Thursday, 19 April 2018

Senior government ministers likened Theresa May's anti-immigrant legislation to Nazism, but voted in favour of it anyway!


In 2014 Theresa May introduced the draconian new anti-immigrant powers that the Home Office have subsequently used to dehumanise and persecute the Windrush generation.

These grotesque Faragist rules have been used to deny employment, deny housing, deny health care, and deny social security/pensions to British Windrush citizens, and to make thousands live in constant fear of imprisonment and deportation by their own country.

The parliamentary record makes it clear that a few brave MPs dared to stand up against the tide of extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric to criticise Theresa May's plans, and vote against them. 


Diane Abbott was amongst them, and she had the intelligence and foresight to predict that May's rules could be used to attack British citizens without documentation. The breaking of the Windrush scandal has proven her concerns to have been incredibly prescient and well-founded.

What we didn't know at the time was the secret behind the scenes debates within the coalition government, but in the wake of the Windrush Scandal the senior Civil Servant Bob Kerslake has claimed that some ministers in the coalition government were so concerned that they described Theresa May's new law as being "reminiscent of Nazi Germany".




Even more shocking than the revelation that senior government ministers were likening their own government policy to that of the Nazis, was the fact that they just bit their tongues, raised no concerns in public, and then went ahead and actually voted this Nazi-style legislation into law when it went before parliament.

They knew they would have to resign their ministerial positions if they stood their ground and voted against it, so these disgusting self-serving bastards actually voted in favour of a bill they'd privately likened to Nazism for pure political expediency!

The New Labour mob covered themselves in shame too by whipping their MPs into abstaining on Theresa May's Nazi-style immigration witch hunt, while only six principled Labour MPs did the decent thing and opposed it (Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott, Dennis Skinner, Mark Lazarowicz, Fiona Mactaggart).


This shameful abstention from Labour just goes to show how hopelessly lost they had become in the late New Labour years, but the truly horrific thing is that there were cabinet members in the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition who recognised the fascist intent of Theresa May's bill, but voted in favour of it anyway because they wanted to keep their six figure ministerial salaries.

Perhaps the most worrying thing of all is how far Britain has managed to progress along the road towards totalitarianism with the majority of people not even noticing.

Not only was Theresa May allowed to get away with introducing this vile Nazi-like legislation back in 2014 because members of her own government were too self-serving to speak out, and because of the pathetic abstentionism of the timid and directionless Labour leadership at the time, but this legislation has been allowed to fester away, destroying peoples lives for over four years, and the vile wannabe-tyrant who created it has actually been promoted to Prime Minister!


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

The depraved coalition deals the Lib-Dems cooked up with the Tories behind closed doors


Polly Mackenzie was never a Lib-Dem MP, but as one of Nick Clegg's core advisers she played a crucial role during the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition period. She's just admitted the kinds of depraved horse trading that went on between the Lib-Dems and the Tories at the time in a Twitter mini-thread.
 

She starts off with an unobjectionable and actually rather astute observation about how the Tories seem to announce a new green measure or plastics ban every time they want to move the news away from their latest scandal, but she followed the Tweet up with some more observations that shine a light on the grotesque horse trading the Lib-Dems did with the Tories.

She claims that the clampdown on plastics was actually a Lib-Dem idea, and that they finally secured the limited introduction of 5p charges on plastic bags in return for their support for a toughening of the draconian Tory benefit sanctions regime.

Here are a few facts about the benefits sanctions regime:

  • Benefits sanctions condemn individuals and their families to periods of absolute destitution for up to two years by stopping their social security payments.
  • Benefits sanctions have been applied for the most grotesquely inappropriate of "offences" such as having a heart attack during a work capacity assessment, a veteran selling poppies a few hours a week, being five minutes late to an interview, missing an appointment because their child was stillborn, missing an appointment because they had a stroke (see a list of grotesque examples with sources in this article)...
  • Benefits sanctions have been shown not to work. It's obvious that removing a person's ability to eat properly, clean their clothes, print documents, travel to interviews reduces rather than increases their ability to find work, but the Tories insisted the opposite. That condemning people to absolute destitution is a way of helping people.
So in return for the limited introduction of 5p plastic bag charges the Lib-Dems green lighted even more savage Tory abuse of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

There's nothing wrong with caring about the environment, in fact it's highly commendable, but if you're willing to kick thousands of extremely vulnerable people under a bus in order to make a minor step forward in combating excess plastic waste, then you've got your priorities disgustingly wrong.

