I know elsewhere on my site I’ve gone into detail about NWO (new world order) etc, but given the underhand business going on about Iran, thought I’d precis the issue.
What’s it all about? Oil.

Throughout the ages, hurting one’s own people and then blaming it on others in order to persuade an otherwise reluctant public to go to war has been more prevalent than most realise. Propaganda has seen to that.
This strategy was used during the Roman Empire, and was known to be used before that.
However, let’s look at some more modern examples.

1846 – General Taylor provoked Mexico into a war with the US – in order to annexe Texas.
1898 – USS Maine entered bay of Havana, was sunk by internal explosion – and thus America started the Spanish / American war, replacing Spain in Guam, Puerto Rica & Phillipines.
1915 – Lusitania deliberately sent to be sunk by Germans in the knowledge that the killing of American civilian ‘human shield’ on board – protecting 6 million rounds of ammunition – would bring the USA into war.
1941 – US encouraged Japan to attack Pearl Harbour so they would have a reason to enter WW2  - because the US public were opposed to war, but the president & his ‘owners’ – Rockerfeller & Co – wanted war (to make money).
And so on with Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Panama etc etc etc.
I’m trying to be brief and not write a book, so I’ll try to be more concise:

More recently:
Chechnya – Russia blew up an hotel & cinema (killing its own people) and blamed it on Chechnya – as an excuse to invade.
Beirut – car bomb that killed 80 planted by CIA
World Trade Centre – USA – probably the worst example of all. Pentagon was hit by a US missisle, not a ‘plane. Planes hitting twin towers were military (no windows) carrying more missiles. To cut a long story short, the overwhelming evidence is that the buildings were collapsed by explosives planted a day or two previously, either by the US or Mossad – the latter more likely. Reason? To create an excuse for massive military funding, and to invade Iraq.
Which takes us back to oil:

The Anglo American oil co installed the puppet Shah of Persia (modern day Iran) to control the oil. He weas deposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
The US swamped Saddam Hussein with weapons to fight the 6 yr war between Iraq & Iran.
After 9/11 (why can’t the yanks get their days / months the right way around? – it was September 11th, not 9th of November) the US invaded Iraq, despite Saddam being on their side. The ‘weapons of mass destruction’ was, as we now know, a massive lie (that caused the death of Dr. Kelly). Saddam couldn’t hit Iran, never mind the UK! but oil was the reason.

Afganistan? The CIA tried to get the taliban chiefs to help in installing an oil & gas pipeline across the country so Russia would no longer control the flow to Europe. When that didn’t work, the taliban, like Saddam, became the enemy rather than the ally. ‘Terrorism’ was dreamed up as the excuse – despite the illegal invasion of others’ countries by the US and its puppet, the UK, actually being the cause of terrorism. Al Quaeda is another US invention. And don’t get me started on Bin Laden. His supposed capture by US navy Seals is the joke of the century.
Why can’t governments be truthful, and state the true reason why our youth are being killed? It’s for oil, not terrorism. Or was, because it’s now too late.
Russia has bought oil forward and a pipeline has been laid under the Caspian, meaning the oil now flows to Iran.
See now why the US / UK are making warmongering noises about Iran?

The ‘worry’ about Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a red herring. In my view, it would actually make the area safer, by helping to balance the power in the middle east. At present, only Israel has nuclear weapons, and are fast becoming the biggest terrorist organisation after the US. They bomb Palestine because Palestinians have the temerity to complain when Israel builds on their land. If your neighbour built a shed in your garden, wouldn’t you be miffed?
The UN has passed rsolution after resolution but Israel simply ignores them. How many remember when Israel bombed Tunisia? Or Syria? Or Iraq? But failed to bomb Pakistan because the latter’s fighter jets repelled the Israelis? 
So don’t believe the propaganda about Iran.

And finally, I note with increasing despair that there are still some who believe this man-made climate change nonsense, despite the fact tens of thousands of real scientists have spoken against it. Are these ‘useful idiots’ who promote this political propaganda really thick – or it it more sinister – that they are in cahoots with the ‘master plan’? Which has nothing to do with ’saving the planet’ but is a device dreamed up by the NWO to fool the public into accepting ‘carbon credits’ – the ultimate plan to enslave the world and reduce its population by 90% (yes – the likes of Prince Philip, Bill Gates, Rockerfeller. Rothschild, JP Morgan (and many others) have stated that is their aim).

Have a nice day.

                                             —————————–

When I first heard Jersey was considering challenging the UK’s plan to scrap this tax relief, whereby we can send items of low value into the UK without the goods being liable to VAT, I advised ministers that this was a ‘fool’s errand’ which we had no hope of winning.
Apparently our ministers received contrary advice from lawyers. Perghaps I should become one – they could then get more accurate advice at a lower cost.
Yet more money wasted.

Ever since our change to ministerial government from the committee system we had, I’ve been concious that all is not as it should be. Accountability has been diluted and, with only ten members (ministers) running the Island (previously all 53 were on committees, thereby all involved in running the Island) there is a disconnect between ministers and other members.
Scrutiny was supposed to be a counter-balance to the centralisation of power, but because it was never intended (or allowed) to be an opposition, it is largely a waste of time, energy and money.
The underlying problem is that Cecil Clothier’s proposals were only suitable in a party political system (as opposed to simply having political parties) and therefore fall short of an efficient, accountable and democratic MOG (Machinery of Government).  

I made reform of our system a major plank of my election campaign – indeed, it was the main reason for my standing for election. I was therefore disappointed when  a Proposition I lodged soon after I was elected (to try to establish a starting point for reform) was deferred indefinitely by the States Assembly..
However, the PPC (Privileges and Procedures Committee) set up sub-panels to review these issues from various angles, and I was fortunate enough to be accepted on the one looking at our MOG (ie the system, as opposed to the Constitution, which is the number of members and whether they should be Senators, Connetables, Deputies or whatever).

As a start, I made a submission to the panel of where I thought the problems lay – together with suggestions as how we might move forward. Deputy J. Young  (a retired States Chief Officer) also made a submission and I was surprised (as well as comforted) to discover his views were extremely similar to mine. If a politician and an ex civil servant agree, then presumably we must both be close to the truth.

Below is a copy of my submission, together with an adendum I sent in a few days later:-

In an attempt to categorise so that common denominators can be found amongst members’ submissions, I have abbreviated into bullet points but realise that doing so may not fully convey my views.
Items are not necessarily in order of importance (in my view)

Shortcomings of present system:

• ministers lack the breadth of analysis of departmental officers’ suggestions that existed under the previous committee system, when seven minds were applied to policy and decision-making.
• A minister on his own is more vulnerable to departmental ‘steering’ than a committee of seven.
• Non-minister States members lack involvement in decision-making and are only aware of government policy / action on a ‘need to know’ basis.
• Ministerial government as adopted in Jersey lacks checks and balances – it would only work properly in a party political system with effective opposition.
• Scrutiny was a fudge – neither fish nor fowl. It was supposed to balance power without being an opposition – but can only oppose by ministerial consent.
• Scrutiny is largely a waste of time and resources. Trying to get accurate information from ministers / departments can at times be almost impossible. 
• Scrutiny is often reactionary – looking at policies / actions already in progress – under the old committee system committee members were scrutiny in real time.
• Scrutiny Reports can consume considerable time and money, sometimes taking a year to finish, only to be dismissed by a minister in minutes should it not support his agenda.
• Polarisation exists, encouraging personality-driven politics. Under the committee system the member you may be ‘attacking’ could well be a fellow member on a committee another day.
• Multi-committee membership by members enabled cross-fertilisation of ideas and general awareness of what was going on.
• Now we have 10 members (ministers) with all the information with the other 41 having to find out for themselves what’s going on.
• Considerable increase in number of Questions – and Propositions lodged – result from members being ‘out of the loop’ and thereby denied knowledge.
• States decisions are revisited more often than when the Proposition arrived in the States having already been vetted by the seven committee members.
• The present ‘détente’ between ministers and other members is due solely to the nature of the present Chief Minister and not to MOG structure – it could well deteriorate again with a change of Chief Minister.

