair. The idea for any of us we might "get it wrong" was a simply appalling notion that didn't bear thinking about, and we were consequently only too keen to hear what each person had to say.

There were no school-yard bully tactics. No factions, no pressuring to agree with any given opinion, no insults or belittling of those who thought differently: we actively wanted to hear if anyone had a perspective that might shed new light on the general consensus. There were no financial or political benefits for us, deciding one way or the other.

More to the point, each one of us present was only too aware of the seriousness/moral implications of WHY we were there. There was no party atmosphere. There was no whooping and no clapping, no matey pats on the back for having delivered a rousing, well rehearsed speech. No raucous, inappropriate cheering more suited to a Sixth Form common room. And more than anything else, there was NO JOY WHATSOEVER in the verdict we were required to make, either way.

The way the majority of MPs behaved in the House of Commons today whilst debating action as serious and as consequential as war, was nothing short of monstrous.

It is not a game show, or a sporting event.

The sheer fact the same institution that belittled the SNP for applauding their colleagues upon maiden speeches can now so hypocritically and emphatically behave like a bunch of gleeful and overexcited adolescents when faced with the proposition of something as awful as indiscriminate murder and destruction, is quite simply beyond me. You'd think they'd won the lottery.

These people should not be leading our nation. Not at all.


Wednesday, 2 December 2015


The day after the Paris atrocities, I wrote an article discussing my suspicions and discomfort regarding the timing and version of events, that to my surprise, was quite well received by some on social media.

Now a few weeks on, even my amateurish insight and forecast on what would soon occur seems to have been "bang on the money". A terrorist attack, and a proposed war a matter of days/weeks later... where have we seen this before? Erm, just about every time a western nation wants to go to war or quell dissent, but first requires the outrage and ethical justification of their "liberal and free" populations.

I'm sorry to any who the notion might offend, but regardless of "conspiracy theories" or their validity, anyone who truly believes the UK's proposed interjection in Syria has anything to do with human rights, right & wrong, or the safety of UK citizens etc is little more than entirely (mainstream media) indoctrinated.

Everything they think and rationalise is based upon deliberate right wing propaganda (more effectual and prevalent perhaps than even the Nazis managed), and the exact desired effect is normal people who conceive themselves to be educated/moral/upstanding etc get on board with simply ludicrous assertions. Just like the Germans did in the 30's. Assertions that don't even make any sense. There is more than enough proof ISIS are/were a western funded group used for war by proxy, just like Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before them. Before any of this recent s**t-storm, Barack Obama even made a scarcely-reported slip up in a speech to congress when he clearly stated ISIS troops were being coordinated alongside U.S forces (I actually posted it). There are countless items of evidence out there in black & white that demonstrate the paper trail linking the military industrial complex and our western governments/media, but average people just won't see or acknowledge it. They simply can't fathom the enormity of such geopolitical subterfuge.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled off was to convince the world he didn't exist". 
I'm not religious, but it seems an appropriate simile.

Sometimes people need to simplify things, not get bogged down in deliberately complicated political/propagandist rhetoric. Look at the bigger picture. If you build bombs and weapons of mass destruction, you need them to get used so taxpayers have to keep funding them - otherwise eventually they will be seen as redundant, and a vast waste of money. People will instead demand they have things like ample schools, hospitals, and public services.

So what do you do?

  1. You establish fiscal links and control over the media: TV channels, news, radio, newspapers, celebrity culture - you control the taxpayer's perspective.
  2. You establish control and grant vested financial interest to those in the established political ruling class: fund their political campaigns, give them the backing it requires to get them into office, effectively put them in your pocket. (Somebody like Jeremy Corbyn, who can't be bullied or placed in the pocket of big-business, consequently becomes public enemy number, whom they must ALL discredit and deprecate at all costs.)
  3. You take control of energy: the ability for people to live their lives, feed their families, heat their homes, travel etc. You create an everlasting demand for a depleting and monopolised resource, terrify them with the prospect of losing it (instead of developing renewable supplies), and you gain control over all their vital amenities.
  4. Finally, you place your umbrella over the one thing linking them all together: the banks, the manufacturing and financial institutions - the new ruling class who can consequently get away with all manner of failure and/or abuse without fear of reprisal. (Not satisfied with that, you then propose something called TTIP which effectively puts your underlings outside the jurisdiction of law.)