So the next time you hear someone trotting out the tired old Lib-Dem platitude about how they were a "moderating influence" on the Tories, remind them of the way they decided to give Iain Duncan Smith even more power to brutalise the most vulnerable people in society in return for nothing more than 5p plastic bag charges (that would have eventually been introduced anyway due to EU legislation).




 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Fake News BBC parrot Theresa May's lie as their number one story


Theresa May stood at the dispatch box and lied. She lied that the decision to destroy immigration landing cards was taken by the Labour Party in 2009 when it wasn't. She lied because she was desperately trying to deflect criticism over her grotesque 'hostile environment' policies that led to the dehumanisation, detention, denial of rights and even and deportation of Commonwealth British citizens. And most of all she lied because she thought she could get away with it.

If the British press had any instinct to hold the UK government to account they would have looked into her claim, immediately found it to be contradicted by the previous day's Home Office admission that the documents were destroyed in October 2010, and run a story criticising the Prime Minister for lying to the House of Commons, and for cynically misleading the British public in order to deflect negative attention away from herself.

But that's not what happened. That's not what happened at all. Instead of investigating her claim, the BBC and various other mainstream media outlets uncritically parroted her lie, and helped her misleadingly deflect the Windrush criticism onto others.

Of course the billionaire owned right-wing propaganda rags and the legions of Tory social media propaganda accounts got in on the misdirection act, but the behaviour of the BBC is much more problematic. They didn't just make Theresa May's lie the number one story on their website, they also uncritically regurgitated her lie into millions of homes and workplaces in TV and radio news segments.

When the state broadcaster refuses to investigate even the most blatant of government lies, and instead uncritically parrots the lie into the homes and onto the devices of millions of people, they're not worthy of the name journalists, or news reporters, they're nothing but impotent court stenographers, and cynical mind manipulators.

But let's not forget the real issue here. The real issue isn't that a batch of documents were destroyed and when. It's that in 2014 Theresa May introduced horrific new anti-immigrant rules giving the government the power to deny employment, deny health care, deny benefits and pensions that people have paid for through decades of National Insurance contributions, and to make British citizens live in constant fear of imprisonment and deportation to places many of them last saw when they were toddlers.

The reason she inflicted this appalling state of limbo on thousands of British citizens was just to grub a few votes off UKIP by appealing to the extreme-right ultranationalist anti-immigrant demographic.

Nobody in the Tory party complained about this blatant Faragisation of the Tory party and the UK government back in 2014, and even now still none of the supposedly more liberal One Nation Tories dares to stand up and criticise what Theresa May has done in their name.

Theresa May brought in these harsh new rules in 2014, and she was undeniably warned at the time by Diane Abbott that such rules could be used against British Commonwealth citizens without paperwork, but May just evaded the question and waffled on about whatever she wanted to, in the way we've all become all-too-familiar with since she became Prime Minister.

If the BBC was up to it's job it would have reported that Theresa May lied. If the so called free press that are not constrained by impartiality rules were up to their jobs they would be calling for Theresa May's resignation for introducing such disgusting rules, then lying to parliament and the public to try to deflect the negative attention. And if Theresa May had the slightest shred of personal integrity she's would have already shown her contrition by tendering her resignation.

None of that has happened. None of that is likely to happen. But the more the media and the political establishment class circle the wagons to protect their own elitist class from the rest of us, the more furious the British public are going to get until something gives.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Theresa May's despicable response to the Windrush scandal


The Tories know that their treatment of Windrush citizens has been absolutely despicable, but instead of taking personal responsibility for it and resigning, they've resorted to the most ridiculous campaign of bluster, smears, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

The absurd Data Protection excuse


When a whistleblower revealed that the Tories had deliberately destroyed the archive of landing cards from the Windrush generation the first Tory instinct was to lie their way out of trouble.

The Tories initially tried to claim that the archives were destroyed because of Data Protection concerns.