From the above it can be seen that, in my view, the old committee system – whilst not perfect – was better than what we have now. However, I do not believe a Proposition to return to Committee government would succeed.
What is clearly needed, however, is fundamental change.

Having previously served under the committee system for seven years, and four years in scrutiny (incl shadow) I believe I am fairly well placed to understand the issues involved. Having spent three years on PPC I am acutely aware that fiddling at the edges eg adding (or removing) a Scrutiny panel, adjusting numbers of ministers / panels / committees etc – will achieve nothing.
The underlying structure must be changed to create a more inclusive system.
Having discussed this with several members, including ministers and the C.M. I am of the opinion what we need is a half-way house.

I offer the suggestion of:

• Scrutiny – disband except for PAC and one panel, convened as required, by PPC
• Increase assistant ministers to four per ministry, perhaps more for the over-burdened ones. How can one minister adequately serve Tourism, Ag & Fish, Economic development, Harbours & Airport etc? One minister cannot do the work previously done by 28 members.
• Require ministers to consult their assistant ministers before taking all but most minor decisions. However, assistant ministers not to have veto over minister.

Clearly the above (or a variation thereof) would need to be agreed in principle before addressing subsequential matters.

                                           ——————————–

The material I added a few days later:-

Sample request for submissions from others:-                                                                                              
‘The PPC sub-panel reviewing the Machinery of Government seeks, from those with a working knowledge of our present system, their views regarding its strengths and weaknesses. In order not to overlap with other ongoing work on States reform (eg the Commission on electoral reform) or to unduly delay progress, the panel would appreciate if replies could be succinct, limited to the panel’s TOR and submitted within three weeks of this notice. Submissions may be made in writing to ? @ Morier House – or emailed to ? 
Terms of Reference are listed below’.

Lastly, during yesterday’s (March 7th) debate I was reflecting on the issue of the Connetables and whether or not they should remain in the States (I don’t have strong views either way, but lean towards keeping them in).

Bearing in mind my submission of a few days ago – effectively suggesting we subsume Scrutiny into assistant ministers – may leave some worrying about the ability to effectively hold ministers to account, it then occurred to me that we could solve several problems simultaneously if we were to create a Second Chamber – and constitute it with the  Connetables.

Finally, experience as a previous member of PPC and all the work done on reform that ultimately came to nothing, I believe the panel would be foolish to work through everything and put a complete package to the States with all details in place.
Rather, I believe we should create an interim report (for example only, the panel might suggest dissolving Scrutiny and increasing the number of assistant ministers – and creating a second chamber populated by Connetables) and then to put that before the States for an in-principle decision.

Not only do I believe that would have a better chance of success – if for no other reason it would come sooner – but also, should the States reject it we would save ourselves a lot of unnecessary work. On the other hand should the States amend it, we would have a new direction to work towards – in the knowledge ultimately it had a very good chance of success.

Furthermore, taking an early position would give useful guidance to other concurrent reviews so all the work ultimately dovetails together.

                                       —————————–

A little humour – though some of it is all too true …

Let’s face it, until you know how many directors / managers you have, and who is answerable to whom, you can’t even begin to address efficiency issues. Of course, a second thrust is also required since the advent of ministerial government, and that is to regain political control of States departments. They seem to have become autonomous of late.
Anyway, the Proposition I lodged was debated in May 2008. I lost by one vote, mainly because some members believed the timescale of 6 months I set was too short. Details are below:

WORKING PARTY TO REVIEW APPROPRIATENESS OF DEPARTMENTAL STRUCTURE

Lodged au Greffe on 20th March 2008
by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement.

