Monday, 25 March 2013

Bio-Diesel: Stealing?

As per usual the BBC is running its state propaganda again denouncing anyone who dares avoid paying extortion, I mean fuel duty, to the Government. This time its all about vegetable oil and its growing use as bio-diesel for certain vehicles which are capable of using it. 

Check out the article here:

Cars like this old Astra can run on SVO with no problems. 

Allegedly people are going around the backs of restaurants stealing waste veg oil (WVO) to filter, clean and then use in their own vehicles or will sell onto a company which does professional refinement for use as bio-diesel. Whilst I do not deny that this is probably happening due in part to the Governments insane policy of not cutting fuel duty despite its current crippling effect on the national economy, the way this article is written clearly plays into the Governments hands.

As the article does state, it is completely legal for anyone to create or use up to 2500 litres of SVO or WVO (Straight Veg Oil/Waste Veg Oil) every year, but since it is completely impossible to prove when you have exceeded that amount, my spider sense is telling me that this loop hole is about to close.

Lets take into consideration the articles claims that upto £25 million of tax is being taken away from fuel duty every year. 

For a start, this figure comes from a private company called 'Olleco', which profits from the collection of waste oil into diesel on an industrial scale. Lets just think about that for a second. The BBC has willingly aided the Government by trying to evoke a public reaction against this, but they have also aided a private company by spreading figures which could quite easily be plucked from the ether. It is in this private organisation's best interests to get private use of bio-diesel production banned so that it can have a monopoly. 

Call me a cynic, but the fact that Olleco are creating reports like this suggests that they have friends somewhere who will listen.

 But regardless, lets just say that for the sake of argument that £25 million is correct, and that the treasury is having some revenue cut from this 'illicit bootlegging' of fuel.
The current debt is just over 1 trillion pounds. (  Every hour that debt goes up by millions. The UK elite have been so careless that if each British person had to pay their share it would equal around £18,000 each. So why does £25 million matter, in the grand scheme of things? In fact, why bother with taxes at all, its not as if we are ever going to be able to pay this off with taxes anyway because there isn't enough money in circulation to do that.

So should the public be outraged, which seems to be the intention of the article? Or should we accept that fuel is far too expensive, and should be cheaper to begin with?
The Government are robbing us blind, 80p a litre of the £1.40 odd we pay for diesel goes to the treasury. That tax stops businesses from being able to function as they could, it prevents families from doing leisure activities or spending money with local companies, it creates inflation across the whole economy and pushes hundreds of thousands out of work. 

Who are the real criminals here? Individuals trying to survive, or a corrupt bunch of cunts sitting in Westminster?

 For more info on using veg oil, just look on the net, there is thousands of sites and it is becoming more and more popular. Just the other week in fact I had a forum I signed up to last year ask for small financial contribution because the forum was getting too many hits a month.

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

The War on The Internet

So today we were greeted by news which was to be expected really, and to be quite honest I don't even know why I'm bothering to write about it seeing as every blog in the UK is probably already covering this story but for the sake of adding to critical mass, I'll state the issues.

Today the news was reporting on the '1984' style press control:

Apparently the British Government has seen fit to bring in a bunch of new laws which not only strongly restrict the media's ability to report on stories (not that the mass media was ever that great at bringing things to peoples attention in the first place) but also means that there is a serious threat of ordinary internet users being sued for damages for cases of slander and or defamation. Those at risk includes me, for writing this blog and it includes you if you decided to post up unsubstantiated bullshit on Facebook or Twitter - quite literally you can be held accountable for saying anything, really, if someone can falsify evidence to the contrary to what you have said. 
That said, this is nothing new. Hundreds of people have already been arrested (and charged) for things said on Facebook, and I'm guessing the toll for people losing their jobs for 'I hate my boss, I think he is a cunt' comments, probably extends to the hundreds of thousands mark. Lets face it, the internet isn't safe anymore, in particular Facebook which was always an intelligence finding database from the get-up.

