[defamation] grovelling apology to the eu monster

Andrew Alison is a good man, with the interests of his country at heart:

Another issue close to my heart is defence. In the USA, members of the military are regarded as heroes. Here in the UK they seem to be regarded by a large sector of society as no better then a street beggar.

This government talks the talk very nicely on how it values our armed forces, but in reality it cuts defence spending so much that our armed forces do not have the vital equipment they need to do their jobs.

With our armed forces stretched around the world you would think the government would be significantly increasing spending on defence, instead of making the token gestures they do at the moment.

I have joined the UK National Defence Association that is campaigning for 'SUFFICIENT, APPROPRIATE and FULLY FUNDED ARMED FORCES that the Nation needs to defend effectively our Country, its people, their security and vital interests at home and worldwide.'

There is only one problem – which Country?

At this time there are fine bloggers like Devil's Kitchen, Iain Dale and Andrew here who are tenaciously clinging to local party politics, believing it to be the battleground. It's understandable.

Andrew [and I imagine bloggers like James Cleverly too], are inside the party political system and so they see only those issues which they can sink their teeth into or if they do see glimpses of the real battle, it's in passing. They're perfectly correct in saying that the treatment, equipping and repatriation by Brown and Blair of the armed forces is a disgrace – it is disgusting in fact.

Where these boys don't look far enough afield is in their faith that lobbying pressure or even blogging will alter Brown's stance – that if the “British” people perceive that he is doing less than adequately in this area, the old cynic will throw a bit more money the way of the forces.

Brown can do no more than window dress because he knows full well that there are to be no UK armed forces post-2012, for the simple reason that there is to be no UK in any real and meaningful sense [as distinct from the remaining title]. As for England - whe did you last hear Brown speak this word in supportive terms?

There is a pan-EU army and Milliband in fact spoke on this in the past few days. There is no UK in Brown's eyes. There are the 12 EU regions under MEPs. Why would he commit funds to a moribund organization – the former British Navy, Army and Air Force?

Why should he care?

Bloggers are so focussed on the inner dastardliness of Brown and his lack of moral fibre, in terms of treason to the UK, whilst the reality is that he is being quite loyal – loyal to the former-UK based EU regions which are almost in place, using Common Purpose leadership in all key positions.

This is one reason Common Purpose are now hitting back at the sphere.

Here are some links on who Common Purpose are and what they're doing. More importantly, where they fit into the EU jigsaw: one, two, three, four, five, six.

Here are some other things on them: seven, eight [on the connection with Camelot] and nine [on the CP info-packs]. Enough to be going on with.

Further comments by others:

Nov 11

On the defence connections with CP [already mentioned in the links above]:

You should ask why Assistant Chief Constable Irwin Turbitt, is lecturing RAF seniors about 3 years handling of protestant and catholic crowd control in Drumcree. (page 64)

Look in the index, then tab down to the page,

But you should read the chapter before that, written by Prof Benington, titled Public Value and Adaptive Leadership.

November 10

On the new regionalism:

Who defines a region? Well it isn’t us. HMG in its White Paper ‘Your Region Your Choice’ says ‘that it is not necessary for a region to have a strong historic identity to create a modern one,’ adding boundaries will ‘generate a good deal of fervour’ but no one will be able to come up with better ones so the ‘standard regional boundaries are right.’ That begs the question of whose ‘standard’ boundaries.

The answer is Eurostat, the EU’s statistical service in Luxembourg. These boundaries have been used since at least 1961 in Community legislation. And it’s all done by population.

Last year this system was enforced throughout EU by regulation - every local authority has to use it. The excuse was the enlargement of EU. Her are the populations for the regions:

Region 3 million 7 million
Sub region 800,000 3 million
Sub sub region 150,000 800,000

In the UK we already have regions but now here are sub regions and sub sub regions.

The division of this country has still further to go right down to the parish councils.

In the Brussels' plan London is region number UKI with 2 sub regions: an outer and an inner. And London will have five sub sub regions.

Ken Livingstone says he will abolish the 32 London boroughs in favour of 5 super boroughs.

Now please do read Bukovsky's take on the new face of the EU and where it is currently headed. This man has his detractors and he is a little too self-enamoured for my liking but he does have the background to make the statements he does. He was a bit wonky on some of the fine detail, e.g. Belgian law but his major points are correct.

There are two observations about all this EU/CP stuff:

1. The EU and by association, Brown's government, want us to concentrate on the smaller issues - on Cameron and Polly Toynbee and Clegg and the NHS - the blogosphere, in duly obliging, are virtually left alone to mutter in the corner about it like an Anglican Archbishop on why we should be Christian.

They want us to concentrate on how many percentage points the Conservatives are up today - it's nice accessible information. Open your Telegraph or if you're bold, go further into other publications and see the latest dastardly thing Brown's done and then swearblog at it. The smart bloggers are welcome to follow the price of gold.

Everyone's happy and the EU can proceed unencumbered.

2. There are certain minor investigators, on the oter hand, who are rabbiting on about something far bigger but of course the real story is not transparent, is it? It requires a great deal of ferreting, hours of mind-numbing reading of Eurospeak booklets and there, embedded somewhere in paragraph 23.14.07 on some grandiose sounding example of EU paper warfare, is the eminently reasonably sounding but actually quite worrying statement of intention.

The bstds don't exactly go out of their way to help us. The real info is fragmented, embedded, hidden and in its place is a wall of Euroassurance for the punters. But some of it does get out and some dots do get connected - not many but enough for a group like Common Purpose, whom there is irrefutable evidence are monitoring blogs, to decide it's time to counter these Gross Libels.

However they don't actually sue the libellers; they post statements of innocence on their own site:

A letter from the trustees

Common Purpose receives a broad spectrum of media coverage that highlights the positive impact of our leadership development programmes and award schemes. Examples of the many positive changes in society that have occurred as a result of the programme participants’ actions are available on our website.

A tiny fraction of media coverage, mostly postings on online discussion boards, blogs and websites, is making highly offensive and untrue claims about Common Purpose. Our reputation is very important to us – we have been advised that whilst the content is undoubtedly offensive to those who are named or implicated in the articles, it is also defamatory.

Common Purpose is founded on the principles of independence and non-alignment. All of our work remains true to these principles. More detail on how we work is available in our Charter.

A reading of the letter and the site itself shows a rational, even-handed, official, government backed qango charged with the simple purpose of carrying out leadership training. No mention at all of buying up MOD sites, no mention of the money poured in not only in Britain but on the continent and no mention of what this Common Purpose is in the first place.

Mention of a Charter but when you go in there, it is so broad and Eurospeakish that it virtually means what you care to consider it to mean.

No mention of the media monitoring, using dummy sites which disappear after each evening and which fellow bloggers have some of the web addresses of.

On the other hand, the "highly offensive' blogosphere is charged with defamation, which is defamatory to us in itself. Well this blogger charges Common Purpose with finding any statement about them factually incorrect - there are enough links given to form an opinion on this matter.

If Common Purpose would care to inform me which statements are factually incorrect, due apology will be immediately forthcoming and that false information will be summarily withdrawn.

Meanwhile, as Vladimir Bukovsky said:

We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.