Tory henchwoman Miller has the traits of a psychopath
An online apology written by disgraced politician Maria Miller has met a backlash from her constituents, who branded her a 'psychopath.'
The apology, printed in Mrs Miller’s weekly column for The Basingstoke Gazette, came out the day before she made the decision to quit as culture secretary following a row over overclaimed expenses for her second home.
In the apology Mrs Miller writes she is “devastated” and has “unreservedly apologised” for the way she handled a parliament investigation into her finances.
She said: "I am devastated that this has happened, and that I have let you down. I can only hope that over time the focus will once again be on Basingstoke."
But she was met with an angry response from hundreds of angry readers calling on her to quit from the Conservative Party altogether.
Basingstoke2 said: “Sadly she shows traits of a psychopath. Charming outside, but ruthlessly self-serving. No empathy. No genuine remorse.
“She should be sacked, not allowed to resign which would entitle her to more taxpayer money. She has conned Basingstoke and the nation.”
Gman900 wrote: “No sympathy for her or any of her supporters. Get rid, roll on 2015 I say. Opps I forgot you could put a monkey in a suit with a blue rosette up for election in Basingstoke, and it would still get elected.”
Another comment from The People Must Be Heard said: “Sorry…seems to be the hardest word. What is amazing is how out of touch she is and others who are supporting her is the general feeling of the public who they are supposed to be serving.”
And Thomas Fairfax wrote: “…Cameron prefers to surround himself and fill his cabinet, with arrogant people, people dismissive of any criticism, prepared to operate at the margins of proper behaviour and who show nothing but contempt for the people of this country…Miller is only trying to fill that model.”
An online-poll asking Basingstoke constituents whether she should be sacked as culture secretary saw 96 per cent of people voting yes.
Today, Miller said she took full responsibility for her decision to quit and did not want to become a “distraction.”
She said: “It is not right that I am distracting from the incredible achievements of this Government.”
Inside story of tory henchwoman Maria Miller's resignation VIDEO
Toerag Cameron kisses the zionist Israeli arse big time
British parliament now jewish run with Cameron, Miliband and Clegg the sideshow never mind the Friends of Israel
dishing out money to the major parties that kiss the right zionist arse.
Cameron: 'Israel is a beacon of democracy to the region - and to the world'
David Cameron's Knesset speech March 12, 2014
"Shalom le-coolam [Hello everyone]
"Mr President, Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Members of the Knesset, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honour to address this historic Parliament - for sixty-five years the heart of the State of Israel and a beacon of democracy to the region - and to the world.
"When I was last here in Jerusalem, I came as Leader of the Opposition and I remember being quite bemused as I sat listening to Israeli politicians telling me all about the challenges of coalition politics. They told me about building a coalition, keeping it together, balancing the demands of different parties, sorting out the disputes and I just didn’t understand this strange system of government. But after nearly four years as Prime Minister of my own coalition all I can say is: ach-shav ani mevin [now I get it].
"What I have always understood is the extraordinary journey of the Jewish people. Thousands of years of history in this holy land. Thousands of years of persecution. And even today, some people despicably questioning your right to exist. My Jewish ancestry is relatively limited but I do feel just some sense of connection. From the lexicon of my great, great grandfather Emile Levita, a Jewish man who came from Germany to Britain 150 years ago to the story of my forefather Elijah Levita who wrote what is thought to have been the first ever Yiddish novel.
"But more importantly I have learnt to understand something of Jewish values and character and I have grown to appreciate the extraordinary contribution of the Jewish people to my country and to the world. That sense of understanding has shaped my determination to remember the past, my commitment to Israel in the present and my hopes for Israel’s future.
"And I would like to say something about each of these today.
"First, remembering the past.
"One of the most moving experiences I have had as Prime Minister came in January this year, when I held a reception in Downing Street for 50 Survivors of the Sho’ah. I met some of the most inspiring people and heard some of the most incredible stories.
"People like Harry Spiro who couldn’t understand why his mother pushed him out of her house and off to the factory, when she was actually saving his life.