The first thing to note is that this is a Tory government that wilfully sold off our private NHS medical data to drug companies and health insurers without our consent. To hear them suddenly pretending that they care about data protection laws is most absurd.

The next thing to note is that Data Protection rules have a very clear exemption for material of historical importance. You'd have to be completely cracked to imagine that the boarding cards of the Windrush generation who came to help Britian rebuild after WWII had no historical significance whatever and needed to be lobbed into a skip.


And one final point on this ridiculous excuse is that *if* the Tories know for a fact that data protection concerns really were their motivation for destroying these documents, they know who authorised the destruction, but they're hiding that information from the public domain presumably because it's harmful to their party.

Anti-Semitism smears

When Theresa May was cornered by Jeremy Corbyn on the destruction of the Windrush boarding cards she resorted to the age-old Tory tactic of misdirecting attention with smears. She said she was going to ignore the question because Jeremy Corbyn has supposedly "let anti-Semitism run rife through his party".

The facts of the matter are difficult to square with Theresa May's smear-mongering: Anti-Semitic views are very much more common in the Tory ranks than in the Labour ranks. Labour Party members are significantly less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than the general public, rates of anti-Semitism have declined dramatically since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015, and last but not least Theresa May's vile anti-immigrant 'hostile environment' legislation was all about attracting the extreme-right ultranationalist blue-kip demographic who are by far and away the most anti-Semitic demographic of all.

Denial of personal responsibility

The legislation that has been used to dehumanise, deny employment and healthcare, and deport Windrush citizens was introduced in 2014 by Theresa May. She was warned of the dangers at the time. In the 3rd reading parliamentary debate Diane Abbott clearly raised the problem of Theresa May's harsh new immigration rules being used against British citizens, but Theresa May just fobbed it off with a load of evasive waffle.

Theresa May was warned at the time that her attack on immigrants could end up wrecking the lives of people who have every right to live here, she ignored it, and now she thinks that she can just say "sorry" and wash her hands of responsibility, rather than offering her resignation like anyone with a shred of integrity would do.

Absurd misdirection

Despite the Home Office having admitted that they destroyed the Windrush landing cards Theresa May decided to blame the decision on Labour with a truly ridiculous piece of misdirection (one that was lapped up and uncritically reported by the right-wing press and the BBC).


The misdirection involved switching two very distinct decisions. In 2009 the Labour run Home Office made the decision to move out of the Croydon building in which the Windrush landing cards were kept. And in 2010, under Theresa May's watch, the Home Office made the decision to destroy the cards rather than find a place for them in the new building.

By switching decision one and decision two to blame Labour for her own department's decision, Theresa May is once again assuming the general public to be a total bunch of irredeemable half-wits who couldn't tell the difference between a blue frog and a yellow frog because they're both frogs.


Another assumption they're making is that we're so dim-witted that we'll simply forget that they openly admitted destroying the documents just one day previously (using their absurd data protection story).

Conclusion

If you're the kind of person who abhors institutional racism and believes that people should take personal responsibility for their own errors and misjudgements, Theresa May's actions in regards to the Windrush scandal should sicken you to the core.

If however you're totally chilled about institutional racism and prefer your politicians to resort to ridiculously responsibility evasion, unconvincing stories, blatant smears, cynical misdirections, and outright lies the instant they get caught doing anything wrong, then Theresa May's behaviour should have you purring with pride in a job well done.



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Who were the 18 MPs who bravely voted against Theresa May's anti-immigrant lunacy in 2014?


Back in 2014 the then Home Secretary Theresa May introduced new immigration rules designed to create a 'hostile environment' for immigrants. The introduction of these harsh new immigration rules was clearly a ploy to appeal to the extreme-right ultranationalist demographic, and it coincided with a significant upsurge in anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Tories, and especially from Theresa May.

In light of the Windrush scandal the Tories simply cannot pretend that they were not warned about the serious consequences of this piece of legislation. They were warned, and these warnings are recorded on the Hansard parliamentary record.

During the debate Diane Abbot raised concerns that these harsh new powers could have negative impacts on could have on "people who are British nationals, but appear as if they might be immigrants" (people like the Windrush generation and other perfectly legal migrants from the Commonwealth).

