I don’t quite know what’s worse. The endless vox pop’s of ill informed people who either loved or hated her, or the constant biographic pieces that are going on and on and on and on…..

From what the BBC, ITV, Times, Guardian, Telegraph and all the rest of them she;

• Invented soft scoop ice cream
• Brought down the Berlin wall – Something the intelligence community had ZERO prior knowledge of
• Won back the Falkland Islands – Single-handedly if you believe some of the BS that’s going about
• Destroyed all British manufacturing
• Never slept
• Caused the late 80′s boom

And so on and so forth. To be honest, I’m so fed up I can’t even be bothered to carry on.

But one thing I have noticed that is very conspicuous by it’s absence  How come nobody is talking about General Augusto Pinochet. You know, that happy go lucky dictator of Chile who according to Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation,

He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them) … Pinochet’s name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex.

Just the sort of chap that Thatcher should go out of her way to protect in the UK following Chile’s material aid the action in the Falklands. This was LONG after knowledge of the atrocities of Chile’s Junta Government were revealed to the wider public.

He was arrested in Britain under International Crimes and was placed under house arrest in October 1998. He initiating a judicial and public relations battle for freedom. The PR element being run by Thatcherite political operative Patrick Robertson.

But powerful people were behind the strings and in March 2000 was released on “medical grounds” by the Conservative Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial.

Straw had already previously overruled a House of Lords decision to extradite Pinochet.

No, I’m not starting an alarmist tome here or saying that peoples water is going to be full of gas and chemicals, although that surely can be an issue if the technology isn’t used safely. But the basic process of “fracking” is fracturing the rock in order to release the gas, and that causes small to tiny earthquakes.

Is it dangerous? Well, I guess that would all depend on how stable the tectonic plate is. In the UK we are lucky in that in “relative terms”, we are on a stable base. And by stable I mean we get lots of minor earthquakes all the time. Don’t believe me, check it out here. So you have to giggle when the UK’s fracking testing near Blackpool was halted due to a 1.5 magnitude quake. After all, in the last 50 days of this post being written we had;

• 1.6 Spean Bridege, Scotland (11th December)
• 1.6 Llanrtyd Wells, Wales (8th December)
• 1.7 Shieldaig, Scotland (8th December)
• 2.1 Pattersdate, Cumbria, England (28th November)
• 2.0 Islay Argyll and Bute, Scotland (22nd November)
• 2.7 Northwest of Ireland (21st November)

And so on.

I was in Manchester when the 3.9 hit in 2002 and IT WAS COOL! I also felt the December 2010 3.5 which was in Coniston, Cumbria all the way down in Manchester. That was cool also.

Sorry, back to the point.

There is a general hope being propagated by drilling companies and mass media that cheap gas will boost the UK economy in the same way it was affected the US.

This is a lie.

Why so? Due to environmental taxation, any increase in gas production will be met by an increase in CO2 tax. So the boost to the economy will assist the drilling companies, put more money into the tax system but Joe and Josephine Public will see NO decrease in their energy bills, as the BBC quietly announce here. So in case you thought it was going to be a benefit to you, think again. YOU don’t count. Only big business and the Government count.

The irony here is that the gas used to be a major hazard for coal mining within Lancashire and further afield. Now we are drilling past our still substantial coal reserves in order to tap into the hazardous gas.

“hello, I visite your profile and I find out that you are the type that suit my heart, which am seeking for, I hope and believe we will walk it out”

Two things;

1. My profiles has NO information on it.

2. Celina224 is meant to speak English (US Citizen)

I suspect a rat here! He he he

I’ll let you know how busuu works out

But what’s been highlighted recently is the rather disturbing and double meaning nature of Jimmy Savile‘s “It was good while it lasted”.

Remarkably, given the recent allegations against the sainted John Peel, nobody has bothered to mention his epitaph. It reads;

Teenage dreams so hard to beat

Make of that what you will. But hindsight does give otherwise innocuous Undertones lyrics a more sinister tone.

Of course, the fact these people might have had families with them, that’s just a sad statistic under the collective term of “collateral damage”. And lets face it, there’s been quite a lot of “that” over the years. Wedding parties attacked in error (killing dozens), Pakistani soldiers fired upon “by mistake”.

But you don’t make the mistake, these are people killed outside the rule or law, without trial. These are remote murders, hidden under the cover of a “War of terrorism”. A “war” never signed by Congress or declared by UK Parliament. This is a secret war. Operated by covert agencies.

But we’ve had these before. Over 30 years ago, the UK was at “war” with the IRA (and vice-versa). In exactly the same way that we are now at war with Al Qaeda. The difference is that while the likelihood of an Al Qaeda attack on UK and US soil is now extremely unlikely, the number of attacks on the UK in the 70′s and 80′s and 90′s weren’t.

When Margaret Thatcher came to power she made it clear that the gloves were off. Intelligence Officers and SAS men flooded into Ireland and Northern Ireland to clamp down.

