Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi languished on death row for years after being convicted by an Islamic court of blasphemy for the heinous crime of drinking from the same vessel as two Muslim women. Her sentence was recently quashed by Pakistan’s supreme court.

Since that decision was announced, angry mobs of Islamic fundamentalists have paraded through streets demanding the sentence be restored and, demanding her execution, (the crime, remember, was drinking from the same cup as Muslim women, which counts as blasphemy and as such carries the death penalty in many Islamic countries. I point this out to remind people from a certain end of the political spectrum who think we need to import more Muslims to the west as a civilising influence.) The extremists are now threatening to kill her themselves, prompting the woman, her family, and her lawyer to seek refuge abroad.

“I am requesting the Prime Minister of the UK help us and as far as possible grant us freedom,” pleaded husband Ashiq Masih in an appeal to the country’s former colonial power.

The British government has reportedly rejected this plea, despite having previously signed up to take large numbers of migrants claiming to be children from France, as well as from refugee camps near Syria — although these were 100 percent Muslim in the early part of 2018, with all Christians rejected.

The reason Asia and her Christian family have been rejected, while known criminals and members of terrorist organisations are admitted without question is astounding:

"I’ve been lead to believe that the UK government had concerns that her moving to the UK would cause security concerns and unrest among certain sections of the community and would also be a security threat to British embassies abroad which might be targeted by Islamist terrorists,” reported Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association."

In a stealthy, or to be more accurate, creepy move that bypasses the democratic process the British government, without debate in our elected assembly, without media coverage and without the authority of law, the UK Government has usurped to itself the power to take biometric data from all of us and store it in a central database available to police, national security agencies and, we may assume, anybody who is willing to pay for it. Independent news sites (alt_news) and bloggers have been warning for several years that that the eventual goal of mass surveillance programs was that government would claim the right, purely in the interests of protecting citizens from various threats, to collect the biometric data of every single citizen living in Britain and use it against the best interests of its citizens and residents. DNA, fingerprint, face, iris recognition and even voice data will be included.

They will justify it in the only way they can, by exhuming that old bogeyman, national security. Memes like "The Russians Are Coming," or the terrorist threat is at red alert level will be used to coerce the fearful into surrendering their inalienable rights to privacy and liberty. These very minor threats still work despite the huge fall in fatalities from terrorism and terror-related incidents since the 1970s. It only take a few well orchestrated false flag incidents to be given saturation coverage by mass media to convince a large enough number of people that the streets of our cities are no longer safe.

Apart from crime-fighting, which these days apparently means organizing witch hunts and burning those who commit heresy against the creed of political correctness by being accused of 'hate speech' (as with witchcraft in medieval Europe, to be accused of this most modern of crimes is sufficient to prove guilt,) the Home Office also proposes in its long-awaited report that it will use the centralized database for vetting migrants on the streets and borders of Britain.

Most of that actually sounds quite reasonable until you see statistics on how inaccurate biometric data is, as this infosec institute and this from itpro.co.uk explain. Furthermore, as TruePublica has explained: "There is a dark side to this. Two years ago we warned that social scoring systems were on the way. We wrote in 2016 and then again in early 2017 as a result of an in-depth report by Civil Society Futures regarding a new wave of surveillance: Citizens are increasingly categorised and profiled according to data assemblages, for example through data scores or by social credit scores, as developed in China. The purpose of such scores is to predict future behaviour and allocate resources and eligibility for services (or punishment) accordingly. In other words, rules will be set for citizens to live by through data and algorithms.”

The government is now building, without debate such a system for all of its agencies to access and input. Once complete the next step will be to ‘manage’ population behaviour through social credit scores.

Current common forms of biometric data collection include – fingerprint templates, iris and retina templates, voiceprint, 2D or 3D facial structure map, hand and/or finger geometry map, vein recognition template, gait analysis map, blood DNA profiles, behavioural biometric profiles and others.

Civil rights groups are already arguing that systems such as face recognition are faulty, of dubious legality, and too easily collected without public consent. The controversy that erupted in 2017 when Facebook's allowing Cambridge Analytica to collect the personal data of millions of people, most of whom had never were not even aware of the existence of Cambridge Analytica and some of whom who did not even have a Facebook account, should confirm that bulk data collection, used without either public debate or a legal basis is totally unacceptable and an offence against our civil liberties.