Theresa May completely dodged this question with the kind of evasive waffle we've all become so familiar with since she became Prime Minister.

The Lib-Dem MP Sarah Teather (who went on to quit parliament in disgust at the grotesque Lib-Dem colusion with the Tories between 2010 and 2015) raised concerns about people being denied health care.

These concerns have been totally vindicated as it's turned out that Windrush immigrants who have lived in the UK since childhood and paid tax their entire working lives have been denied healthcare, including life-or-death cancer treatments.


Others to speak out were the The Green MP Caroline Lucas who raised concerns about the shocking 32% error rate in Home Office deportation decisions, John McDonnell who spoke about the appalling conditions in immigration prisons, and Pete Wishart of the SNP who called it a "dreadful" and "terrible" piece of legislation and concluded that the Tories might as well have had Nigel Farage at the dispatch box rather than Theresa May because "this is nothing other than a UKIP bill".

Jeremy Corbyn was the last of the MPs who bravely stood up in opposition to the vile Blue-kip anti-immigrant Juggernaut, here's what he said:
"I will vote against the Bill on Third Reading for a large number of reasons. We have ordained that the Home Secretary will have executive power to take away citizenship in the future and to create a generation of stateless people. The handing over of that power is, I think, a very dangerous thing for any Parliament to do.  
 We have a number of other serious concerns about the Bill, such as those covered in the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the forced removal of people; the death of Jimmy Mubenga, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather); the use of the detention system; the denial of health care access; the problems of forcing landlords to become agents of the Home Office; and the reality of life for those people who have legitimately sought asylum in Britain and are starving on the streets of our cities because we do not have a system in place to give them proper support.  
The Bill does not answer any of those problems. It is based on prejudice and headline chasing and has nothing to do with the real needs of people who are desperately seeking support, help and assistance rather than the cold behaviour shown by the Government today."
The bill was voted on immediately after Corbyn's passionate appeal for sanity in the face of headline chasing, UKIP-appealing, extreme-right, anti-immigrant lunacy from the government. Only 18 MPs (including the two tellers) voted against the bill.

Now that the disgusting consequences of this grotesque legislation are becoming more clear (especially in relation to the Windrush generation who have been imprisoned, made homeless, denied work, denied health care, and even deported as a consequence) it's very important to pay tribute to the 18 brave MPs who stood up and voted against this travesty of a bill, while the rest of the House of Commons blithely went along with this overt display of blue-kip extremism by Theresa May.

Diane Abbott (Labour)
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour)
Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru)
Mark Lazarowicz (Labour)
John Leech (Liberal Democrat)
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
Angus MacNeil (SNP)
Fiona Mactaggart (Labour)
John McDonnell (Labour)
Angus Robertson (SNP)
Dennis Skinner (Labour)
Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat)
David Ward (Liberal Democrat)
Mike Weir (SNP)
Eilidh Whiteford (SNP)
Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru)
Pete Wishart (SNP)
Note that all three Plaid Cymru, and the one Green MP all voted against the bill. Five of the six SNP representatives voted against it. Just six MPs from the Labour left voted against it (three of whom are now the leader, shadow Home Secretary, and Shadow Chancellor), and just three of the 57 Lib-Dems voted against it (one who resigned in disgust in 2015 and two who lost their seats in the furious public backlash against their party's collusion with the Tories at the 2015 General Election). Not a single Tory MP voted against it.
 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Just imagine what could happen if Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister


It's a good job Theresa May is a "moderate" isn't it? Unlike that scary hard-left extremist Jeremy Corbyn.

Just imagine if Jeremy Corbyn got into power.

I bet he'd immediately invite bigoted Northern Irish terrorist-backed sectarians into his government.

I bet Corbyn would sell off our British public infrastructure to undemocratic nations like China and to tyrannical middle east dictatorships too, and then fight tooth and nail to stop it ever coming back under British control.

I bet he'd repeatedly try to bypass parliamentary democracy, then sneer at anyone who objected to his terrifying autocratic tendencies.

I bet Corbyn would use his mates in the media to continually smear the political opposition, attack judges and academics who dare to scrutinise what he's doing, and instigate waves of death threats against members of his own party who dare to step out of line.