With all the pieces in place, what the bomb-makers have is a license to effectively dictate policy, and demand their media mogul & political subjugates create an endless back-story. They make their plans, and fit/manoeuvre global events to their narrative: one that normal everyday people can palate. They are free to target any relatively unknown and misunderstood region of geopolitical value with natural resources and financial incentive that the populous have, rightly or wrongly, been led to believe is an elusive "enemy". Why is it the UK didn't drop bombs on Ireland when it faced severe threat from the IRA? It didn't fit this modern narrative of undefined "war on terror" - which is a bit like declaring a "war on mild disappointment", and equally as ridiculous a notion. It's a license to bomb, a license to remove dissent, and a license to restrict civil liberty.

Beyond all the other bulls**t, it really is as simple as that. And if you think I'm some crazy man; if you doubt or deny the validity of these absolutely critical and most telling links between high-ranking industrial and governing institutions, get on your laptop and do some research, I dare you.

In fact, I double dare you.

If you see all these pieces of the puzzle fitting together so neatly and still think it's all just "coincidence", you my undisclosed friend, are arguably a moron.

This cycle will never change until people wake the hell up. The people of Syria are not our enemy, ISIS is the enemy, and you don't use a bazooka to kill a rat in someone's kitchen. If you do, it's because you have a vested interest in rebuilding their house.


Monday, 23 November 2015


A lot of people have been sharing the above article from The Guardian recently, using it as excuse to unleash a whole heap of vitriolic rhetoric. Although I obviously see why people feel the way they do (and agree it was poorly worded) I also believe it's yet another example of a deliberate attempt to turn society against itself. Aspiring to do well and create a comfortable living for your family is not a crime, and high earning middle class families are not the enemy here, just as immigrants/benefit cheats/scroungers aren't either. It's misdirection, while the real people who've stolen the wealth of our nation are sitting back, laughing. Don't hate people who have more money/resources than you: hate the people who've taken ALL the money and resources.

I think what this article is trying to say, albeit by absurdly bad example, is the middle and even upper-middle classes of the UK are also being squeezed by this government. That much is probably true. The Tories are raiding everyone OTHER than the super-rich. While that is of course going to be of little comfort and even incite derision from the majority who are worse off, it still is significant (IMO), because what the Tories are trying to do is eradicate the middle class. Soon it will be just rich and poor (albeit different degrees). Those defined as rich will be a very select few, eg: the landed gentry, elites and the politically/financially connected. Every one else will be mice on a wheel. It will remove the possibility of people who come from less to ever take back the reins of government.

One thing the Tories have done which people seem to be happy about, is they've changed the rules on BTL Landlords and their tax liabilities from 2017: those with BTL mortgages (eg: middle class earners who've trusted and invested in the UK's only viable investment for decades, property) will no longer be able to claim full tax relief on those mortgages. Overnight, this will destroy the income and business planning of thousands and thousands of people, who will have to pay tax to this government for earnings they won't make, and worse still could cause a housing price slump - a period when the super-rich absolutely mop up.

Many shout about how "fair" this is, and how it's "about time" etc. But here's the tickler. The ONLY people unaffected by the new legislation are the super-rich, who either own their properties outright, or can (and will) afford to do so. It only affects those who required the financial system to make the income. Consequently, in the ensuing mad rush of middle-class landlords selling their properties to dig themselves out of financial disaster, guess who will swoop in and buy up their properties too? It won't be first-time buyers or low income households.


Wednesday, 28 October 2015


George Osborne is said to be positively reeling in shock, to learn members of opposition parties actually have the balls to oppose him.

The House of Lords recently moved to block his open crusade against undesirable poor people, proving itself to have a purpose for the first time in a hundred years – when a quarter of today's House first started their careers.
“Who do they think they are? Lords or something? Half these people are riff-raff, yokels that real politicians owed favours to” - snarled the Chancellor, snapping the neck of a passing paraplegic.
Although the specific purpose of the House of Lords' ability to veto policies is to safeguard against oppression by a dictatorial government, leading Tories are adamant that the only answer to such belligerence is to be a dictatorial government.
“You wait and see. Dave just told the Scottish and Welsh assemblies to go f**k themselves, he'll tell those muppets too; ain't no biggie” - continued Darth Osborne.  
“We're going for the record on how many pre-election promises we can break before the year is out – we don't give a rat's arse what people think. We tell privileged people to go f**k themselves too: it's just easier when they're poor, and a lot more fun.”
Due to ongoing diplomatic seminars with his favoured mentor, Lord Sauron of Mordor, David Cameron was unavailable for comment. A Tory peer (preferring not to be named) brushed away the defeat though, stating:
“All the good'uns were on our side. We had that bird off The Apprentice, a multi-millionaire who sells carpets made from the bones of refugees, and Andrew Lloyd Webber – who flew in specially from an alternate dimension. A few more like them, and we'll have the public on our side. They're idiots after all.”
Should flooding the House with crazies and sycophants fail, the Chancellor has not ruled out burning down the House of Lords with all non-Tories still inside, citing it as the potential “Final Solution” - a phrase he's hopeful will catch on.

