Skeptics Troll Their Own

Some regular HPANWO-readers will be aware that I've been on the receiving end of a very intense troll campaign for about five years. Trolls are basically Internet bullies who travel round cyberspace harassing and insulting other Net users. They are some of the worst people imaginable; in my view they encapsulate the most despicable and depraved mentalities in existence. I feel more contempt for them than almost anybody else. They're not only sadists, they're cowards who could never summon the gumption to confront anybody face-to-face; they just attack from behind the impunity of a keyboard and monitor. My antagonists are an infamous group of trolls calls "Team Droike"; who are still a regular and recurring problem on the HPANWO Forum. At first I thought they were just one person, they posted from a single user account; but then I noticed that their spelling and grammar varied in accuracy for different posts. They also seemed to be constantly online and I never had to wait more than an hour or two for replies at any time of the day or night, as if they were working shifts. Of course I'm a big, tough, ugly ex-Hospital Porter and so I'm not vulnerable in any way; but there are others who have been hounded to depression and even suicide by trolls. Team Droike are Skeptics and have obviously targeted me because I'm a "Woo-woo"; some trolls are non-Skeptics who hunt for Skeptics to abuse. I personally find both equally abhorrent. But a disturbing new development has emerged that has come to my attention via a friend of mine in Australia, Steve Trueblue, whom recently I interviewed on HPANWO Radio, see: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/programme-21-podcast-steve-trueblue.html Skeptics have started trolling their own. The victim in this case is a lady called Rebecca Watson, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nloor6dfwoY

Rebecca Watson is a Skeptic blogger and radio show host who founded and runs Skepchick, a website primarily for women who are Skeptics, see: http://skepchick.org/ It combines general Skepticism with associated feminist and women's interest issues. For example it has campaigned against misogyny in the Christian Right and witchcraft persecution in rural parts of Africa. Like every prominent Internet personality, she received her fair share of trolling, but one day these attacks suddenly escalated. Because of her disbelief in the paranormal and related subjects she felt she had found a group of like-minded comrades when she got involved with the Skeptic Movement. However she soon discovered that some of the male Skeptics she worked with were capable of even worse vicious behaviour than their non-Skeptic counterparts. During one conference a man politely, but rather clumsily, attempted to seduce her and she mentioned this incident on stage at the conference in a light-hearted way. The response was that she was immediately inundated with violent tirades ranging from spiteful jokes, sexist slurs and criticism of her looks and character, to threats of violence, torture, rape, mutilation, and even murder. Photographs of dismembered bodies were sent to her (and this makes me wonder if these are the same Skeptic trolls who tormented Meryl Dorey, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKEMPf_DRMg ) She managed to obtain information on the profiles of some of her abusers and discovered that they were often adults active in the Atheo-Skeptic Movement. That grand Maharishi of Atheo-Skeptics, Richard Dawkins, was not one of her abusers, but he was extremely unsympathetic; in fact he wrote a sarcastic false letter about it. To be honest I'd say that Rebecca Watson's failed-seduction experience alone does not justify any complaint, but when it is combined with the backdrop of her existing issues with male Skeptics I can understand why it would upset her; and Dawkins' response is highly insensitive, especially if what Watson says is true, that she had already told him about the existing threats she was receiving, see: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ Watson's ordeal intensified as this very highly organized trolling campaign took shape. Other members of Skepchick were struck at too, frightening one so much she left her home. Entire forums and blogs were set up by male Skeptics disparaging female Skeptics. The Skeptopaths have shown their true colours.