For the people of Britain the action was a necessary evil; until the 6 March 1988. Because on this day in Gibraltar the SAS did something that had, until then, been only a muted whisper of reality. In the quiet enclave of the old British Empire, they executed three IRA terrorist cell members in the middle of a street without any opportunity to surrender; and there were reliable witnesses. All of a sudden the reality of the “shoot to kill” policy was making front page news.

But what was all the fuss about? After all, these were terrorists. Well, back in 1988 we still cared about the idea that people should get a trial and that Governments didn’t have the right to kill people they didn’t like.

Jonathan Dimbleby put it best in the seminal “Death on the Rock” episode of This Week.

I suggest you watch the entire episode containing all the evidence of the intelligence known on these individuals before being moved to comment. From the information gained in the show, it is clear that they could have been arrested at any time without the need to kill them. There entire terrorist plot was known, almost from the start. Like the sinking of the Belgrano as it was heading away from the Falklands, this was one policy decision the UK public felt very uneasy with.

As for the mysterious forth member, who was he and how did he escape justice (or death more like)?

Move on 34 years and, as this Reuters special report shows, people have another opinion on the use of death without trial.

First, did you realise that Obama had used five times more drone strikes than Bush? Neither did I.

Just to clarify the point that these are CIA drones, not US military ones.

So how does sophisticated, Democratic, liberal minded, constitutional lawyer Obama, justify it? And what is a “Signature Strike”.

You heard it. Apparently the CIA has won him over, short term gains appear to be the order of the day. Plus, here’s you definition of “signature strike”. Basically, if you “look like” a terrorist, you ARE a terrorist. That’s less intelligence than was previously required, not more.

What’s changed in 34 years is that while the world has opened up with the internet, we are now more in the dark than ever before.

The CIA can strike at ground targets with total impunity from prosecution, under the guise of a phony war, against individuals we are never meant to know and for crimes we cannot be told. And we are to be OK with this because Reuters tells us that these guys weren’t “girl scouts”.

To save time, and as it’s mainly for fun, I’ve made quite a few approximations. None of which had a major consequence to the outcome as you’ll no doubt see.

First I found a boat on eBay that would “OK” for the journey. Obviously it would require to be big enough to carry enough fuel/water, yet not cost so much as it’s already on a downward spiral. So we’re not talking about the Queen Mary here.

65ft Italian Versilcraft Superphantom Motor Cruiser

I found a 65ft Italian Versilcraft Superphantom Motor Cruiser for £80,000. Not the best Ocean going liner, but given it’s limited range, this was always going to be series of 500 mile hops anyway.

It does 20kts (23mph) and consumes 190ltrs of diesel per hour.

With it’s 5,000 litre tank it’s range is approx 550-600 miles. But in a headwind or against the tidal forces, that could mean 1/2 that.

Worse for the Leather families dreams of the open sea is the reality that it chugs down the equivalent of £250 per hour! And you only move about 23 miles in that hour…. IF THAT. For a car, that would be equivalent of 7 gallons to the mile. That’s GALLONS to the MILE, not the other way around.

Any UK port to New York is approximately 4,000 miles. Of course, that’s via Scotland, Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland; the hops I mentioned before.

So that’s 175 hours travel time (at 23 miles per hour). Sailing for a sensible 10 hours a day that’s the equivalent of 17.5 days. Or to think of it in other terms, that’s over a month in travel time to New York and back. Current Atlantic cruises get to travel the direct route, not stop for fuel and travel 24 hours a day.

The total approximate fuel use would be the equivalent of 33,320litres of diesel. In terms of this boat, that’s nearly 7 full tanks full.

So what would that be on today’s prices?

£47,315.00

Of course, fuel wise, that doesn’t include the fuel used to

• Heat the cabin
• Generate electricity (when the engines are off) and so forth.

And the price, that doesn’t include minor sundries like;

• Ocean seamanship training
• Certificates
• Licenses
• Travel visas
• Cost of exchange rate charges
• Water
• Food
• Oh, AND THE £80,000 BOAT!

SO really, it’s more like

£175,000

That’s £35,000 each.

All of which makes a P&O / Cunard / ? cruise look REALLY cheap and flying is like getting the bus!

Any further prices are only just going to prove my point.

Think we’ll stick to flying

Lets be very clear about what Paul Watson was charged with. In 2002 when Watson was taking part in the filming of “Sharkwater” (a documentary) he was involved in an altercation with another ship in Guatemalan waters. Watch the trailer…

Given the levels of bravado and machismo on display here, I can very easily see this happening. What’s more disturbing is that the other vessel claim Watson tried to kill them.

Lack of evidence results in Watson being charged with violating navigation regulations. But he legged it, Asange style, and was only caught after Costa Rica requested Germany detain him. So he had to pay EURO 250,000 bail and report to a police station every week. Guess what! He’s done a runner.

But then this isn’t the only thing he’s wanted for. In fact Watson makes a habit of breaking the law, putting people’s lives in danger and then running away. All of which the Guardian is quite happy to not mention.

