May I draw the attention of all your social media users to the following cautionary tale?

Steve Wood, formerly of Bristol UKIP, now has a £40k libel bill for a tweet on Bristol social media and websites made by someone else in the branch…

Respectfully, Rob McWhirter



A vegan will never knowingly eat food where natural animal life was treated badly in its production. Really?

Consider the humble bread roll. It all starts with the plough and the hundreds of following seagulls savagely tearing innocent worms from the soil. The seed is planted and the farmer finds himself obliged to poison the nice slugs that devour the young seedlings. Shortly afterwards he notices heavy grazing by sweet bunnies and sends his tractor driver to gas the burrows. Meanwhile his organic farming neighbour is running a seven-metre tractor rake through a crop of 9” wheat, killing and injuring little fledgling birds and adorable baby hares. Back on the conventional farm our man is indulging in mass genocide of aphids on an industrial scale and accidentally killing other bystander insects in the process. This is all done so that there is a crop to harvest. Bad luck to the sleeping moths lovely ladybirds and charming earwigs that get traumatically swallowed by the combine harvester to meet the 1100 rpm spinning bars of the threshing drum, crushing them against the steel concave. If they survive that they are buried alive in the grain tank. A little later, near the farmers grain store, cuddly rats and mice die by the score after consuming rodenticides.

Bread roll anyone?

Merry Christmas and a Brexit New Year.

Respectfully, Stuart Agnew MEP



TMay will be trying desperately to get comforting words from the EU on the NI Backstop – to help get Brexiteer MPs support for her Withdrawal Agreement Bill, on 14/1.

At the same time she and her backers continue to try to scare Brexiteer MPs about the “terrible consequences” of no deal, hoping to further persuade them to vote for her proposal.

As seen a Ruddy traitor, referred to in this DT article, seems to working with May (although she would probably deny that) to help further worry Brexiteers at the threat of another possible referendum.

May will also be worrying “People’s Vote” MPs, who would more likely vote for May’s fudge – as no deal looms ever larger. That should in turn reduce Brexiteer fears of another referendum – if they don’t support May. She is not as clever as she thinks and could disappear up … you know where.

We all know that the EU will give her nothing tangible and Brexiteer MPs are not stupid. They and the DUP know that if they do not vote for her fudge, then it is more than likely that we will leave on WTO terms.

So she would do better to stop her machinations and concentrate on her WTO exit plan – because she is going to need it soon. She is going to default to no deal, not by design but by default!  The motto is “Way to go WTO.”

Respectfully, Roger Arthur



Amber Rudd’s pronouncement that if Parliament cannot decide then another referendum is ‘plausible’ masks the fundamental issue. Her remarks imply there are some external  factors of complication that make it very difficult for our poor MPS to make a decision. The underlying problem in fact is them. The majority are Remainers and therefore a decision that would mean we leave is beyond their comprehension. If they made up their minds to implement the Referendum result and to follow through their election manifesto promises, then it would all be very simple. Mrs May’s deal is unacceptable on so many fronts that even Remainers do not like it,  so vote it down, let Article 50 take its course and with one bound Jack is free at 11pm on 29th March 2019! Interestingly the EU’s plans published yesterday for an orderly BREXIT are aimed at smoothing trade and services until 31 Dec 2019. Once this regime is in place it will be interesting to see whether they dare call a halt with the resulting damage to their own businesses and economies. It will be much more difficult then to throw rocks in the path of economic prosperity.

Respectfully, Tim Pope



I asked  my Tory MP not to sign May’s Withdrawal Agreement. In reply he  affirmed May’s words that “it takes back control of our borders and ends the free movement of people in full once and for all…ends the control of the ECJ in the UK…and protects our security…”

In reply, I asked why then had the Government quietly signed the UN Global  Compact for Migration, as this will open the floodgates to mass immigration.  He replied as follows :

“I believe that the Global Compact on Migration will offer an effective international framework to ensure that migration is safe and orderly and that it balances the rights and responsibilities of both states and migrants. It is non-legally binding and will complement existing frameworks to foster stronger international cooperation on migration.

The Compact supports the UK’s 3 Global Migration Principles – to acknowledge the rights of countries to protect their borders, to improve how we distinguish between refugees, and to ensure that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.  

Our participation in the Global Compact will not affect our continued ability to determine our own immigration policy. Indeed it reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy. We will continue to control our borders and prevent irregular migration into the UK.

It also provides support to the Prime Minister’s principle that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach by promoting greater support to hosting countries to protect and support refugees”.

These are weasel words. Immigration will indeed be controlled but if we don’t make a clean break from the EU now, it will be the EU who will be the “sovereign state” doing the controlling.  The EU will doubtless agree to unleashing upon us a humungeous influx of “legal” migrants on a scale never seen in history, dwarfing the hitherto “uncontrolled” “illegal” migration. The GCM is claimed to be “non-binding”.  But HumanRights lawyers, EU diktats, the ECJ, the ban on free speech and EU brute force will ensure that we obey without protest. Moreover countries such as Hungary or Italy who refused to sign may find that they too are bound by it, since Merkel has now signed up on behalf of the entire EU bloc. I fear that in future we will see uprisings like the one in Hungary in 1956, brutally repressed in the same way. The GCM is one of the Europe-wide Yellow Vests’ main grievances and already brutal methods are being used against them.

Finally I wish to quote the editor Viv Evans: “GCM Objective 23 Point 39  disproves the non-legally-binding claim, since our government obeys International Laws. And the GCM provides the framework for creating such laws”.

This quote is from the Independence Daily article “Part 2 Marrakesh – What’s it all about?”  which explains everything and gives a link to the entire text of the GPM.  I strongly recommend circulating this article for so long as our fight to leave the EU continues.

Respectfully, Mary


Print Friendly, PDF & Email