However, the legality of the creation of a centralised biometric database, or its violating at least one of the inalienable human rights defined in the Geneva convention will not stop a government who have been repeatedly caught breaking the law when it comes to privacy and data collection. Police, immigration, and passport agencies already collect DNA, face, and fingerprint data. On the latter, police forces across Britain now have fingerprint scanners on the streets of Britain with officers providing no more than a promise that fingerprint data taken will be erased if the person stopped is innocent of any crime, and no way for civil liberties groups to verify this is so.

The government’s facial regognition database is already estimated to contain details of 12.5 million people and as the government has acknowledged this is probably somewhere near correct you can bet the true figure is far more. The Home Office is already embroiled in all sorts of litigation claiming its privacy and surveillance policy violates human rights and criminal law, caused a scandal last April when an official said it would simply be too expensive to remove data gleaned from the police migshots of innocent people from its facial recognition databases.

Without proper, enforcible regulation that can be fully scrutinised by civil society, there are many opportunities for the misuse of biometric data. Some people will trot out the old claim that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear," but we know that is not true. Others will claim only a totalitarian dictatorship would abuse personal data they hold. That is just plain naive, not only in Britain but throughout the European Union, across the USA (especially in 'progressive' states like California, in Canada and Australia the same thing is happpening in parallel with activist groups promoting the idea that crimes against politically correct dogmas are being prioritized over crimes against property or the person.

It means nothing when the governments say their collection of biometric data will be “lawful,” when government sanctioned surveillance has been found by the courts in both Britain and the EU of breaking basic surveillance and data protection laws. And what laws there are, remain deliberately ambiguous on how personal information will be ethically collected, stored, or shared. Without any obstacles being put in its way, because of the secrecy surrounding the adoption of the policy, and the cooperation of mainstream media, the Home Office has essentially granted itself the right to terminate the right to privacy of any type to the people of Britain.'

Not long ago I encountered an article, well more a paean of praise for Google really, in which the author made the somewhat jaw dropping claim that from Google we have learned a new way of thinking. All I can say is he must mean not thinking is the new way of thinking. It cannot be denied that Google and the internet in general has influenced the perceptions of web users, but to what end. The Alphabet Corporation's cosy relationship with the Obama Administration and US security agencies was not healthy for democracy and we all know Google search results are filtered to favour the parent company's business interests and political ambitions.

Every year, nearly half the world’s population uses Google. Internet Live Stats informs us that every second Google processes over 40,000 search queries, internet users view over 76,000 videos on the Alphabet owned You Tube video sharing site. Across the globe there are now over two billion a mobile devices (smart phones and tablet computers,) running Android, the Linux based operating system designed by Google. Google uses these services to track users and collect information about them. And it does not stop at gathering information about what we do while online. Google has no qualms about planting trackers on your devices and gadgets and mining information about your offline activities.

People really ought to be far more concerned that Google has been handed a near monopoly over the flow of information round the internet, yet too few people are aware of the extent of it. Google has control over the dissemination and manipulation of information around the world. Google algorithms can either suppress information or promote it. Because of this, and because of the well known political sympathies of its founders and senior managers Google Inc. is susceptible proposals for political and ideological censorship of information, 'for the greater good'. This censorship is affecting billions who use Google services annually. We have heard since November 2016 how the government of Russia collaborated with Donald Trump's campaign to steal the US presidency. Not a single shred of evidence has been produced to support this allegation, yet any story that challenges it is dismissed and discredited as 'fake news'.

In fact the Russian election meddling narrative is the real 'fake news', Google interferes with elections, business, and people’s livelihoods as part of its routine removal from results of stories that discredit the narrative Google promotes. The social and political agendas that influence Google have track records that suggest they will do anything possible to suppress truthful and diversity of opinion in order to manipulate public opinion. After all our thoughts are limited by the information we have access to.

Google is not a neutral platform as a search engine ought to be, so Google competitors must also skew results in order to attract users. Because Google has over 70% of the search market it can engineer results to highlight the viewpoints that matter most to Google executives, their political allies and their cult culture. Rich and influential people can lobby Google to push their agendas while suppressing any dissent from a political position on the web,. While some ideologies (e.g. climate change,) are popularized by Google, others, notably those that question allegations that President Assad of Syria used chemical weapons on his own people in Syria's civil war, are pushed to the shadows, de-monetized and mocked as conspiracy theories. Yet in the case of the latter, independent inspectors from the United nations Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW,) have reported finding no evidence of the use of illegal chemicals at any of the attack sites, the idea that Assad is a monster who use poison gas on innocent civilians is still embedded in the consciousness of people who reply on Google for their information.