You have to ask, is this really an attack on the 'free-press'? Or is it really an attack on the internet's ability to quickly get information across?

Lets be honest, if it wasn't for the internet most of us would still be believing there was actually a point to the wars in the Middle East, that the economy really was failing due to genuine mistakes and that politicians actually have our best interests at heart. The internet has been a brilliant tool for unlocking minds and dispelling the bollocks stories we've been told over the centuries, until now. This could be seriously damaging for everyone who actually cares about learning the truth about things.

Lets take a scenario for arguments sake:

A woman is kidnapped and gang raped repeatedly by a group of highly wealthy politicians and bankers. She gets out, and no one believes her, the police are too scared to chase up the case and so in desperation she posts her ordeal up on the internet, because currently if you have a huge problem which no one seems to be helping you with, you post it on the internet to try and get publicity. If these people were so rich that they could pay off the police and pay for some witnesses to vouch for them being some place else at the time this rape allegedly happened, they could then take that woman to the cleaners and infinancially rape her too, just to really rub the salt in the wounds.

Whilst this may seem a bit of an extreme example, there are tons of cases which have received publicity through the internet, people who have won against corruption and blackmail, this Act would potentially put a stop to that.

Thing is, its not just freedom of speech which is under attack.

The past few years has seen both the European Union and America try and bring in internet laws such as 'SOPA' which far extend past their premise that it is just for preventing online piracy. In any case, despite both SOPA in the states and the European equivalent, the legislation was rejected on privacy grounds. Despite that, starting from next year in 2014, in the UK internet service providers will be required to log and monitor your download habits and give you a 'three strikes' warning, where presumably your internet speeds will be slowed until eventually you receive nasty letters through the post asking you to come to court.,2817,2406323,00.asp

The same is happening in America too, albeit they get six strikes instead of our three.

Europe and America both have the sinister issue of having to pay £20 (or $30) to appeal against an ISP's decision, because, you know, its not like the UK or America has a Bill of Rights or anything. And it gets worse. You ever posted something like a video of your mate falling over, onto YouTube? You put some music onto that clip? Guess what, if you did, you could be fined under these new proposals.

In any case just be glad you don't live in Germany where the lines between civil and criminal cases are blurred. If you are caught downloading porn illegally over there the porn studio send letters to your home demanding a payment settlement and then post your name publicly for everyone to laugh at (unless they pay £650 straight to the firm straight away without question.) Apparently the potential damage to relationships is neither here nor there to these arseholes.

Trouble is, its set to get worse. Gone are the days where the internet danced to the tune of dial-up tones and the anarchistic web pages ran wild, slowly but surely the internet is becoming standardised and my prediction is that eventually all the websites we take for granted today will be shut down and we will all be given some form of internet passport. The internet will be like a glorified Ceefax, except it draws more information out about you, than you do about it.

For example, there was huge controversy about Google's terms and conditions changing last year. People generally don't care that much anymore now its old news, but in my opinion people should be very scared of an internet organisation which demands you use a 'real name' when filling out your profile. Its not my belief that Google is necessarily some Government sponsored spy (that's Facebook) but I do think that they are deliberately and undeniably creating a file on you to know how best to sell products to you.

Facebook on the other hand is without question being used by police forces to gather intelligence on us, and as technology increases that ability will only grow. They are working on software which can predict where in the world flashpoints and crimes are about to take place and software which evaluates all your likes and dislikes in your Facebook timeline and makes a judgement on you about how likely you are to commit a crime.

All we need now is some sort of drug which makes us all docile and apathetic.

Oh hold on!

Welcome to the New World Order!

Saturday, 9 March 2013

UAF Conference 2013

This article has been a long time coming since its taken me a good week to have the time to upload all the associated videos that I took, but I'm finally in the position to release them to the world. 

Before I begin I would like to say that I'm not a supporter of the UAF, an organisation which suffers from atrocious double standards and ironic statements. At the same time (as I'm sure this will be read by a few UAF supporters) I'm also not a supporter of the idiotic EDL who run around making themselves look like your typical Chav cunt. So with that all cleared up, lets continue.

If you are unaware of who the UAF then take note; They are the ironically named 'Unite Against Fascism', or as many have taken to calling them 'Unite Against Freedom'. They are predominately supported by young adults who have studied at universities and have been brainwashed by Marxist doctrines but also seem to have a regular band of individuals with limited mental capacity at the ready to be used as muscle to prevent democratic demonstrations against multiculturalism, communism and international socialism.

The UAF seem to have endless resources, mainly because they have close links with the main Unions such as 'Unite' (as well as the scary support of teachers unions such as the NUT and NASUWT), political parties such as the Socialist Workers Party and more worryingly the Labour party. They have leaders and spokesmen from these parties and organisation, one of their main spokesmen is Ken Livingstone, former Labour Mayor of London but also seem to have a the strange support of practically every big-time Politician including current Prime Minister David Cameron.

Their mission appears at first glimpse to be an 'anti-fascist' organisation but look a little deeper and its obvious that this group is actually set up and financed by the state and top organisations which control society. Its not clear where their finances come from, although you can bet that they are likely paid for by Unions and 'special interest' groups such as Mosques and political groups like the Fabian society. 

They defend a stance of 'no platform', that is that fascists (who they are apparently allowed to  define) should not be allowed to voice their opinions, apparently the idea of free speech completely dead to them, which is a defining point of authority of fascism.

Their double standards runs right through all their politics though. Every time an ethnic minority is killed by a white British person, they go into overdrive and fight tooth and nail to make sure it goes as public as possible. If the tables are turned however, and is a white Briton who suffers racism, it is unceremoniously ignored by the UAF 'anti-racists'. The same applies to their rather dodgy philosophy of defending militant Islamists who preach against homosexuality, womens rights and alcohol consumption... whilst defending homosexual and women's rights organisations. In fact nothing has been said by them at all by the increasing prevalence of Muslim gangs going out and preaching their vile and twisted philosophies on English streets. 

Who's streets?

They purport to be against violent demonstrations yet none of their leadership seem to renounce violent behavior committed by their supporters. Take the darts thrown at Nick Griffin back in 2010 outside Parliament, caught on film. Of course the Crown Prosecution Service looked the other way despite calls by the BNP to have it looked into and despite evidence posted all over the internet. Ironically, a day before this attack on the BNP, Waymen Bennett (someone I got an interview with last week) was arrested for 'Conspiracy to organise violent disorder' at an EDL event in Bolton.

Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said that:

"Today in Bolton we have seen some small evidence of this protest in the form of flag waving and vitriolic name calling - but we have also seen groups of people, predominantly associated with the UAF, engaging in violent confrontation.
"It is clear to me that a large number have attended today with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable. Turning their anger onto police officers they acted with, at times, extreme violence and their actions led to injuries to police officers, protestors and members of the public.
"The police are not and should not be the target of such violence and anger and this protest and the actions of some of the protestors is roundly condemned by GMP and by Bolton Council. Were it not for the professionalism and bravery of police officers many others would have been seriously injured. I would also like to praise the efforts of the EDL stewards who worked with us in the face of some very ugly confrontations."

Trouble is, half the time the news reporting on these protests gets it completely wrong and attempts to tar the 'right-wing' as being the violent ones. Take the other week as an example where the BBC and the Guardian seem to report conflicting accounts, not unlikely because the Guardian is well known for its left leaning and therefore seems to be trying to play down the support of the 'right-wingers'.

The BBC account:
A bit different to:

Anyway, continuing on, I recently went to a UAF event to film their 2013 'Conference' but my main reason for going was to try and get an opportunity to ask a question about their methods and in particular their handling of the 2012 St Georges day parade where it transpired that parents with their young children were being pelted with missiles from the UAF who lined the streets. Apparently just because there were a few EDL turned up to the event, the innocent people celebrating a national saints day were fair game for their violent disturbance.