"Gena Turgel, who witnessed her brother being shot by the Nazis and lost another brother and two sisters before she was eventually liberated from Bergen-Belsen and went on to marry the British soldier who freed her.
"And Ben Helfgott who endured three years in a ghetto, two labour camps and three concentration camps to make it to England where he was reunited with one of his sisters, the only other member of his family to survive. Ben went on to represent Britain as a weightlifter in two Olympics set up a society for Holocaust survivors and was honoured in Poland for his reconciliation work between Poles and Jews. And I am delighted that Ben has come with me here today.
"All of the survivors have made such an incredible contribution to Britain.
"And one of the things so many of them have done – and which never ceases to amaze me - is to go into our schools and share their testimony first hand.
"It is hard to imagine the sheer strength of humanity it must take to do that.
"To relive time and again the one thing that frankly many of us in their position would do almost anything just to try and somehow forget.
"But they do it because they share an urgent sense of mission that their story must never be forgotten.
"I share that mission too.
"And I am determined that long after they are gone and long after we are all gone their memory will be as strong and vibrant as it is today.
"As a father, I will never forget last year visiting the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin with my children and for the first time trying to explain to them quite what had happened.
"I want every child in Britain to learn about the Holocaust and to understand just how vital it is to fight discrimination and prejudice in our world.
"It is vital that we do all we can with our international partners to preserve the site at Auschwitz, which I will be visiting later this year.
"But we need to do more.
"That is why I have set up the Holocaust Commission in Britain. A number of the Commissioners are here with Ben and me today and as we visit Yad Vashem together later today, our pledge to Ben will be that Britain will never forget what he and his fellow survivors have taught us.
"We will preserve the memory of that generation for every generation to come.
"But remembering the past goes far beyond that horrific suffering of a generation.
"It is about remembering the long and rightful search of a people for a nation. And the right for the Jewish people to live a peaceful and prosperous life in Israel.
"From the early pioneers, the men and women of the Palestine Exploration Fund, who saw the Jewish history in this land and the possibilities for the future to the Balfour Declaration – the moment when the State of Israel went from a dream to a plan Britain has played a proud and vital role in helping to secure Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.
"And just as important as the history, is the partnership we are building between our countries today.
"That begins with our commitment to Israel’s security. On my last visit here I took a helicopter ride heading north over Israel.
"Looking right to the Jordan River and left to the Mediterranean Sea, I really appreciated for the first time just how narrow and vulnerable this land is.
"A vulnerability that has already seen 38 missiles from Gaza this year alone.
"A vulnerability that just this week has seen the interception of the Klos C ship - yet another despicable attempt by the Iranians to smuggle more long-range rockets into Gaza. A vulnerability that has too often seen nearby Palestinian schools being named in honour of suicide bombers.
"It gave me a renewed understanding of what it must be like to be afraid in your own home.
"So let me say to you very clearly: with me, you have a British Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is unbreakable and whose commitment to Israel’s security will always be rock solid.
"I understand the concern of Israelis who have seen land that Israel has pulled out of, becoming a base for terrorist attacks. And I will always stand up for the right of Israel to defend its citizens. A right enshrined in international law, in natural justice and fundamental morality, and in decades of common endeavour between Israel and her allies.
"When I was in Opposition I spoke out when - because of the law on universal jurisdiction - senior Israelis could not safely come to my country, without fear of ideologically motivated court cases and legal stunts. When I became Prime Minister I legislated to change it.
"My country is open to you. And you are welcome to visit anytime.
Eton rat Cameron's selfies with good looking birds won't be going down well with his missus
The utter scum and dregs of the earth
Cameron under fire after No10 kept top aide's child porn arrest secret for nearly three weeks
DAVID Cameron faced awkward questions last night after it emerged that No10 kept a top aide’s child porn arrest secret for nearly three weeks.
Patrick Rock, 62, was arrested on February 13 – the day after he resigned. But the scandal did not become public until a newspaper reported it yesterday.