I'm not an advocate of feminism, in fact I'm a very harsh and vocal critic of it, but when I look at the conduct of some Conformist males I can sympathize with women who feel drawn into it. Watson is not a "man-hater"; in fact she got married to Sid Rodrigues, a male Skeptic who helps run London Skeptics in the Pub who has always been very welcoming to me, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/london-skeptics-in-pub-141111.html So one cannot generalize, but Steve thinks that the problem lies with the mentality of those attracted to the Skeptic Movement, something we talk more about in the radio interview linked above. Rebecca Watson has stood her ground in the Skeptisphere and continues to do her work. This is very courageous of her, but Steve thinks it's naive and foolhardy. As you can see in the linked video, Watson still believes that the Skeptic Movement is a good thing which has the power to change the world for the better. Steve thinks she's better off out of it, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnp_Cmlwq3o Steve calls the Skeptic Movement a hate group comparable to the Ku Klux Klan. I think that's slightly too severe... just slightly. But I think it's certainly wise to treat the Skeptic Movement as an emergent hate group, because it has the symptoms of a proto-tyranny, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/richard-wiseman-skeptocrat.html Also see the list Steve quotes from the FBI here from 0.45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKEMPf_DRMg As for Rebecca Watson, I agree totally with Steve's advice; get the hell out, Rebecca! She should get out and do her own thing beyond the umbrella of the Skeptisphere completely. She doesn't have to change any of her opinions or change anything else about herself; all she has to do is reject the institution that has created the "head-kicking" culture as Steve calls it. Team Droike are Skeptics, just like James Randi and Richard Dawkins are Skeptics, and Team Droike have decided to attack me. I wonder if Team Droike are among those who have decided to brutalize Rebecca. It's different for me, being a big 'ard feller, but for a young woman like Rebecca Watson it's far worse. I must say that if a pro-conspiracy/paranormal organization treated me like the Skeptics have treated her, you wouldn't see me for dust!

Palestinian "Rockets"

I've got two questions for you:

1. What is the difference between a submarine and a U-boat?

2. What is the difference between an astronaut and a cosmonaut?

Think about these questions for a bit before reading the rest of this article.

 

The answer is: Nothing at all. They are synonyms for the same objects which were used in the media to designate nationality for political reasons. By giving them different names it created in the mind of the receiver of media stories different mental concepts for them. It kept the viewer or reader focused on the "them-and us" aspect of these objects. The word "U-boat" is derived from the German word "U-Boot" which is short for "Unterseeboot" which translates as "submarine" (It literally means "a boat that is under the sea" German is full of these logically-pure terms) However German used the word, and still does today, to refer to any submarine of any nation. The term "U-boat" was coined to discern mentally for English-speaking media receivers a false difference between the two. The word "astronaut" was coined in 1930 and derives from Greek where it literally means "star sailor". "Cosmonaut" derives from the Russian "KOCMOHaBT" which itself comes from a Greek word meaning "sailor in the universe". But of course, as with "U-boat", there's no practical need to use two separate words because both words refer to the same thing. The reason two separate words were used in the media was for the same reason as "U-boat": to keep people aware of the Space Race and Cold War "good guys" and "bad guys" situation. As the modern Chinese space programme steams ahead there's even a ridiculous new piece of media jargon: "taikonaut"; this embeds the word "taikong" which is Chinese for "outer space" and the Greek "vautnc" for "sailor". Official translations from China itself never use this word; in stead they use "astronaut" whereas Russian translations of Chinese use "KOCMOHaBT". I'd be interested to know if Russian made the same Cold War political distinction as English. If any HPANWO-readers know, please tell me.

 

The so-called "nation", this aberrant fiefdom of Israel, has begun another attack on its Palestinian neighbours; the same Palestinians who lived quite happily side-by-side with Sephardic Jews for well over a thousand years before 1947. The BBC has been covering this in a way that looks on the surface impartial, but this supposed fairness is superficial. A lot has been written on the media's refusal to use the word "genocide" although Israel's actions fulfill the United Nations Genocide Convention checklist as well as it can be, see: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ (As for "holocaust", forget it! That's virtually hallowed ground; and definitely a trademark, with or without a capital H). What interests me is its current use of the word "rocket". Up until now, to the best of my knowledge, the Beeb has only ever used that word to describe an object that carries something or somebody (as astronaut or cosmonaut!) up into space. To describe similar devices that are designed to carry an explosive or other destructive payload, for warlike purposes, onto enemy territory during battle, it has always used the word "missile". So why has it changed now? The linked article describes this Palestinian ordnance as "not sophisticated", and it's true that some of them are amateur constructions made on the Gaza Strip itself, however the article also refers to the way Palestinians have acquired military surplus Iranian and Chinese missiles, yet it still uses the word "rocket". In a BBC TV news broadcast this morning it used the word "rocket" and "rockets" every time except on one occasion, and this was when something strange happened. BBC news' Wyre Davies was shown reporting from Gaza City and he used the word "missile" to refer to the weapons bombarding Israel and the transmission failed; the screen froze for a few seconds. Was the feed cut off in order to give Davies a hasty bollocking?