I bet he'd be so pleased with the disgusting hatchet jobs that his mates in the press had produced that he'd give these vile people jobs in his inner circle.

I bet Corbyn would take £hundreds of thousands in donations from Putin cronies and Russian oligarchs, then reverse reality by smearing his political opponents as "Kremlin stooges".

I bet he'd introduce stupid and unworkable laws that are derided by policy experts, the police, and legal professionals alike.

I bet Corbyn would work tirelessly to censor the Internet and give tens of thousands of people who work at non-terrorism related jobs like the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Gambling Commission the power to trawl through our emails and Internet search histories.

I bet he'd suck up to some of the worst regimes on earth (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Philippines ...) whilst allowing his government ministers to call our liberal and democratic European neighbours a bunch of Nazis.

I bet Corbyn would ignore and deride all of the expert advice to slash the police and the UK Border Agency to bits, then wash his hands of responsibility when the violent crime rate soars, and when terrorist attacks become more common.

I bet he'd do sick things like forcing people into absolute destitution for months because they missed a jobcentre appointment because they were too busy having a stroke/heart attack.

I bet Corbyn would load 86% of the negative impact of his economic policies onto the shoulders of poor and ordinary women.

I bet he'd be so depraved that he'd make rape victims explain the circumstances of their rape to bureaucrats.

I bet Corbyn would introduce blatantly sexist income requirements designed to rip apart British families.

I bet he'd waste £millions in taxpayers' money making people prove over and over again that they're unable to work, even though they have incurable disabilities or terminal illnesses.


I bet Corbyn would slash the fire service to bits and close dozens of fire stations, then deny responsibility for the massive increase in people dying in fires.

I bet he'd wreck Britain's future economic potential by under-investing in British infrastructure and oversee the worst collapse in UK workers' productivity in two centuries.

I bet Corbyn would introduce racist and discriminatory policies to force real British people out of Britain, whilst simultaneously selling UK residency to Russian oligarchs, corrupt Chinese officials, and the families of middle east dictators.

So let's be thankful that we have the wonderful moderate Mrs May in charge where nothing like that could ever happen.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Monday, 16 April 2018

Why are the UK establishment class waging ideological war on the OPCW?


Anyone who has been paying attention for the last few weeks must have noticed that the Tory government has launched a sustained ideological attack on the Organisation of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

This UK establishment attack on the Nobel Peace Prize winning organisation seemed to begin as a means of having a dig at Jeremy Corbyn over his insistence that the rules of the Chemical Weapons Convention should be followed in relation to the Salisbury poisoning.

Seeing Tories and the yapping dogs of the mainstream press attacking and ridiculing the OPCW seemed like the latest absurd manifestation of the anti-Corbyn agenda. It seemed that people were so unhinged in their desperation to criticise Corbyn that they'd actually resort to demeaning and ridiculing an organisation that is dedicated to ridding the world of chemical and biological weapons in order to score points against him.

But then the Syria airstrikes made it absolutely clear that this is way bigger than the myopic anti-Corbyn agenda of the British establishment class, these people have undeniably declared some kind of crazed ideological war on the OPCW.

The first thing that a lot of people noticed was that Theresa May rushed the decision to carry out airstrikes to jump the gun on the OPCW inspectors who were making their way to Douma in order to investigate the alleged chemical weapons attack.

But it doesn't stop there, not only did Theresa May deliberately undermine the OPCW by attacking before their inspectors could establish the facts about her stated justification for the attack, the targets of the attack were Syrian government facilities that had been given the all clear by the OPCW just weeks before.

Claiming that OPCW approved facilities are actually chemical weapons factories and then destroying them is about the most blatant way of undermining the authority of the OPCW you could imagine, especially if it turns out that the UK had intelligence that the site was a chemical weapons plant and they refused to share their information with the OPCW so they could investigate.

And then the UK envoy to the OPCW Peter Wilson has come out swinging to attack the institution with claims that "the time has come for all members of this executive council to take a stand. Too many duck the responsibility that comes with being a member of this council".

What can he possibly mean by this? That the OPCW should come out in support of airstrikes against facilities they green-lighted just weeks beforehand based on an alleged chemical weapons attack they weren't even allowed to investigate before the attacks were launched?