Google is currently under fire for censoring conservative website PragerU and having already been heavily fined by the European Union (EU) for criminal abuses of its monopoly position to favour its own business interests over rivals in search results while still being involved in litigation on other charges involving privacy violations. Very few organizations have the legal firepower to fight back against Google, but the EU is certainly one, while PragerU, probably with the support of many organisations horrified at the way Google is being allowed to turn the internet into a political monoculture, has taken Google to court. Google’s true intentions are being exposed. In a statement filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Google argues that government regulation to protect free speech would have “disastrous practical consequences.”

Another example of how Google's filtering of information can skew a debate was the was a debate on 'net neutrality' was turned away from the real issue, that certain political and business interests were being favoured with high positions in search results while others were being made virtually invisible. Instead, priority was given to sites and authors who did not, or pretended not to, understand the concept of all content being treated as equal, and were screeching about how unfair it was that some people were getting 12 Mbps data transfer rates on downloads and others were only getting 2Mbps (which is nothing to do with neutrality and is a simple case of getting what you pay for).

PragerU has taken Google to court. Google’s true intentions are being exposed. In a statement filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Google argues that government regulation would have “disastrous practical consequences.”

In their statement to the court hearing the PragerU case, Google exposes its real intentions when the company submits that it cannot be held to the First Amendment of the United States constitution (free speech). Google refuses to change for its users; Google refuses to guarantee users an equal platform for freedom of speech. The anti-American behemoth refuses to enforce the First Amendment across their services because this “would undermine important content regulation.” Google stated, “If they are bound by the same First Amendment rules that apply to the government, television and newspapers, Google, YouTube and other service providers would lose much of their ability to protect their users against offensive or objectionable content — including pornography, hate speech, personal attacks, and terrorist propaganda.”

In other words Google aims to set itself up as the authority which governs what citizens of free nations can or cannot say, read or hear. They plan to become a capitalist version of the secret police in Soviet Russia and Communist China. A real life equivalent of The Thought Police in George Orwell's novel, '1984'.

What constitutes 'objectionable content' is of course a highly subjective matter. I am not offended by seeing images of people having sex althoughI do not seek out such content. On the other hand when I see a British Labour Party politician saying something like, "All white males need to be exterminated, I consider that should be removed from the net as inciting violence against any group is objectionable. But being a libertarian, (and a grown up,) I would not try to have her prosecuted, instead I would mutter to myself something like, "Stupid, hypocritical, fat - arsed black bitch," which would also be objectionable were anybody there to hear it. The problem I have with 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' which Google are determined to remove from the web is that such 'crimes' have no legal definition, instead if you or I do or say something which a member of one of the anointed minorities deems to be an expression of hatred, we could become the latest target of a left wing witch hunt.

So there you have it, an admission that Google's business model is not about 'putting all the world's information at everybody's fingertips (always a ridiculous claim as only about 5% of the information stored in online devices is avaiable via the world wide web while much more, in the form of non indexed pages, online databases and non searchable resources (collectively known as the deep web, which should not be confused with the dark web where you will find the hot goat-on-goat action, bomb making instructions and information about where to buy John Wayne movies.) The deep web, however, is not available to the majority of people and Google has far too much control of the world wide web, and is being helped to extend that control when even former employees are warning the corporate monster must be stopped before it becomes unstoppable.

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/

Researchers at Oxford University urged ministers to consider the move, claiming that hiking the cost of red meat by 14 per cent and processed meat by 79 per cent could prevent 5,920 deaths in Britain a year and save the NHS an annual sum of £750 million on healthcare costs.

Lead researcher Dr Marco Springmann, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at Oxford University, said: “The consumption of red and processed meat exceeds recommended levels in most high and middle-income countries.

“This is having significant impacts not only on personal health, but also on healthcare systems, which are taxpayer-funded in many countries, and on the economy, which is losing its labour force due to ill health and care for family members who fall ill.