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion - 

            (a)        to agree that a working party should be established to investigate the appropriateness of the internal structure of each Department of the States to ascertain whether it is fit for purpose and to report back to the States with its findings within 6 months; and

            (b)        to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee, in consultation with the Council of Ministers, to bring forward for approval by the States the proposed membership of the working party, which should comprise States members who are Ministers or Assistant Ministers and members who are not.

DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

REPORT

For as long as I can remember people have questioned the efficiency of our public services. As these services are funded by taxation, it is right that such services should provide the best value for money possible.

 In a effort to achieve the greatest efficiency, the States have employed various procedures: an analysis by OXERA, the Fundamental Spending Review, benchmarking and so forth, but I believe a basic question remains unanswered – if our public services were in the private sector, would they be the same? Would they be more efficient? Would the structure remain the same?

 Over a period of time, various people have criticised the services we provide, on the grounds that they, with private sector expertise, would achieve economies by different working practices.

I have lost count of the occasions professionals have expressed to me not only their amazement, but, as taxpayers, their concern, at the way a particular function is being carried out. And, as a politician, I have uncovered waste and inefficiency in several areas only to be frustrated by my inability to effect real change.

Over recent months I have come to the conclusion that the real block to understanding whether or not our civil service delivers value for money could also be a cause of the inefficiency itself (assuming the latter exists).

That common denominator is Departmental structure. In my view, these structures have not kept up with modern private sector practice. This not only indicates a possible shortcoming, but also inhibits meaningful analysis.
I recall asking the Minister for Planning and Environment whether it was possible to have an audit trail of Planning Applications in order not only to assist applicants awareness of the progress of their application, but also to enable the Minister to identify possible logjams within his department. He replied it was not, as he would need more staff for such a scheme. Here we have a situation of mutual exclusivity – where more resources are needed in order to achieve greater efficiency.

I have therefore concluded that an analysis of Departmental structure by a working party consisting of politicians familiar with departmental practices – assisted by professionals expert in the particular structure being analysed as necessary – would give us the information needed to establish the appropriateness of our present structures.

In today’s culture of blame, where civil servants are increasingly coming under attack, I believe an analysis of Departments may well demonstrate it is the structure in which they work that is at fault, rather than failures by employees. As such, not only might productivity be increased, but staff morale as well.

Financial and manpower implications

I am hopeful that there will be no additional financial, manpower or resource implications arising from this proposition. It is anticipated that professional experts who assist the working party will do so on a pro bono basis and that members of the working party will be able to undertake the work without officer support, although they will undoubtedly look to the officers of the department being examined to provide factual and other background information. If the working party decides at a later date that some officer support is required I would anticipate that could be provided through the secondment of existing officers as this work could represent a useful training opportunity. It is possible that, in the longer term, there will be savings should inappropriate structures be identified.

Their website is a master of deception, and you need the mind of a detective to avoid the traps they lay for you.
Having got over the shock of the price (which goes up as you progress), you’re then invited to spend over a hundred pounds more to ‘upgrade’. And why does this ‘upgrade’ vary enormously in price depending on which flight you choose – can be £70, £90, £105 …. and what’s it for? It’s not as if you’re changing to a bed for a long-haul flight.

You’re then asked to select what baggage weight you require – 15, 20, 23 or 40kgs.
And here’s part of the spiv aspect – not long ago Flybe announced in the JEP that baggage weight was a critical part of their calculations, as it decided take-off weight and therefore fuel requirements etc – ‘a safety issue’.   Bollocks.
Some passengers will weigh as little as 8stone (c. 50kgs) Some will weigh 140kgs or more – and there’s 100+ paswsengers, meaning passenger weight (assuming 100 persons) could be anywhere between 5000kgs to 14,000kgs – an – admittedly extreme possibility – of  9,000kgs difference. But, no worries, baggage weight is critical!
And have you noticed how small the ‘no baggage’ option is? Almost invisible. Spiv factor no 2.