Rock, an old friend of Cameron described as a No10 “policy fixer”, was heavily involved in the Prime Minister’s crusade against internet porn, including moves to put filters on home computers.
He quit on February 12 – the day No10 say they first heard claims of “a potential offence relating to child abuse imagery”. Cameron’s spokesman said the claim was immediately reported to police and Rock was arrested at home hours later.
Police were invited into No10 and given access to “all IT systems and offices they considered relevant”.
The spokesman said it would have been wrong, because of the police probe, for No10 to make the scandal public.
Cameron echoed that line yesterday, saying: “I don’t think it would be right to pre-emptively brief out a criminal investigation.”
He said No10 had given “full and straightforward answers” as soon as questions were asked, and had handled the issue in “an absolutely correct way”.
Cameron said he was immediately informed of the allegations on February 12, and was “profoundly shocked”.
But Labour MP John Mann said: “Yet again we are seeing a lack of transparency from No 10.”
Mann said it was “highly inappropriate” that an adviser of Rock’s importance had quit without MPs and the public being told.
He added: “The whole thing is very odd. The sequence of events is mystifying.”
Labour colleague Tom Watson said it seemed unusual that Rock was “clearly alerted to a potential problem” before he was arrested.
He also asked why No10 called in the secretive National Crime Agency rather than the Met. The NCA refused to comment.
No10 said a sexual harassment claim filed against Rock, and dealt with by Cameron’s Chief of Staff Ed Llewellyn, was nothing to do with the police investigation.
The comparison between the UK and US responses to Edward Snowden's revelations does the British government no favours
It is now eight months since Edward Snowden first broke cover with his revelations about the extent to which the American and British states were collecting and storing previously unimaginable amounts of data on millions of unsuspecting and wholly innocent citizens. For much of that time, Westminster has behaved as if it hoped the problem would go away. There was the "if you've got nothing to hide" school. There was the "shoot the messenger" club. There was the "airy fairy la-di-da" brigade. And there were the long-grass merchants: give it all to Sir Malcolm Rifkind to ponder and come back some time next year.
In the United States, it has been very different. Within the same time period, the president commissioned, published and responded to a detailed 300-page report by a review panel of experts who proposed more than 40 reforms. A parallel report by the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was published at the same time, while Congress began an animated debate about the proper limits of surveillance and the appropriate legal framework for the digital age.
The comparison between our response and theirs did this country's politics no favours. You may not like Edward Snowden. You may think him a villain rather than a hero. But few people – even within the closed worlds of intelligence – deny that he has brought into the open matters that demanded to be discussed. The more the revelations spilled into the open, the clearer it became that these were issues of the greatest importance – bearing on the private sector, the US and UK's digital economy, international relations, individual privacy and the integrity of the web itself. There are huge implications for business, individuals and the courts, as well as the intelligence agencies themselves, in what has been disclosed. How could politicians really imagine they could sit this out – and what would that silence say about politics itself?
In the space of 48 hours, the dam has broken. First came a thoughtful speech by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper. Although characteristically cautious, in order to avoid criticising any of the agencies directly, she accepted that the UK's creaking statutory protections need to be updated for the era of Big Data, and also damned the passivity of the three commissioners who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the surveillance undertaken by different arms of the state.
Ms Cooper was swiftly followed by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, announcing an "Obama-style" review by the Royal United Services Institute. He clearly hopes to ramp up the pressure for reforms that he already thinks necessary – a single, consolidated surveillance commissioner, better-resourced parliamentary scrutiny and, most importantly, annual reports so that the public can see just how frequently the agencies are digging into individuals' communications data. Neither Mr Clegg nor Ms Cooper has much time for Sir Malcolm's intelligence and security committee (ISC) in its present form.