It's as if the UK establishment are desperate to attack and undermine the OPCW because they want to appoint themselves the ultimate moral arbiters on chemical weapons.

They want to be able to launch military attacks against one regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons without presenting their evidence, and without consulting parliament, yet  turn a total blind eye when their allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States) use chemical weapons on civilians.

And perhaps the most ridiculous facet of this British establishment drive to undermine the OPCW and anoint themselves the ultimate moral arbiters of chemical weapons use, is that as recently as 2012 the UK government granted export licences for the sale of Sarin precursor chemicals to Syria!

Of course the UK establishment will try to use misdirection tactics to dress this up as an "us vs them" "good vs evil" conflict between Britain and the baddies ("if you scrutinise us you're siding with Putin/Assad" type nonsense). But it's obvious to anyone who is not a fool that the real debates should be raging over whether the Prime Minister gets to cynically bypass parliament to launch military attacks because she fears she'd lose the vote, and why the UK establishment suddenly seem so hellbent on attacking, sidelining, obstructing, and undermining the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

It really is quite simple: If our political establishment class are waging an ideological war against a Nobel Peace Prize winning organisation which is dedicated to the eradication of chemical and biological weapons, maybe, just maybe, they might not be quite the good guys they're trying to portray themselves as?



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

The timeline of shame


In March 2018 the Saudi tyrant Mohammed bin Salman began a month-long tour of Western nations, securing new arms deals with Britain, the United States, and France.

In early March 2018 the brutal Islamist tyrant received a warm Tory welcome in London. Against a backdrop of widespread criticism of the repressive Saudi regime and their ongoing campaign of war crimes in Yemen, Theresa May agreed a new arms deal with the Saudi regime to supply them 48 Typhoon jets. This deal was signed off by the UK government despite their full knowledge that the Saudis have been using British-manufactured weapons to commit horrific war crimes.

Later that month Bin Salman rocked up in the United States to meet Donald Trump. The President of the United States demeaned his office and his nation by begging the Saudi tyrant to "share the wealth" by buying more American-manufactured weapons. The trip concluded with a new $670 million deal to supply the repressive kingdom with anti-tank missiles and spare parts for tanks and helicopters.

And then Bin Salman appeared in Paris to meet Emmanuel Macron. The trip concluded with the French government agreeing to essentially scrap their managed arms export strategy in order to hawk weapons to the Saudi tyrants directly. Of the three leaders Macron is under the most domestic pressure to halt arms sales to the Saudis because of their appalling human rights record and their war crimes in Yemen, but he ignored public opinion in order to make French arms sales to Saudi Arabia even easier!

And then just one week later France, the United States and the United Kingdom collaborated to launch missile attacks on Syria (including targets that had been declared free of chemical weapons just weeks earlier by the OPCW).

It's absolutely obvious that the main beneficiaries of these attacks on Syria are the Saudi-backed Islamist terrorists who have been losing the war there. We know they're Saudi backed because the US government admitted as much in the leaked Hillary Clinton emails.

We also know that Saudi Arabia has produced the second most ISIS fighters (after Tunisia), and that the country is the single biggest source of pro-ISIS propaganda on social media.

Within five weeks of starting his arms deal tour all three of his major arms-dealer nations have decided to bypass their own parliaments in order to militarily support the Saudi destabilisation agenda in Syria.

The truly alarming thing about this scandalous situation isn't that France, the US and the UK are selling weapons to tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia (they're three of the five biggest arms dealing nations on earth), nor that they're actively assisting the Saudis in their strategic destabilisation of their Middle East neighbours (they've been happy to watch Saudi Arabia spread Salafi Islamist extremism all over the globe for decades), but that the mainstream press in all three countries simply refuse to explain the Saudi role in all of this.

All three leaders cynically bypassed their parliaments to carry out these attacks. All three leaders defied public opinion to carry out these attacks. And all three leaders are sickeningly close to the vile and repressive Saudi regime whose Islamist proxies in Syria are the main beneficiaries of these attacks.

If mainstream media hacks were even remotely interested in holding the powerful to account then the scandalous involvement of democracy-hating Saudi Arabia in all of this would be a central theme of the Syria airstrikes coverage, but it simply isn't.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR