5 2 mins 9 yrs

I know he portrays himself as a kind of avuncular jazz loving cigar smoking hushpuppy wearing genial chap BUT Ken Clarke is a menace and always has been. He was one of those who stabbed Thatcher in the back, he has been a long standing advocate of the UK joining the Euro, and he is a great example of a Conservative in Name Only – A CINO.

VETERAN pro-Europe Cabinet Minister Ken Clarke yesterday spread new confusion over the Government’s policy on the EU’s proposed budget increase. Mr Clarke, 72, at first said it was “ludicrous and absurd” for David Cameron to go to crunch budget talks later this month intending to veto a deal. But he later backed Britain’s right to block a bad outcome, saying: “We have an undoubted right to exercise a veto if we cannot negotiate a satisfactory conclusion.”

Obviously Number Ten had a word but the fact that Clarke felt moved to ridicule his own Party Leader for at least TRYING to stop the EU from hiking its running costs EVEN more tells you all that you need to know about him!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

5 thoughts on “BEYOND THE KEN..

  1. What we are seeing here is the strength of suggestion and how it imprisons those who may consider themselves to be ‘dissenting’. DV writes that

    ….Clarke felt moved to ridicule his own Party Leader for at least TRYING to stop the EU from hiking its running costs…

    STOP and think for a moment and reflect on this question. Does anybody here believe that Cameron would have attempted to interfere in the EU’s budget? The whole point of this shallow Etonian fop (from the same PPE year as Osborne, ‘Boris’ – and Nat Rothschild, the real boss) is that he won’t interfere in anything because he hasn’t the power nor the prestige nor the intention to do so.

    Cameron will do exactly as he is told – and he won’t be vetoing anything.

  2. The genial, avuncular Ken Clarke is, in reality, a nasty sociopath, yet another Tory traitor and a very dangerous man.

    2nd November 2012

    Ken Clarke defends ‘secret courts’ plan

    Ken Clarke has accused civil liberties campaigners of creating “fanciful conspiracy theories” over government plans for secret court hearings.

    Under the bill, judges will be able to listen to more civil cases in secret without claimants being able to hear the evidence against them.

    He’s dedicated his life to both this cause and that of the EU. He is working for others. He is in the pay and possession of enemies. The idea that he in any way represents the British people or gives the slightest damn about us is absurd.

    I sincerely hope his cigar habit takes its toll soon.

  3. This is an example of how the width and breadth of opinion is retained within the mainstream’s framework. But the corporate media are desperately attempting to keep our attention and thoughts from ranging beyond what is permitted. Here is how to break out. Former Senator of Jersey, Stuart Syvret, has investigated the child abuse rings in Jersey and here he explains how the BBC is the instrument of cover-up acting at the behest of a disgraceful Establishment:

    http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/just-ask-damn-question.html

    “Everybody would say, ‘what evidence have you got?’ I would say, ‘well I don’t have enough evidence to ever prove to anyone that he’s guilty…I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions’.”

    David Walsh, the journalist who, in 1999, first questioned Lance Armstrong’s remarkable performance in the Tour de France.

    Now that so many people in the BBC are mumbling about how the conduct of Jimmy Savile was so widely suspected – and that there were so many rumours – and, indeed, actual victims to be spoken with, as we now know – why did no BBC journalists go and ask – and persist in asking – the plain and obvious questions of Jimmy Savile – and ask the same obvious questions of those who had employed Savile, and those who persisted in enabling him to be around children?
    What is it – about that simple foundation-stone of journalism – just asking the damn question – that is so difficult for 99% of today’s journalists?

    The editorial “freedom” that the media used to enjoy – to pick and chose what stories it would not run – that freedom to “omit” – that great power to filter the very type of stories to be published, and thus control the terms of debate – is gone.

    Gone forever.

    The World Wide Web has killed it; killed that power of omission, stone-dead.

  4. As I said before, if governments knew where the internet would go it would have been strangled at birth. No wonder they’re desperately trying to regulate it into nothing. They’re petrified that the people can communicate freely beyond state controllers and censors. Absolutely petrified.

    The idea that we had press freedom and that it was necessary for accountability was always poppycock. The press has always been the voice of the Power Elite, covering up as much as it revealed.

    The web now routinely mocks the press. The latest example was last night. While BBC Newsnight was avoiding naming the senior Tory paedophile, hundreds of thousands on twitter were reading his name, a name that was first revealed, and has been onthe web, since at least 1997.

  5. Pete – there are ways in which the internet can be policed. As you know, US-military Inc has been creating lots of fake IDs for posting the various discussion blogs in order to direct the discussion in a favourable way or to attck those who attempt to take the thread in an ‘unapproved’ direction. Equally, there may well be people on any given site who would do that. here is an example of how it could work and take a look at this curious thread from ATW a few days ago:

    MANY BROKEN WINDOWS

    It was an article by PM on the NY hurricane and in it I linked to a lawsuit which is being put through the US court system which uses the RICO Act against the “ponzi” schemes created by the banking cartel to swindle millions of ordinary Americans of their money and homes. The lawsuit is over 400 pages so I linked to the text and pasted the key accusations in order that Phantom would not be able to deny that his beloved banking cartel is being accused of criminality – he does admire the players, you know.

    Frank was very upset by this. Not so much the substance of the lawsuit which he doesn’t discuss but by the fact that I had linked to it at all as is seen from his post on November 1st 12.31am. Frank attacked through low-level mockery the fact of my posting the information on a lawsuit which has not been reported by the ‘mainstream’ except in one instance but was quickly withdrawn in murderous circumstances – but he did not engage in any discussion about the case itself.

    Likewise, he attacked me (through the same low-level mockery) for posting evidence which shows freefall collapse of building 7 as shown on links and as confirmed by a demolition expert (the late Danny Jowenko – his car crashed into a tree after leaving Church). Frank doesn’t dispute the evidence but he gets very upset by the evidence being linked.

    This is how to attempt to keep debates within permitted limits.

Comments are closed.