 

So with the word "rocket" we could be looking at another attempt by the media to colour our perceptions and opinions using language. I have to also question whether these "rockets" in fact do come from the Palestinian militants at all; are they instead false flag attacks by Mossad? I know this is the British Broadcasting Corporation, but it's important not to underestimate the influence the Israeli lobby has in this country. They make people comply in several ways. Firstly they throw accusations of anti-Semitism around the place like sweeties at anybody who criticizes Israel; 99% plus of those accused are innocent. In fact I'm bracing myself for such an attack as this article goes online! See:  http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/how-anti-semitic-are-you.html Another method is to hold up the Holocaust as a human shield, which is a very cruel and disrespectful thing to do; yet they do it all the time, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/holocaust-memorial-day_26.html It's important we do not shy away from this kind of moral blackmail; that way millions of innocent lives in the Middle East, on both sides, can be saved.

 

GMO Ash to Beat Dieback

A friend of mine on YouTube was watching BBC News and saw the story about Ash Tree Dieback Disease and heard somebody suggest using genetically-modified Ash trees to tackle the problem of the disease, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD6TWu-ls90 This leads me to wonder where Ash Tree Dieback actually comes from. Is it a natural condition or does it come from Fort Detrick or Porton Down? It certainly seems to have been allowed to spread into the country through a process of culpable negligence; according to George Monbiot, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/oct/25/ash-dieback-cameron (I'm not normally a fan of Monbiot, but credit where credit is due).  I found this Forestry Commission page, see: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-5SUK5C which claims that the British Government currently doesn't have plans to introduce genetic modification, but when was this page last updated? It fits very well with the ethics and strategy of the Illuminati that they would target native hardwood trees rather than the coniferous timber crops; these weird forests planted in straight lines that have no birds or squirrels or other organisms of an extended ecosystem living in them. The Ash is an important sacred tree in indigenous pre-Illuminati spirituality and this has been under attack since the Roman Conquest and continues to this day. I've not been able to find any further evidence of the Government's present intentions about what "Backtoindia1" has told us. If anybody else saw that BBC News story please let me know.

"Lest we Remember"

Well, it's that time of year again! That day when we're all expected to fall on the ground in a frenzy of religious worship, not of God but of... other people. Why? Because... they do a particular job. (It's usually two days, but this year the 11th of November falls on a Sunday) Yes, this is Military Religion high season! I've written and spoken about this subject so many times before, but every year I feel compelled to come back to it because it's so important.

See these articles and films for background: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/remembrance-poppies.html

And: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/our-brave-boys.html

And: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/non-military-memorials.html

And: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/remembrance-sunday.html

 

Does the Military Religion exist? Is there any justification for it? Why is it promoted so vigourously in our culture, society and media? Well there's no doubt it exists. Anybody who is in the armed forces, or has been in the armed forces, is forever marked out as a superior class, almost a separate species. I remember during the firemen's strike a few years ago, which the army filled in for, there was a debate in the media about the army's aging “Green Goddess” fire engines, a design that has changed little since the 1930’s, and whether the forces should be allowed to use modern fire appliances. Both myself and all my friends agreed that they should, but I pointed out that the army are not trained to use modern fire-fighting equipment; in fact the Fire Brigade have to train for a long time to become proficient enough to use it properly. Who was going to give the army that training? “But, Ben,” said one of my mates, “these are soldiers!” These are soldiers, he thought, superhuman Man-Gods who know everything and can do anything; only we mere mortals need training! There's even this ridiculous word: "civilian" (I know I use that word too, but I only do so facetiously and ironically) which implies that there is some kind of fundamental difference between somebody in the military, or has been in the military, and somebody who is, or has, not. I don't see it personally. The effect all this propaganda has on the soldiers themselves is remarkable. If I’m talking to somebody who is in the forces or used to be, they will find some way to slip it into the conversation within two or three sentences. They then always expect me to immediately change the subject and talk about it. I’ve found that some of them can become quite peeved with me when I don’t. They see themselves as separate and superior from everybody else and feel uncomfortable in the presence of somebody else who does not. They need recognition of their status from non-military people they meet in social situations; better still, envy! This is why they like it when they get trouble from others, because they know it's based on envy. What they cannot abide is indifference. I was once challenged by a group of uniformed soldiers in a London pub... because I wasn’t looking at them! The way they acted towards me you'd think I'd just dumped rubbish in their garden! If a soldier is in the news for a non-military reason then their status as a soldier will always be alluded to, even if it is irrelevant to the story? For example: no article or interview about the singer James Blunt has so far failed to address the fact that he used to be an army officer. Why is it that very little journalistic literature about another singer, Marc Almond, refers to his former life as a Hospital Porter? In the same vein, a man recently rescued a group of pensioners from a burning building in Oxfordshire and every news report about the incident declared the information that he was an army sergeant. But how often do you see the headline: Insurance Broker Chases off Mugger or Painter and Decorator Saves Child From Flood? As if this Remembrance Poppy-Cult holy day wasn't enough we now even have Armed Forces Day too! See: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/armed-forces-day.html