I hope that governments will consider introducing a health levy on red and processed meat as part of a range of measures to make healthy and sustainable decision-making easier for consumers.

“A health levy on red and processed meat would not limit choices, but send a powerful signal to consumers and take pressure off our healthcare systems.”

The Institute for Economic Affairs’ Chris Snowdon described the numbers in the study as “unfeasibly large”, stating that even if one takes the “outlandish” health claims to be true, the authors appear to have made “a classic mistake” of so-called public health research when calculating potential healthcare savings.

It also claims that processed and red meat kill 2.4 million people a year. This is nonsense, the figures, obviously plucked out of thin air, are seventeen times higher than the previous estimate (from last September).

Pointing out that “people who live to a ripe old age tend to cost a lot of money”, he explained in the Spectator that studies of this kind often make the assumption that “someone who avoids a diet-related disease will avoid every other disease and never trouble the health service again”. In fact it is impossible to prove an 80 year old meat eather with bowel cancer developed the disease as a result of eating meat. by the same criterium it is also impossible to prove that a healthy 90 year old vegetarian would not have stayed healthy so long had they eaten a steak or a chop occasionally.

“An unholy alliance of ‘public health’ campaigners, environmentalists and vegetarians will be working night and day to make this happen. Taxing food is the next battleground for the nanny state,” the Institute of Economic Affairs’ (IEA) director of lifestyle economics told The Sun newspaper.

Read more on The Dark Motives Behind The FUKUS axis Regime Change In Libya

Sweden Democrats leader jimmy Akesson

Sweden ranks alongside Germany is the EU nation hardest hit by the insane 'open doors' immigration policy 'recommedned' by the EU and willingly embraced by elitists who do not have to live among the uneducated, illiterate, insanitary and sexually incontinent scumbags who were waved through the border without even being asked if they had a not from their mothers to identify them. Public despair as the descent of the country from Europes safest and most pleasant place to live into a lawless third world shithole led to an inconclusive election in September, since when the nation has been without a working government.

Legacy parties, including the Social Democrats who had ruled for most of the past 100 years lost many votes and were left unable to form governing coalition, as the Sweden Democrats (SDs), a nationalist, Eurosceptic, anti - immigration party made massive gains. Leaders of the legacy parties dubbed the SDs 'far right' and 'racist' (they're neither,) and refused to work with them. Sweden Democrate leader Jimmy Akesson responded by saying if his party was shut out of the governing process they would not let any other coalition pass legislation. This led to an impasse as the legacy parties in effect defied the democratic will. Now a growing number of Swedish voters are now calling on their parties to consider working with the Sweden Democrats to save the country from a second general election (which would probably result in further gains for the SDs.)

Moderate and centre-right voters in Sweden increasingly believe working with the Sweden Democrats is a workable compromise to give Sweden a government, and to influence how the country is run in the future. In a newly released poll, voters of both the Moderates and the Christian Democrats agree that the party should look toward some kind of talks with the populists.

According to the poll, conducted by Novus for Swedish broadcaster SVT, 85 per cent of Moderate voters and 83 per cent of Christian Democrat voters (i.e. both centre right parties,) held a favourable view of working with the SD.

Political scientist Jenny Madestam commented on the results saying, “If you ask the voter on the street, they think it is [an obvious solution] to sit in a government or hold talks with the Swedish Democrats. But this does not appear among the party leadership because they have so many different considerations to take.”

The call to negotiate with the SD was also been favoured by a majority of Moderate politicians in a similar poll that was conducted shortly after the election in September.

“We Moderates want the party in the Riksdag to actively pursue moderate policies and counteract socialism. If this is only possible with SD, it is worth negotiating with Åkesson,” one member said at the time.

Picture source: AFP / Getty

A report in the Sunday Times is accurate, May has assembled a detailed "secret" Brexit plan that, among other details, would kill off the controversial Northern Ireland "backstop" that had become the main obstacle to further negotiations.

Working in secret, May has reportedly developed a detailed, 50-page plan for a Brexit treaty that will allow the entire UK to remain within the EU customs union - that is, until a final deal can be hammered out during the transitionary period, which Brexiteers fear could mean "forever".

As part of the new "secret" deal, May has effectively scrapped most of her controversial four-page "Chequers plan", and replaced most provisions governing the single market and customs union with an agreement to hash out a "Future Economic Partnership" - essentially an open-ended agreement to continue negotiations that leaves open the possibility of reaching a free trade deal like the one enjoyed by Canada, a provision that is bound to appease at least some of the Brexiteers.

However, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) a Brexit-supporting Northern Irish party currently propping up Theresa May’s minority government has rejected concessions to the European Union (EU) which could have left Britisg citizens in the province subject to EU judges for years.

The Prime Minister had reportedly persuaded EU bosses to drop their insistence on splitting up the United Kingdom and separating Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain’s Home Nations with customs checks in a so-called “customs compromise”.

Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists Party (DUP) had threatened to vote down the budget if the UK was divided in this way. Mrs May proposed to keep the entire UK tied to the EU’s Customs Union as a compromise, while Brussels was pressing for Northern Ireland to be subject to Single Market regulations as well.

Throwing this “compromise” out, the DUP’s Westminster leader Nigel Dodds said: “If Northern Ireland is subject to EU Single Market regulations, then it will also be subject to the European Court of Justice in some form as the arbiter of those regulations.

“This position leaves Northern Ireland a rule taker from Brussels. We’re confident we can get a good deal, good for all four corners of the United Kingdom.”

May has been desperately trying to keep Britain tied to the EU by stealth ever since the process began, though she never committed herself in the brexit campaign, (she's always been the kind of politicians that in public goes the way the wind is blowing, has revealed by her actions she is privately a rabid remainer and a globalist.

Leaked Document: United Nations Says Immigration Is Always Good And Should never Be Restricted

Only days after the European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR) gave a judgement with effectively reintroduced the notion of criminal blasphemy to Europe, but only for criticism of Islam (you can say what you like about Judaism and Christianity, and the more hateful and threatening the better,) a news reporter for German independent TV station RTL reported on details leaked from United Nations document which reveals that corrupt bunch of Cultural Marxist paskudniaks plan to use immigration from third world shithole countries to destroy western civilisation. If you don't believe me just read the subtitles of the embedded video.

This blog has been telling you for fifteen years we are at war, not with Russia, China or Iran as mainstream media would have you believe but with the ruling elites of our own nations.

The UN's Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration marks the first time the world body has agreed on a list of global measures to tackle the risks and challenges involved in migration for individual migrants, and at the same time to maximize benefits for the countries taking in immigrants.

The agreement comes as huge numbers of people across the world, often driven by conflict and poverty, are leaving their countries of origin to seek refuge elsewhere.

But not all countries agree with the compact's basic tenets and have been vocal in their opposition. Though some have already rejected it, he most significant player, the USA has not committed itself one way or the other. It is likely of course that President Trump has simply wanted to avoid this red herring from becoming a distraction in the run up to the mid - term elections in his country. Russia and China have also declined to reveal their positions as yet, but it is fairly certain thse two global powers will go their own way, and neither is keen on mass immigration.

Read more: Czech PM questions UN migration pact after Austria exit

Some resistance is coming from surprising sources, in Germany for example, where Hausfrau Volksfuhrer Merkel's love of dark sskinned foreigners is even greater than her hatred of native Germans, independent media reports are ensuring Germans, who have already seen working class suburbs in theior cities turned into third world shitholes thanks to Merkel's 'open doors' immigration policy, know exactly what the UN plan to use mass migration to destroy civilisation really means for them.

from Gates of Vienna

An RTL Commentator Utters Blasphemy Against the UN Migration Pact

RTL is the only major independent broadcaster in Germany. In the following clip from RTL, the commentator Jörg Zajonc expresses doubleplus ungood thoughts about the United Nations’ proposed migration pact. Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Austria’s Populist Leader On Migrant Pact Pullout: We are Only Committed to Our Own People

Austria's populist Vice-Chancellor Heinz Christian Strache rejected criticisms of his country’s move to pull out of the UN migration pact from other EU leaders including the grandmotherfucker, Little Emmanuel Macron of France, the Irish poofter Leo Varadkar and EU Commission Predident Jean - Claude Drunkard, saying he and his party were only concerned with what is best for Austrians.

The leader of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) said, “We are responsible to our Austrian population as government officials. Austrian sovereignty has top priority for us, this must be preserved and protected,” Kronen Zeitung reports.