Wednesday, 14 October 2015


(Written shortly after the terror attacks in Paris)

Amidst all the horror, I have a very uncomfortable feeling gnawing away at me from
the pit of my stomach. I'm going to voice it, however much I probably shouldn't.

I really wish it wasn't there, but it is. And it struck me as soon I heard of events in
Paris, in the early hours on the 14th. Some would probably say I should be wearing a tinfoil
hat, and others might feel I'm somehow disrespecting the lives lost. I am not, and
anyone who thinks that doesn't know me at all.

The question I must unfortunately ask is, doesn't this all seem rather convenient?

I apologise for how offensive some might find use of that term, but can think of none more

To happen exactly when Europe is facing unprecedented migration, and our leaders
are desperately scrambling for an excuse to close the borders, but crucially, without
looking like in-humanitarian monsters?

To happen exactly when would-be totalitarian governments need it most? Just as
left-wing and alternative parties are gaining momentum? Just as the powers-that-be are
seeking to clamp down on our personal freedoms, impose further methods of control,
remove the "undesirables" from society, and perhaps more importantly, the electorate?
Just as they seek to legitimise continued wars and military operations in the Middle East,
fighting an enemy they created in the first place?

What our governments in fact needed more than anything was a catalyst to justify
continued policies of xenophobia. And by God they've got it now. Coincidence number

The rhetoric of a national leader at such a time speaks volumes, and history often
highlights this more astutely. Francois Hollande has already referred to these tragic events
repeatedly as a "declaration of war meriting a merciless response". Wouldn't a message of
peace have been a better example to all? From where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear what kind
of response it will be, and I doubt it will be good news for Muslim people anywhere - not
just in Syria.

Another detail troubling me is the military precision of the attacks, allegedly
committed by ISIS infiltrators with limited resources, yet they were somehow able to
bypass any response from vastly more advanced French security services. Again we're
supposed to just accept that Fred Flintstone can so easily outfox James Bond.
(Coincidence number two.)

As always there are discrepancies in accounts, all the perpetrators have been killed,
and the only alleged surviving conspirators captured were NOT actively involved in the
attacks. So yet again, no one survives to stand trial or offer any account that either
corroborates or disputes the official explanations provided. However, these soulless and
bloodthirsty killers WERE conscientious enough to bring along their passports, so we at
least know which countries to blame. It's odd how often terrorists provide the exact
evidence Western powers require to progress with their pre-dating, pre-conceived plans.
(Coincidence number three.)

There were similar discrepancies and details that didn't add up in the Charlie Hebdo
attacks earlier this year. In fact, the same is true of every notorious terrorist attack in the
past fifteen years, and whereas those who questioned 9/11 were once condemned as
"nutters", now it's widely accepted that the American government lied about many things.
It's just there's no one physically able to hold them to account, or to make them explain
why they lied.

One thing that's often telling to look into when these huge events and tragedies take
place, is what else is going on in the political spectrum that could potentially be being
distracted from. As well as similar attacks in Lebanon and Baghdad in recent days (which
haven't made headlines), it may also be interesting to note that France was due to host the
UN conference for climate change on November 30th: an event that was liable to attract
significant protest and disorder, and posed a big headache for our military/industrial
complex. Eg: the French government was already intent on closing the borders. Closing
them specifically to bar protest however, probably wouldn't poll as well. (Coincidence
number four?)

There is another beneficial side-effect from such tragedy for our governments.
People who were yesterday oppressed and pleading for a better standard of living will now
be terrified, paranoid, and pleading for simple things like more police on street corners.
Fear is undoubtedly the most useful tool that oppressive regimes have at their disposal,
and many citizens might now actively seek for their liberties to be further restricted.
(Coincidence number five: Theresa May will be so disappointed.) Just watch the news
headlines and the media in the next few weeks - they will ram this rejuvenated fear so far
down our throats, we won't be able to breathe without tasting it. As terrible as the Paris
attacks were, more Russian holidaymakers were killed in the alleged Sharm El-Sheikh
bombing of a civilian aircraft recently - but there was no outcry, no tears for innocent
Russian lives, there was no worldwide solidarity, and that's because it was not used by our
media in the same way. Why is that? Because it didn't serve a purpose. (Coincidence
number six.)