 

Is there any justification for it? Let's look at it logically. To join the army or other forces is to do a job that inevitably carries some risk. We see this today in Afghanistan where, sadly, young men and women are currently being killed or injured fighting there. In fact I think it is correct to feel respect towards somebody who does a difficult and dangerous job, like a solider. But is fighting in Afghanistan the only dangerous job in the world? No. There are many other jobs in which those doing it have to face equal danger, or even more, than a solider in Afghanistan: Miner, oil rig worker, fireman, deep sea diver; according to The American and Canadian Almanac of 2008 the most dangerous job you can do is to be a fisherman. So why is there not a Fishermen's Memorial Day? Why are there no trawler disaster monuments in the centre of London? Why do we never open up a copy of The Sun and see the word "HERO" jump out at us concerning a young man who got killed or maimed so that we can enjoy eating something with our chips? Why is his body not paraded through Wootten Bassett with people on the street doffing their hats? It's true that there are non-military memorials, in fact I've been on a search for them, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/non-military-memorials.html, but you'll only find them tucked away in smaller local areas. They are also invariably far less ostentatious in nature. They're often only erected on a very low budget, sometimes after a long campaign by their beneficiaries. Conversely it’s impossible to walk through any city centre without seeing the military memorials. In London there is a gargantuan mausoleum, covering the entire area around Buckingham Palace and Parliament, featuring enormous structures standing in pride of place like sacred temples, a separate one for each war and each branch of the Services. It's so difficult to study this subject, to ask these questions, because to do so one has to strip away such an enormous amount of cultural baggage. One inevitably encounters those who will react angrily to the questions one asks. There are many people in the Truth Movement who still don't get this!

 

So why has the Military Religion been created and why is it maintained? I think this is best summed up by Dr Lawence Britt in his Fourteen Signs of Fascism: "Soldiers and military service are glamourized and glorified." The Military and war are so important to the Illuminati-occupied governments; that's why they do it. To make sure people keep signing up and to keep everybody else supporting them they make it a career in which you become a social God. Who could turn down such an opportunity? Would anybody do the job otherwise? It's made worse by the disgraceful treatment of "conshies" and "peaceniks" in conventional society. This improved after the horrors of World War I, but you'll still get accusations of cowardice and "chicken!" to this day. As if it takes a real man to blow somebody up so that an oil company can build a pipeline through their village! The Military Religion has always had a place in Illuminati-controlled societies throughout history, but in the last few years it's got far stronger, being spread more and more thickly by the methods I describe above, and in the linked articles and films. I do think it is right to show respect and hold memorials for those killed in wars, and for those who fight in them, but for me it is a tragedy; it's not something to sanctify and revel in. "Lest We Remember" to keep our eyes clear of religiously-tinted spectacles and keep our heads clear of media propaganda. The words on the side of the Cenotaph are: "THE GLORIOUS DEAD". Well, I've seen the victims of the Afghanistan war who come back to my hospital! There's nothing glorious about dying in war at all.

 

Immigration- "Something must be done!"

The British Government has announced that the full scale of the backlog of immigration applications is over 320,000 people, this exceeds the population of Iceland. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20252160 (Personally I'd like to award both Minister Mark Harper and the interviewer for their acting skills!) In the inimitable words of David Icke... Altogether?... One... two... three: "Something must be done! This can't go on! What are they going to do about it!?"