My point is this. If you’re going to have journalistic standards, make them the same for everybody. Does Watson’s environmental stance really out way his actions. When somebody dies as a result of Watson, what will the Guardian say then? They probably won’t report it.

So it comes as no surprise that another study has come out that knocks that whole idea. The one line from the Guardian report that really did get on my nerves though, was the suggestion that Organic meant no pesticides.

WRONG!

In fact the only idea is that such pesticides should be “natural” in source. Well, can I remind you that arsenic and hemlock are “natural” and they’ll put a downer on your day.

In fact, because “natural” pesticides are so poor versus man-made ones, they have to be used more frequently and in greater quantities.

The idea that a field of organic lettuce is planted and left to it’s own devices is, sadly, very misguided.

So what sort of pesticides are used in “Organic” farming?

Well, how about this lot;

• Rotenone – Which is listed as moderately hazardous by the WHO. It has been shown in studies to cause Parkinson’s Disease like conditions in mammals.
• Pyrethrum – Which as Caroline Cox‘s 2002 study shows, is a carcinogenic compound.
• Sabadilla – Which is highly toxic to honey bees. The very insects needed for cross pollination and a species in decline. Is there a connection perhaps?
• Ryania – Which in high doses affects muscles, preventing contractions and result in paralysis
  .

And that’s just the ones I’ve tracked down in 15 minutes. You in order to be a pesticide they have, by their very nature, have to be toxic.

Legislation against man-made pesticides is very high. It must be able to bio-degrade without trace. Such legislation ISN’T applied to organic pesticides.

Just remember that when chomping down on your next organic carrot.

As is traditional in Roller Derby, each team member has a “Derby” name.

Check out the Tornado Alley Roller Girls here.

My favorites names being Kitty VonKlobber, Scarla O’Teara, Sucka Tash and one of the coaches who’s called Outlaw Josey Whales.

Whole the Lightening Broads can be found here.

With name highlights being Cast Iron Cassy, Lil’ Kate Asphyxiate, Taryn Bonesapart and Thunderella.

They are all very sexy, tough looking women. I’m saying that, because

a) it’s true and

b) because there’s over twenty of them and they have roller skates!

They remind me of the female Rugby team back in my days at University and…. moving on

Sadly missing out on a game due to injury is Kandie Skorn who hurt her ankle off the field. Which annoys the hell out of her!

Good luck ladies and remember my old school “unofficial” Rugby moto. “If you’re not bleeding, make sure they are.” (Figuratively speaking… I imagine).

On the 5th of July it was announced the British Foreign Secretary William Hague would be answering questions and responding to statements on Twitter. To be frank the results were as to be expected. The 50/50 mix of “bomb Assad” versus “Not another war!” was met by Hague’s sabre rattling and numerous comments regarding “human rights”.

Oddly, when asked about Bahrain and what Britain was going to do there, he was totally silent. What he should have said was “we’ll continue to sell them arms“.

I wonder what Assad did to get off the US/UK “Most loved dictator” list.

Anyway, after twenty minutes of embarrassingly obvious propaganda, I’d had enough.

#askfs Has anybody else noticed the amount of ringers in this Twitter chat and how the FO only replies to supporting views?

I tweeted. Which got this reply from Tom Fletcher.

@RobertLeather I disagree – regularly reply to dissenting views/criticism.

Which was interesting because I knew who Tom Fletcher was and it makes his comments funny. You see Tom Fletcher is the Ambassador to Lebanon. And Lebanon is where the arms that are fueling this Al Qaeda backed conflict are being smuggled through.

@HMATomFletcher Well, as the current Ambassador to the Lebanon, I would hardly expect you to bad mouth your boss on Twitter, would I.

Which is true, right? I was pleased to see he accepted it.

@RobertLeather Fair point. But have a look at some of the arguments I’ve had on Twitter with people who disagree with UK policy.

I did. The majority he ignored, and the ones he did reply too were pretty obviously planted.

But while I had him on the line…

@HMATomFletcher #AskFS So what are we doing to stop arms going via the Lebanon to Syrian opposition and Al Qaeda? As reported on BBC etc

Which is where we have our interesting answer (finally I hear you say). Because in this little Tweet Tom is admitting that we are allowing arms to Al Qaeda, we are not providing the kind of support with give arbitarily to other countries and that essentially we are “letting it happen”.

@RobertLeather Give more support -training etc – to Lebanese army to reduce border porosity. And political support for disassociation policy

Which is interesting… because the British foreign policy from Hague with regards the Lebanon appears to be……. nothing.

But before I could get an answer back on this statement Tom went totally silent and jumped off Twitter.

In his place a Twitter account with the handle @LebWatch started hammering me and anybody else who dared mention the arms smuggling.

Was it a robot?

Was it a team, perhaps.

In any case, the Tweets make it clear what the message is. @LebWatch is anti-Assad and pro-revolution. And it plays down the reality of Islamic extremism.

But that’s another post entirely.