"The management of foreign relations appears to be the most susceptible of abuse, of all the trusts committed to a Government, because they can be concealed or disclosed, or disclosed in such parts and at such times as will best suit particular views; and because the body of the people are less capable of judging & are more under the influence of prejudices, on that branch of their affairs, than of any other. Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad." 
- James Madison, writing to Thomas Jefferson in 1798
I am no friend to religion, Islam least of all, but there are two guiding principles in
criminal investigation. Firstly, to acknowledge there is rarely such thing as coincidence, let
alone numerous coincidences piled on top of one another. Secondly, asking the question
"who benefits" will usually lead you to the perpetrators. I ask you, who benefited from this?
I don't really see how ISIS do. They might rejoice in our suffering and loss, but politically
they seem most concerned with overthrowing existing regions of the Middle East and
asserting their own dominion. Actively provoking the West in such a way doesn't aid them.
Instead it will undoubtedly invite a fresh can of whoop-ass and precipitate further military
strikes in the region (which have already started... coincidence number seven), and
probably signal their own destruction. That doesn't make much sense.

Of course, murderers and religious zealots aren't required to make much sense,
and the official explanation is plausible to a certain degree: otherwise there wouldn't be
much point presenting it in the first place. After all, not many people (other than those of us
with "tin-foil hats") generally bother to look more closely and/or question what the media
tells us, so perhaps the finer details simply don't matter?

I really wish I didn't feel the need to ask these questions, or sense something wrong
with this. I genuinely feel guilty they occur to me. I do not claim to know exactly what
happened here, and maybe I am suspecting "false-flag" operations and conspiracies
where there are none? It all seems quite far-fetched after all. However, there's the
problem. To completely deny false-flag operations and/or propaganda exist: to deny even
the possibility that supposedly "righteous" governments would use events and calamity to
their own advantage is (in my opinion) as naive and as stupid as anything we supposed
"conspiracy theorists" can ever be accused of. Such people should maybe open the odd
history book, or perhaps even read Orwell's "1984".

When Hitler told his people (and the world) that communist Jews were responsible
for a "terrorist attack" destroying the Reichstag in 1933, any suggestion he was actually
behind it would have been met with accusations of lunacy, utter contempt, and probably
state execution. Were the Germans collectively gullible and hateful, or were they
collectively manipulated and misinformed? The answer is clearly the latter, and I simply
cannot grasp why most people firmly believe that sort of thing COULD happen less than a
hundred years ago, but not possibly happen today. Particularly when methods of
propaganda and media manipulation are ten times more effectual and prevalent in the 21st
century. Do they honestly believe capitalism eradicated the propensity for evil? More than
ever before in our history, Western governments are in league with faceless banks and
corporate/financial interests, groups that have become unaccountable to our laws and
ethical expectations, and if that wasn't enough, the same groups are secretively seeking
new legislation that will in fact formally remove them from the jurisdiction and procedure of
civil and common law (TTIP). Are these the people we're supposed to trust?

If you're open-minded enough to get past the deliberate mental roadblocks, the next
question is obviously, which events ARE false-flag/propaganda then? By definition they are
designed to not appear so, and to make those who challenge their legitimacy look like
either far-left loonies, or heartless and disrespectful attention-seekers feeding off
controversy - people who like to be "different". It's a very effective form of
social/psychological repression, and it's specifically why I fear reprisal or derision for even
daring to pose these questions.

I understand why older generations and the mainstream "cogs" of our society are so
reluctant to even conceive of such notions. Particularly those who remember the World
Wars, or those whose parents/grandparents lived through them. The very idea that the
democracies they and their forefathers fought and died for could have been hijacked by
immoral corporate elites, and in the process become far more akin to a fascist propaganda
machine they sought to destroy - must be particularly loathsome.

Here's the thing though, belittling and shouting it down doesn't automatically make it
not so.

If I'm wrong, and I'm completely off my rocker, fine, no harm no foul. But if you've
taken the time to read this and it makes some sense, I put it to you to keep an open mind,
and do some research outside the mainstream media outlets. Look outside the
propaganda machine. Take emotion and humanitarian ethos out of it, and look simply at
the chain of events. Realise that the view looks very different when you're tipping the
dominoes, and not one of the little people living underneath them. They are so giant that
unless you peak around the edges, they will obscure everything else.

I truly despair for our world, and only hope something happens to change the
course we're on. Whether I'm (hopefully) barking up the wrong tree or not, we don't seem
to be headed anywhere good.

My thoughts are with the people of France, and the victims of this heinous tragedy.
And all the others too.