With the Lib Dems and Labour accepting the case for reform of oversight and increased transparency, David Cameron is now looking isolated. The Conservatives' track record on the protection of civil liberties has in many ways been an admirable one, and there remains a strong Tory tradition that does care about democratic accountability of the state. In the US the libertarian right has been as vocal as its liberal counterparts in among the Democrats in demanding reforms. This is not a left-right issue, though until now it has certainly suited some in Westminster to pretend it is. Last week's revelations that GCHQ had devised a way of helping itself to random screen grabs from the webcams of millions of Yahoo users who were suspected of no wrongdoing at all was merely the latest illustration of how today's technologies can facilitate the most grotesque intrusions into personal privacy in the name of national security. A considered response from Westminster was long overdue.
Lawyer, judges and politicians behind vile paedo attachment to NCCL
Harriet Harman Labour's top feminazi lawyer
Many other members of Britain's ruling liberal elite held senior posts at the NCCL when it was closely linked to paedophiles.
What a tangled web Harriet Harman has woven in her attempt to escape her tainted past.
In recent days, this paper has exposed the damning links in the Seventies and early Eighties between the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a sinister pressure group that campaigned to legalise child sex, and the radical Left-wing organisation the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL), for which Harman was the high-profile legal officer.
As public pressure mounted over the Mail’s revelations, Harman finally took to the airwaves to defend herself. Bristling with indignation in a BBC2 Newsnight interview, she refused to show a shred of remorse over the fact that the Paedophile Information Exchange was formally affiliated to the NCCL.
It was a remarkably disingenuous performance. I write that as someone who spent three years running her Parliamentary office, from 1989 to 1992 — an experience that led me to admire some of her qualities, such as her resilience, drive and energy. But on this issue, I am afraid she is being profoundly misleading.
For she has refused to acknowledge the disturbing reality that, in parts of the radical Left in Eighties Britain, there was a climate of opinion which held that paedophiles were an oppressed minority deserving support rather than condemnation.
That astonishing moral inversion was sickeningly illustrated by a Press release issued in March 1976 by the NCCL, which proposed that the official age of consent should by lowered to 14 and even be dropped to ten in cases where ‘the consent of the child’ could ‘be proved’.
Just as disturbingly, the NCCL wanted to decriminalise incest ‘when committed between mutually consenting persons’. Effectively, it wanted to legalise child abuse and depravity. In the dark world envisioned by this organisation, predators would have been able to act with impunity.
Patricia Hewitt, the former Labour Cabinet minister who was General Secretary of the NCCL at the time, has now admitted: ‘I got it wrong on PIE and I apologise for having done so.’
But her public contrition is in stark contrast to Harman, who has maintained all week that she has ‘nothing to apologise for’. Hewitt now says that she and her colleagues at the NCCL were ‘naive’, but this saga was driven by something far worse than mere naivety.
It reflected an extraordinary political outlook which was partly fuelled by other liberation campaigns of the time, with their emphasis on sexual rights and their contempt for the constraints of traditional morality.
Harriet Harman might try to deny it now, but there was undoubtedly an ideological movement within the Left towards a toleration of paedophilia.
This helped to foster a deep moral ambivalence about child abuse, which was not only exploited by perverts, but also ultimately led to a string of appalling scandals, perhaps most infamously at Islington Council in the early Nineties — which was at the time run by Harman’s close friend Margaret Hodge, now Labour MP for Barking.
The Left-wing roots of this movement can be seen in the creation of the Paedophile Information Exchange, which was founded in Edinburgh in October 1974 by two gay campaigners, Michael Hanson and Ian Campbell Dunn, both of them leading members of the Scottish Minorities Group, which later became the Scottish Homosexual Rights Group.
An outspoken, egocentric individual who worked as a town planner in Edinburgh, Campbell Dunn was a trade union official and Labour party activist. At one stage he was a local Labour council candidate, and, before his death, he had applied to become a candidate for the Scottish Parliament.
He publicly denied he was a paedophile, claiming he had become involved in PIE because he believed in supporting minorities. Yet he allowed his flat to be used as the mailbox for an insidious journal called Minor Problems, which billed itself as ‘a radical review for free inter-generational and child sexuality’.