Many people theorize that mass immigration is about breaking down national identity to lubricate mondialism in order to aid the New World Order. I used to think this too, but now I doubt it; it would take too long, even if the native population didn't resist; and they don't have that much time. If it is true then it is merely a secondary and partial objective. The real motive for mass immigration is very different and "what are they going to do about it!?" is what I've long predicted. I give the full details in this article, The New Iron Curtain, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/immigration-and-new-iron-curtain.html But basically this is a very obvious case of what David calls "Problem-Reaction-Solution." The supposed "problem" has exploded out on BBC News today, the reaction will be outrage, fear, desperation; and the solution will be increased border restrictions and the forced repatriation of so-called "illegal" foreign nationals, which sadly most of the British public will probably support. The most recent of the public comments underneath that news story says it all: "The ONLY way of tackling this issue is by in-country checks on passports/visas when accessing jobs, National Insurance numbers, healthcare, benefits, and housing." What people like this won't be told is that they will also be supporting the increase in Big Brother methods across the board, and the development and implementation of more and more technology along those lines. It will require not only asylum-seekers, but also every native Briton, to register on an electronic database which will be needed to function in society, applying for jobs and benefits, getting on the list of a doctor or dentist etc. It will be a fundamental change in society towards greater authoritarianism, surveillance and mutual distrust and hostility. There are already clues in the BBC coverage of this story. They film a raid on a house, with the UK Border Agency officers being shot in heroic poses, rounding up foreigners who look dirty and diseased. I was chilled to the bone once when I saw UK Border Agency guards at Manchester Coach Station, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/uk-border-agency-not-just-borders.html Just get out an atlas and look at it; how close to any border is Manchester?

You might be wondering now if I think that mass immigration can't possibly do any harm. Well I don't think that. It can do harm, not as much as hysterical propaganda machines like the BNP try to persuade us, but it can still generate social and economic problems if left unchecked. However there is no frying pan so bad it warrants us jumping into a fire to escape from it. The real solution to mass immigration has to address the cause. What is absent from all news coverage about this subject is a very obvious question: Why do so many people want to come to Britain in the first place? And the answer is very simple: Life in this country is so much better than life in so many other parts of the world. Immigrants are not "lazy scroungers!", they are ordinary people just like you and me who are doing exactly what we would do if we were in their shoes. Most immigrants are not coming from wealthy Western nations; they are coming from Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and other regions hit by extreme poverty, famine and war. The solution to the "problem"... if you see it as a problem... is to improve the quality of life in those regions so that people won't want to leave their homelands; after all, who's going to come to England for the weather!? Let nobody kid you into thinking that is not possible; it's actually very easy: Release Third World countries from their economic bondage through the cancellation of debt and land occupation. End all the manipulated wars over the resources in these regions. That alone would probably do the trick, before we even begin delving into the more outlandish elements like the declassification of Free Energy and natural farming methods like ORMUS and Terra Preta, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/terra-preta.html

This world will one day be liberated from the New World Order conspiracy, but only when we gain a full understanding of what is involved. We must realize that either the whole Earth can be freed or none of it. We're all in this together and must stick by each other, both as individuals, races and nations. The moment we fall into the manipulators' trap and start pointing fingers at our fellow man, we've lost. We cannot allow this to happen. It is therefore vital that we do not rise to the bait.

BBC blocks Brian Cox over Alien Fears

 

(Thanks to my friend Val for bringing this story to my attention)

The pop physicist Prof. Brian Cox has been told by the BBC that he is not allowed to point the Jodrell Bank radio telescope at the newly-discovered planet Threapleton Holmes B during his live TV show Stargazing Live. See: http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/bbc-feared-breach-by-alien-signal-1 This planet is not in orbit around the sun like Venus and Jupiter etc, but is an "exoplanet"; it orbits a completely different star, in this case one over 600 light year away. It is the first exoplanet ever to be discovered by amateur astronomers. Cox was told by the producer that if Threapleton Holmes B has intelligent life on it that is broadcasting radio signals which could be picked up by the telescope, one of the most powerful in the world; then these signals might breach the BBC's editorial guidelines. The corporation claimed that it might also cause an issue over health and safety regulations! As you can see in the linked article, a radio interviewer joked with Cox that they were worried that the aliens might swear on live TV!