Then we have the insurance salesmanship. Easier to avoid, this one, but still a trap for the unwary.

Then there’s the  ‘chose new seats / accept seats’ option. Makes you believe you have to accept one of the two options, @ £6 per leg per person. Spiv factor no 3. You don’t have to – just ‘continue’ to where it then says ‘continue without seats!! What, are we standing now??
And the final insult? You use your Debit card, because there’s no charges attached, right? Not with Flybe .
Add another £6 for one person, one way.
I just hate having to use a company that looks upon its clients as a nuisance rather than a valued asset.
A couple of years ago, a friend’s luggage was lost between London and Jersey. Flybe took a week to find it – and then it had to be collected by the owner from the airport.
Last year BA lost my luggage (left behind at Gatwick). I went to the desk and they were very helpful. A couple of hours later it was delivered to my house.

Flybe a budget airline? Should be renamed Spivair.

The Corporate Management Board is where all chief officers of the civil service met in secret, once a fortnight,  to discuss things even States members weren’t allowed to know about. I found that outrageous and therefore lodged a Proposition to remove that secrecy.
You wouldn’t believe the fierce opposition I received, some of it pretty robust. But I won.
Take careful note of the ‘Contre’ votes – those  ‘eastblishment’ men who wanted the secrecy to continue.

STATES OF JERSEY

Corporate Management Board: access to meetings and minutes
Lodged au Greffe on 23rd January 2008 by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

to request the Chief Minister to –

(a) make available to elected members the minutes of the Corporate Management Board meetings;

(b) arrange that elected members are advised of the Board’s meetings so that they may observe those meetings should they so wish.

DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

REPORT

I have to say that the Chief Minister’s attitude, when asked whether he would disclose the deliberations of these meetings, is quite unacceptable.
He has now refused, at two separate question times, to move from his position, which is not that the meetings of these people are privileged, but that he believes matters discussed are implementational, and therefore not what members should be involving themselves with.
Such a position appears terribly arrogant. It is not for the Chief Minister – or any other Minister – to decide what would constitute a waste of backbenchers’ time. That is for member themselves to decide.
We are not schoolchildren needing to be guided away from activities that are of no concern to us. We are all members of government, and anything done in our name should at least be monitored by us.
At present, it would appear no-one is monitoring these people.
Since the advent of ministerial government, many functions previously carried out by politicians are now delegated to civil servants. The idea that the latter merely implement policy generated by Ministers is misleading. Ministers don’t have the time or resources to develop policy, so it is developed by senior civil servants, and offered to Ministers as solutions.
If the Council of Ministers truly believes it develops policy, it deludes itself – and misleads others. The truth is each Minister is briefed by his Department; meaning, in fact, that it is the Department which develops policy.
States members have a duty to scrutinise such activities.
The Chief Minister assures us that discussions at Corporate Management Board meetings are about policy implementation. As explained above, it must be obvious that these are pretty high-level discussions. Indeed, one might hope that a meeting between people whose combined salaries far exceed a million pounds per year does not involve mundane matters of a managerial nature.
Quite apart from the suspicion generated by keeping these meetings secret, one has to ask how such a position fits in with today’s supposedly ‘open’ government? If, indeed, such meetings are of no interest to politicians, then those members will soon tire of reading the minutes or attending meetings. I suspect the reality may be somewhat different. Either way, it is not for the Chief Minister to tell other members there is no need for them to know what’s going on – it’s for members to find out for themselves.
Naturally, should commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential material come up for discussion at these meetings, then the obvious way of dealing with it would be an ‘A’ and ‘B’ agenda – the latter having only a reference to the subject concerned.
We are in an age where more authority than ever has been given to civil servants – and where public spending is rising at an alarming rate. An age where projects of public interest appear from nowhere yet, without debate or consultation, seemingly develop a momentum of their own. The ability to get behind some of the initial thinking that subsequently coalesces into these projects can only be beneficial to democracy and, at the same time, help reconnect politicians with the public.