When this was exposed in the Scottish press, Campbell Dunn threatened to sue, but he quietly dropped the legal action after a tape emerged of his boasting about having sex with a 14-year-old boy. At his funeral in 1998, one young man turned up with the bitter words: ‘I just came to make sure he was dead.’ Explaining his anger, he said that he had been raped by Campbell Dunn when he was 15.
After its Scottish beginnings, the Paedophile Information Exchange moved to London, where it rapidly expanded in size, going up from 100 members in November 1975 to more than 250 in 1977. At its peak in the late Seventies, it had 450 members.
Some of this expansion reflected its gradual takeover of the extremist outfit the Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL), which lobbied for the abolition of the age of consent.
Instead of cowering in the face of justified public opprobrium, the increasingly self-confident Paedophile Information Exchange went on the offensive to promote its cause. Part of its strategy was to link up with other Left-wing campaign groups. So it infiltrated the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) and, more importantly, joined the National Council of Civil Liberties.
And what is so striking about the NCCL at the time of PIE’s affiliation is how many of its top officials went on to become major figures in the Labour Party or in civic life. As well as Harriet Harman’s husband Jack Dromey, who was chairman of the NCCL, the body’s General Secretary was Patricia Hewitt, later a Labour Cabinet Minister.
There was also Henry Hodge, a solicitor, Labour Parliamentary candidate, and Islington councillor, who was elected chairman of the NCCL in 1974.
The husband of the aforementioned Margaret Hodge (the future Islington leader and East London MP, and now the influential chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee), Henry Hodge later became Britain’s most senior immigration judge before his premature death in 2009.
Other key members of the NCCL in this period included its chairmen Bill Birtles (who married Patricia Hewitt and is now a High Court judge); barrister Peter Thornton (now Chief Coroner of England and Wales); Catherine Scorer (who worked as a trade union legal officer); and Larry Grant (who became an adjudicator at the Immigration Appelate Authority).
Executive members included: Tony Smythe (later head of the mental health charity MIND), Bernard Dix (a Marxist trade union leader), Anna Coote (subsequently a think-tank adviser), Jo Richardson (who became a Labour MP), Tess Gill (later a senior union officer and lawyer), the human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson (who has since defended WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange), one-time Communist Sue Slipman (later a quango chief), Paul Boateng (who became a Labour Cabinet minister, then British Commissioner in South Africa and now a Labour peer), and there was legal officer Howard Levenson (now a judge of the Upper Tribunal — a senior judicial appeals body).
It is, in short, an astonishing list of the Left-wing great and good.
‘We thought we could manipulate the Establishment and find allies within it,’ said the former PIE chairman Tom O’Carroll. Through the NCCL, he achieved a degree of success in that aim, at least within the Left.
In her Newsnight interview this week, Harriet Harman downplayed the importance of the PIE affiliation in 1975, implying it was only a minor administrative matter, which the NCCL could do nothing to prevent.
Yet O’Carroll told Radio 4: ‘Harman and Hewitt couldn’t just kick us out, or they could but they didn’t try. The reason was their careers in the NCCL depended upon them not rocking the boat too much.’
And indeed, Stephen Green, the Christian campaigner and author who conducted extensive research in the NCCL archives in the mid-Eighties, says that the initiative for affiliation actually came from the NCCL itself. According to his research, the NCCL officer Nettie Pollard, who worked in the organisation until the late Nineties, ‘wrote a letter inviting the Paedophile Information Exchange to affiliate in 1975’.
Pollard, a militant lesbian and gay rights campaigner and a member of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality’s executive, was a powerful voice in support of a more relaxed approached to child sex.
In 1980, she even helped Tom O’Carroll with the writing of his proselytising book Paedophilia: The Radical Case. Such support reflected her own belief that children are sexual beings and that Britain ‘should eliminate harmful age of consent laws’.
The extreme nature of her views was highlighted in a 1993 feminist book to which she contributed a chapter. ‘Far from being innocent and becoming sexual at puberty, it is now indisputable that everyone is sexual even before birth,’ wrote Pollard. ‘Babies often react sexually when being held, or in other moments of physical pleasure.’