Mr Strache added that the migration pact would also create a possibility that “people who are unlawfully coming to Austria are legally compliant.” Indeed, when details not yet released in the public domain are read it becomes clear the pact is intended as a charter for people traffickers that would impose an unbearable burden on the prosperous nations as illiterate, unemployable third world migrants flood into Europe and north America.

“In the government’s program, we have promised to stop illegal migration, to protect citizens’ safety, and to protect the borders,” Strache said, adding that voters would question the government's integrity if they reneged on that promise by signing the pact.

When asked about other countries who have signed the pact Strache said, “We do not care how many states join and which do not. We are pioneers when it comes to ensuring the sovereignty and the self-determination of Austria, so as not to end up with foreign rule.”

The move was lauded by Europes other populist parties, including Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD) whose leader praised Austria and the United States which has not officially declared its position although it is easy to predict Donald Trump's response. Hungary have also rejected the pact. AfD co-chair Alice Weidel said, “Germany must not sign this pact which is an incalculable risk to our country and to the whole of Europe.”

The rejection by Austria is likely to encourage other countries to resist UN bullying and reject the pact. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis has already revealed that he too does not support the pact and expressed his intention to pull the Czech Republic out of it as well.

“I do not like the pact,” Babis said and added, “There are issues that can be interpreted in various ways. I will be proposing to my partners in government that we act in the same way as Austria or Hungary.”

The poor countries of the world support the pact of course, nobody want to migrate to such shitholes anyway - apart from paedophiles maybe as most of these places have been bypassed by civilisation and have no laws against such vile practices. Of the civilised nations it seems the cheese eating surrender monkeys of France and the testicularly deficient Swedes and Canadians are keen, Germany's Merkel is hanging on to power by her fingernails and support for this latest betrayal of civilised values would see her booted out of office, likewise Theresa May in Britain, the Poles, Italians and Australians are sound and Spain is looking for a chance to dump the loony left socialist government which in effect seized power in a bloodless coup.

Andrej Babiš, who recently compared Europe to ‘Asterix’s besieged village in asserting that citizens in the bloc must “have the right to defend our borders, our lifestyle, our heritage and our culture” against mass, third world migration, indicated Thursday he would recommend the Czech Republic withdraw from the compact. When leaders euphemistically talk of mass migration what they really mean is the transporation of illiterate religious fanatics into the propsperous, civilized parts of the world.

“I don’t like the pact. It’s not clearly interpreted and it could be abused,” Babiš said of the agreement, which claims that mass migration is “inevitable, necessary, and desirable”, warning lawmakers the agreement was “not clearly worded and could easily be abused”.

“I will be proposing to my partners in government that we act in the same way as Austria or Hungary,” stated Babiš, noting that “the United States has pulled out … and Poland is debating it as well”.

Following Wednesday’s announcement that Austria’s conservative-populist coalition was pulling the country out of the ‘Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration’, citing concern that the agreement would lead to “a human right to migration”, the European Commission, a long time proponent of letting third world shitholes dump their gangsters, rapists, murderers, terrorists and general cunts, lashed out against the decision.

A spokesman for the unelected EU executive said: “We regret the decision that the Austrian government has taken. We continue to believe that migration is a global challenge where only global solutions and global responsibility sharing will bring results.”

Poland signalled its intention to leave the agreement last month, when Interior Minister Joachim Brudzinski said he recommended that Warsaw quit the globalist compact for security reasons, asserting that the government wants “Poles to be safe in their own country”.

Earlier this week it was reported that Croatia would also withdraw from the UN compact as the Balkan nation’s president, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, said voters could “rest assured” that she would not be signing the declaration in Marrakech next month.

Hungary was the second nation to pull out after the U.S. — whose President Donald Trump characterised the compact as “no borders, everyone can come in!” — denounced the pact as a case of overreach by UN bureaucrats. The Visegrad nation slammed the “dangerous” UN document, of which it said “the thing looks as if it were copied” from open borders-backing billionaire George Soros’ blueprints for mass migration.

picture: Zero Hedge

The move to dump the US dollar as the main reserve currency for international trade seems to be gatherinmg momenum in spite of US sanctions mania when smaller countries will not obey wasdhington's diktat.

Bloomberg's Yuliya Fedorinova and Olga Tanas report today that the Bank of Russia has more than doubled its monthly gold purchases, bringing the share of bullion in its international reserves to the highest of Putin’s 17 years in power, according to World Gold Council data.