Here is a snippet of the way the UAF treats the English celebrating St Georges day in their own poxy country, albeit without footage of the missiles thrown:

So, without further ado, I give you the full videos for you to watch for your displeasure:


(I apologise in advance for the poor sound and picture quality. The sound quality couldn't be helped and the camera was continuously trying to auto-focus and the indoor strip lighting was giving it grief.)

(Note that there are some gaps between some of the videos. I didn't bother getting the clothes line seller of 'Love Music' because I didn't think he'd be that interesting - except he would have scored an own goal had I bothered to record him because he blurted out that they should not allow 'racist fascists' to speak because where the far right are able to speak in the media, they gain credibility. Which surely means that people agree with them in the wider society, then? Undemocratic shits.

I also managed to get an interview with the turd Weyman Bennett before people began becoming aware that I wasn't a UAF supporter and began demanding my name, address and phone number. 

The reason for the security according to the Conference coordinator was that 'We have to be careful who films for our security'. The fact that they have people in the conference selling copies of 'Searchlight' which lists far-right personal details is neither here nor there apparently...

Monday, 4 March 2013

Alcoholic Cars 2.0

The other day this story was reported on the BBC about how scientists may have found a way of storing hydrogen for use as a fuel in vehicles through extracting it from Methanol. This hydrogen would then be used to create an charge for an electric vehicle.

Sounds great right?

Well, surely not. The idea of fueling vehicles on alcohol has been about since Henry Ford, so it certainly is not a new idea. What the new idea with this story is is that they are using a flammable liquid to power an electric car. I think you can see where I'm going with this...

Petroleum is around 95 Octane, methanol is around the 115 mark. Hydrogen fuel celled cars on the other hand will have also have to had encorporated complicated computers and the complete redesigning of the infrastructure we have come accustomed to in the modern world. 

Now, I'm going to go out on a whim here and say that its probably much more cost effective and easier for the world to sell conventional combustion engines which can run on methanol and kits to convert ordinary petrol vehicles into being able to use it too. There would be very little modifications needed, if any if someone could invent a good enough additive to put in with methanol to stop it corroding seals and aluminium parts.

Methanol has been used to fuel racing cars for years already afterall...

And it can be made from rotting organic matter. I have no objections against using all that unused food that ends up in landfill, (and the by-product of the food we do eat) to make fuel to power our cars. Fuck, anything to bring down the cost of motoring has to be a bonus.

Diesel Fumes Cause Cancer

This may well be old news to some but as it was new to me I thought I'd just quickly up this information for anyone else out there to read and take note of. I only caught wind of this through an AA engineer who was aware of this.

If you are good with cars you may remember a few years back when manufacturers began putting 'pollen filters' on their cars. The reason I assume given was to stop you from having a dangerous sneezing fit whilst driving at 140 on the autobahn, but apparently given other recent information the real reason may be a little more worrying.

According to research, diesel fumes from modern engines are able to burn the diesel so well that the resulting particles are small enough to be absorbed by human skin and has been attributed to skin and lung cancer. Kind of worrying if you are someone who spends a great deal of time in the car or if you live on a main road. 

This information tends to tie in with why the international guidelines given to car manufacturers have become so stringent. Not only do car manufacturers tend to install these 'pollen filters' on their vehicles air vents, but most modern diesel cars now have to have a 'Diesel Particulate Filter'. This is essentially a catalyst which is meant to store the deposits so it can be fully burnt off before it gets into the environment to cause harm. 

Trouble is, whilst they lie to our faces about carbon dioxide being the cause of every affliction known to mankind, things such as this are relatively toned down, despite the possible major health complaints it can cause. 

The 'diesel particulate filters' are therefore likely nothing to do with carbon dioxide at all, and are more likely a way to try and prevent every commuter from dieing within fifteen years.