This is the mentality of the woman who worked at the NCCL alongside Harman, Dromey, Hewitt and Henry Hodge in the Seventies and early Eighties.
The assertion that child sex campaigners had absolutely no impact on NCCL is further undermined by the annual report of the Paedophile Information Exchange for 1975/76 — now held in the British Library — written by its chairman Keith Hose, the predecessor to Tom O’Carroll. In this incriminating document, Hose openly boasts about how his involvement with the gay rights sub-committee directly influenced NCCL policy.
As he put it: ‘Copies of our evidence were sent to the executive of the NCCL before their decision on their policy in this area was reached, and some of the proposals of the gay rights sub-committee were adopted.
‘The section on paedophilia in the report would undoubtedly not have been as positive had it not been for our lobbying. Our report therefore had some effect on the NCCL.’
Such words reflect the ideological madness that had infected sections of the Left, presenting abuse as childhood freedom or a lifestyle choice. What Hose called ‘positive’ would have been described by most people as monstrous.
Fascinatingly, one contributor to a website that criticises police action against child pornography made this recent statement. ‘I used to read Peace News (a pacifist journal) and I belonged to the NCCL. Many articles in Peace News and other libertarian/alternative journals were written in support of PIE’s aims and children’s rights.
‘I think it is extremely important to remind today’s fascistic Britain that things were very different then, and some people believed passionately in children’s sexual rights, lowering the age of consent, opposing corporal punishment in schools and liberalising child pornography. Sexual rights were part and parcel of the children’s rights movement.’
In this political culture, paedophiles were gaining a spurious form of credibility.
So Tom O’Carroll was invited to address an NCCL conference, and sat on an NCCL gay rights sub-committee alongside Nettie Pollard. When O’Carroll was finally arrested in 1981 — and later convicted — for conspiring to corrupt public morals, the NCCL expressed its outrage at the ‘deplorable nature of the conspiracy charge used by the prosecution’, to quote the words of Patricia Hewitt at the time.
In the group’s official publication, The NCCL Guide To Your Rights, an address was provided for the Paedophile Information Exchange at Elgin Avenue in West London. This was, in fact, the base of Release, an ultra-liberal drugs charity that received funding from the Home Office.
(The question of whether PIE itself received government funding was raised this week by the Labour MP Tom Watson.)
During her appearance on Newsnight this week, Harman claimed that PIE had been pushed out by the NCCL by the time she was appointed legal officer. But this is hardly the case. PIE remained affiliated until 1983, a year after Harman left her post on her election as Peckham’s MP. Indeed, her successor as legal officer, Marie Staunton, openly defended the affiliation in an astonishingly frank statement of September 1983, which reflected the continued hold of the sexual rights agenda.
‘Unless something is unlawful, people should not be prosecuted for the opinions they hold. The NCCL is campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14. An affiliate group like the Paedophile Information Exchange would agree with our policy. That does not mean it’s a mutual thing and we have to agree with theirs.’
Like so many others in this saga, Ms Staunton — now a CBE — has gone on to have an elevated public career, enjoying spells as the British director of Amnesty International and deputy director of Unicef in the UK, and head of the international charity Plan International. She is now chair of the overseas environmental charity Raleigh International.
Even though the Paedophile Information Exchange went into rapid decline from 1984, when two of its leading members were jailed, the propaganda in favour of child sex continued. Exploiting the language and dogma of the radical Left, supporters of paedophilic activity portrayed the law as an outmoded instrument of repression, similar to the institutionalised prejudices against women and gays.
That viewpoint was graphically illustrated in an extraordinary book entitled The Betrayal Of Youth: Radical Perspectives On Childhood Sexuality, published in 1986 and compiled by PIE activist Warren Middleton.
Among those thanked in the preface were, inevitably, Nettie Pollard of the NCCL, as well Dr Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer of Sussex University and Dr Ken Plummer, of Essex University. Both these academics were involved in the drive for acceptance of paedophilia.