In the second quarter of 2018 alone, Rusia's buying accounted for 38 percent of all gold purchased by central banks. The gold rush is allowing the Bank of Russia to continue growing its reserves while abstaining from purchases of foreign currency for more than two years. It’s one of a handful of central banks to keep the faith as global demand for the precious metal fell to a two-year low in the second quarter.

“Gold is an asset that is independent of any government and, in effect, given what is usually held in reserves, any western government,” said Matthew Turner, metals analyst at Macquarie Group Ltd. in London.

Some pundits are trying to suggest Russia's gold buying is a hedge against further US sanctions or a bid to cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, but in fact Moscow's hoarding of gold goes back a lot further than the current tensions. Russia is of course heavily involved in the creation of a gold backed financial vehicle on the Shanghai financial marke,t planned to act as a rival to the petrodollar.

If Russia’s buying continues at a similar pace, the World Gold Council said the full-year increase in 2018 “could closely match” the 200 tons purchased annually in 2015 and 2016.

At its current pace, Moscow will unseat China for the number five spot of gold-holding nations by the first quarter of 2018.

But China is no slouch, as Reuters reports, China’s proven gold reserves reached 12,100 tonnes at the end of 2016, the state news agency Xinhua reported on Monday quoting an official with the national gold association.

Most British people agree police have lost control of the streets because of politically correct government policies

One of the UK’s highest ranking police officers has attacked the government's policy of prioritising “hate crimes,” over serious crimes such as theft, vandalism, violence and fraud, calling for officers to be reassigned to investigate more burglaries and violent attacks by focusing on “core policing.”

National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Chair Sara Thornton CBE also said she did not want to see “misogyny” and offensive comments about women specified in law as hate crimes. One can only hope she feels the same about truthful criticisms of Islam, which glorifies misogyny, violence and rape.

Thornton suggested political pressure is being put on police to record “hate incidents” that do not qualify as crimes when resources are stretched, many traditional crimes against people or property are not being investigated and violent crimes has risen to record levels.

She said “investigating gender-based hate crime… cannot be a priority for a service that is overstretched” and that “core policing” has not “received enough attention in recent years.”

The outburst was on the same day as the government revealed plans to encourage reporting of even more trivial incidents as hate crime by launching a “new nationwide hate crime campaign aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of what constitutes a hate crime.”

This blog will tell them what constitutes hate crime. Nothing, that's what. If some straight guy kicks the crap out of a homosexual because he's homosexual, is it worse than if a thug kicks the crap out of a man who might or might not be homosexual, for the purpose of stealing his wallet and watch? Both are terrible crimes for which the perp should be punished equally severely.

However, beating someone up should not be put on a par with saying homosexuals should be pushed back in the closet because they are perverts. That is mildly offensive but can only hurt someone's feelings. And in the great scheme of things, an individual's feelings are no more significant than a gnat's fart in a hurricane.

Speaking at the NPCC nation annual conference, Ms Thornton said: “We do really need to refocus on core policing. The public expects an effective response to organised crime, to terrorism, to the focus on the vunerable.

“But, they also expect the basics: responding to emergencies, investigating and solving crimes, and neighbourhood policing. It is this core policing that is seriously stretched – This is surely part of the police covenant with the public. We are, however, asked to provide more and more bespoke services that are all desirable. But the simple fact is, there are too many desirable and deserving issues.

“For example, treating misogyny as a ‘hate crime’ is a concern for some well-organised campaigning organisations."

Some police forces already began treating “misogyny” and making offensive comments to women as hate incidents back in 2016 and London’s Metropolitan force revealed last year they are considering following suit. In violation of every long establishedd principle of British justice, “no evidence” is needed to report a hate incident. An accusation by a member of one of the anointed minorities is sufficient to establish guilt.

Ms Thornton appeared to suggest that certain “well organised” political activist groups and some officers with personal agendas (members of the Gay BLT police association?) wanted “non-crime” incidents recorded for political reasons and to pressure the government.

It has frequently been reported that some UK police forces are urging people to report “non-crime hate incidents” and “offensive” online comments to “re-emphasises the need” for officers to “tackle hate.” And they thick plods wonder why they have lost the trust of the public. Still that's what happens when you make a vocation into a degree entry profession - you end up only being able to recruit university brainwashed idiots.