 

Prof. Brian Cox has recently emerged onto the Skeptic scene, and I've written about him before, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/knobs-for-cox.html (I never did send him his doorknob. Sorry!) He therefore probably doesn't quite appreciate that there's a sinister undertone to this humourous story. The BBC may well have been briefed by people who take very seriously the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence and also understand the social, cultural, economic and political implications of the publicly acknowledged revelation that it exists. In 1960, right at the start of the American space programme, the psychological think tank The Brookings Institute released a report in which is advised NASA on what to do if the signs of extraterrestrial civilization, present or past, were to be discovered by one of their projects. The answer: It would be best not to shout it from the rooftops! In other words, there's every chance that the Government knows extraterrestrial life does exist and is covering it up. This is why they've also made programmes ridiculing and dismissing the idea of UFO's, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bbc-conspiracy-road-trip-ufos.html I'm not sure UFO's are actually extraterrestrial in the conventional sense of the word, in that they're from other planets like Threapleton Holmes B, but whatever they are and wherever the do come from similar concerns obviously apply to them. The BBC has probably been given a secret contingency plan relating to extraterrestrial intelligence which is why they reined in Coxy's programme. As you can see from the linked article, the BBC are keeping an eye on what he plans to do while examining Mars. Mars today is a freezing, dry and airless world, but there is evidence that in the distant past there was flowing water on the planet. This means that it must have once had a thicker atmosphere and been an awful lot warmer. Perhaps warm enough for complex life to evolve, including an intelligent animal species capable of building structures that could survive until long after their creators had become extinct. The Brookings Report specifically mentions the danger posed by ancient ruined artifacts being spotted on the inner planets. Maybe this is why NASA have so furiously downplayed the significance of the Face on Mars and the rest of the Cydonia complex, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI5BzQ4VwNk

 

Sheila's Funeral

As regular HPANWO-readers will know, my daughter's grandmother, Sheila, died recently; see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW_zO7Wd6G0 I say "recently", but it was way back on the 8th of August. However we couldn't hold her funeral until today; that's almost three months. It shouldn't normally take this long between a person passing away and their funeral taking place, but there's been a scandal in Oxford over long delays for funerals. It's very undignified for people's bodies to pile up in undertakers' morgues while the grieving relatives, distraught at their loss, have to sit around waiting for the chance to bid their loved one farewell. The local newspaper has covered it, see: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/9974911._I_can_t_afford_to_bury_my_brother_/ and our local MP Andrew Smith has taken up the cause. I've given Andrew Smith a lot of stick over the years. He was one of "Tony's cronies" and was Blair's Chief Treasurer and Employment Secretary, however I very much respect him for taking a stand on this issue. The problem comes when people who can't afford to pay for a funeral apply for special Government benefits to fund it; Sheila's family is one of those, see: https://www.gov.uk/funeral-payments/overview The moment we applied to this office for benefits they dragged their heels and dithered for such a long time that we became suspicious. Then the story about Michael Walton came out and we realized that the office was, in all likelihood, stalling funeral expenses benefit claims on purpose. The reason was simply money; they're so terrified of straying over their budget that they've decided to do something as desperate and reckless as this. This is all thanks the Government's "Austerity" policies! Expect much more of this to come in the years ahead. The truth of the matter is that economic depressions and booms are not a natural cycle at all; they are triggered artificially by the Banksters, a term coined by Anthony J Hilder many years before it entered the popular lexicon. Sheila is actually one of about six recently-deceased people in Oxford who have had this problem.

Sheila's funeral took place at Oxford Crematorium and was simple but very sweet. All her family turned up and flowers were sent from her many friends, even those who live in Canada whom she hasn't seen for years. The vicar from her local church was a very nice man, and he spoke very kindly about her; we had live organ music playing some hymns. We also had played a recording of two songs by Tom Jones, Sheila's favourite singer. After that we went back to her son's house for a wake while Sheila's body was taken away to be cremated. A budget funeral or an expenses-paid funeral doesn't have to be any less fitting and respectful than the Queen Mother's. However the long wait has played heavily on the family's nerves; the vicar mentioned during his sermon that "there's a lot of anger associated with Sheila's passing." I think things are getting so bad that I might just arrange to leave my body to medical science. Alternatively, if I know I'm on my last legs I might just go to some remote piece of woodland and lie down in the middle of it, away from any paths, and let the foxes and crows have me. See here for background: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/bereavement-fee.html Obviously I hope to live to see the day when we the people can enjoy a happier world, but naturally this is not certain; I could be run over by a proverbial bus or come a cropper in countless other ways before my time, so I need to take precautions. In some parts of Africa it's traditional to have a big feast after somebody dies and the main course on the menu is... the body of the deceased! Yes, it's even considered a mark of respect to eat somebody who's died! Of course in our society we have a taboo against cannibalism and the very concept is shocking, but I have to ask myself if it's any less shocking than keeping somebody on ice for three months so the Government can pay trillions of pounds to banks which already own most of the wealth in the world anyway.