In fact, Plummer, the former head of the Sociology Department at Essex, where he worked for 30 years, openly stated that his aim with paedophilia was to ‘humanise it, normalise it and politicise it’.
Fortunately, in our post-Jimmy Savile times, we are far more aware of the consequences of paedophilia. Yet there are still some on the Left who are drawn to this dark world, as can be seen in the catalogue of cases of abuse in recent years by Labour councillors and activists.
For example, Stephen Carnell, a school governor and the agent to Labour MP Chris Bryant in the last general election, was jailed for three years after being caught with 12,000 indecent images and 450 films. And Peter Tuffley, a former aide to Labour Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears, was jailed in 2006 for grooming a 13-year-old on the internet.
There have, of course, been a large number of cases involving Tories and Liberal Democrats. But the two crucial differences are, first, that the Left likes to pretend that it has a monopoly on compassion and, second, that a pernicious creed of ‘children’s rights’ underpins much of this activity. It is a creed that has its origins in the period when Hewitt, Harman and Dromey were at the heart of the NCCL.
The remarkable similarities between Fritz Sauckel and Iain Duncan Smith
Iain Duncan Smith behind the mass extermination of the sick and disabled using tory assassination squads the
DWP and ATOS
Hitler’s Chief of Slave Labour Recruitment, March 1942 – May 1945
Soon after taking office, Sauckel established compulsory labour service in Germany. His program resulted in the forced slave labour of 5 million people, many of whom had to endure cruel working conditions.
At the Nuremberg war crime trials, historian Joseph Persico described Sauckel as “….a little man with a shining dome, sad brown eyes, and a silly moustache patterned after the Fuhrer’s.”
Sauckel was hanged in the early morning hours of October 16, 1946 for crimes against humanity.
As far as I know – to date – there are no plans yet in place to hang Mr Iain Duncan Smith.
Church leader labels vile tory social reform a "disgrace" for leaving people in "destitution"
The leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has labelled the government's social reform a "disgrace" for leaving people in "destitution".
Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols said the "safety net" for the poorest families had been "torn apart".
The government responded by saying welfare reforms will "transform the lives" of the poorest families.
The Conservative Christian Fellowship said the archbishop should explain where extra money would come from.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Archbishop Nichols - the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in England and Wales and designated by Pope Francis to be appointed a cardinal later this month - said the welfare state was becoming "more punitive".
The comments by the soon-to-be Cardinal Nichols are the latest by Britain's Christian leaders on the subject of welfare reform.
Overwhelmingly, they've all cautioned the government to beware of allowing the poor to sink deeper into poverty, though some accept that reform is needed.
The leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said the burden of change is being shared unequally, but he admired the "best possible motives" of the architect of the plans, Iain Duncan Smith.
By far the strongest criticism has come from an alliance of the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, the Baptist Union and the Church of Scotland.
Nearly a year ago they accused the government of deliberately misusing statistics in order to blame the poor for their own predicament.
In response, the coalition says it wants to help people escape benefit dependency - which many Christians would also argue is the right course to take.
The intervention by Archbishop Nichols may also have another purpose - the raising of both his, and the Catholic Church's profile, in Britain's public debates.
The attack comes just days before Archbishop Nichols will be one of 19 new cardinals from around the world who will be appointed by Pope Francis at the Vatican.
A spokesman for the DWP (Department of Wankers and Parasites) replied by saying the previous benefits system was "trapping" the very people it was designed to help.
"Our welfare reforms will transform the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities with universal credit, making three million households better off and lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty", the spokesman said.
"It's wrong to talk of removing a safety net when we're spending £94bn a year on working age benefits and the welfare system supports millions of people who are on low incomes or unemployed so they can meet their basic needs."
In a statement the Conservative Christian Fellowship (CCF), an organisation of Christians who support the Tory party, called for the Archbishop to explain how much more he would like the government to spend on welfare.
The group says he should also explain where the additional money will come from.
The statement said: "We respect his opinions and welcome any contribution to the debate around welfare reform or any other political issue."