There are no financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this proposition

                                                            ————————————————

(note carefully who voted ‘contre’ for secrecy)

Corporate Management Board – access to meetings and minutes -paragraph (a) minutes to be made available  12 February 2008 Proposition:  Corporate Management Board – access to meetings and minutes
	POUR: 29    CONTRE: 14    ABSTAINED: 1   ILL: 1    OUT OF ISLAND: 1    EN DEFAUT: 2    NOT PRESENT: 4    EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1
	Senator Stuart Syvret	POUR
	Senator Leonard Norman	CONTRE
	Senator Frank Harrison Walker	CONTRE
	Senator Wendy Kinnard	CONTRE
	Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur	CONTRE
	Senator Paul Francis Routier	CONTRE
	Senator Michael Edward Vibert	CONTRE
	Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf	OUT OF ISLAND
	Senator Terence John Le Main	POUR
	Senator Ben Edward Shenton	NOT PRESENT
	Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen	CONTRE
	Senator James Leslie Perchard	CONTRE
	Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert	NOT PRESENT
	Connétable Kenneth Alan Le Brun	POUR
	Connétable Thomas John du Feu	NOT PRESENT
	Connétable Derek Frederick Gray	POUR
	Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft	POUR
	Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan	CONTRE
	Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher	POUR
	Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy	ILL
	Connétable Michael Keith Jackson	POUR
	Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates	POUR
	Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher	EXCUSED ATTENDANCE
	Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning	POUR
	Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel	POUR
	Senator Alan Breckon	POUR
	Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet	POUR
	Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.	POUR
	Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains	POUR
	Deputy Peter Nicholas Troy	POUR
	. Celia Joyce Scott Warren	POUR
	Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier	POUR
	Deputy John Benjamin Fox	POUR
	Deputy Judith Ann Martin	POUR
	Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern	POUR
	Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson	CONTRE
	Deputy James Gordon Reed	NOT PRESENT
	Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan	CONTRE
	Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey	POUR
	Deputy Collin Hedley Egré	POUR
	Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton	CONTRE
	Deputy Guy William John de Faye	CONTRE
	Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire	POUR
	Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré	EN DEFAUT
	Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian	POUR
	Deputy Anne Enid Pryke	POUR
	Deputy Sean Power	EN DEFAUT
	Deputy Shona Pitman	POUR
	Senator Alan John Henry Maclean	POUR
	Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis	POUR
	Deputy Andrew David Lewis	CONTRE
	Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst	POUR
	Connétable Juliette Gallichan	ABSTAINED

                                                                                   —————————————————

Update 20-11-’11
At the end of this posting I mention Norway’s justice minister.
Glad to hear he’s had to resign over his support for child abduction.

update (16-10-’11) at end of article.

I see that an issue I was dealing with a few years back has just hit the headlines over there (and causing a bit of a stir), so thought I’d explain in English what’s going on, and why I refer to Norway’s legal system as being no better than that of a third world country such as Zimbabwe.

I sometimes joke that when Jack Nicholson suggested that if God ever wanted to give the world an enema he would put the tube in at Mexico, he got it wrong – it should have been Norway. But this is a very serious matter, so let’s look at the facts:

For those not familiar with the British Island of Jersey, we have our own government, called The States of Jersey. I was a member of that legislature from 1998 to 2008.
As a States member, it is not unusual to be approached by people with problems they cannot resolve. Happens the world over.
And so it was that I was approached by a Jersey resident about 5 years ago.

The lady was Jersey born and had lived here most of her life. She married a Norwegian and they lived in Jersey, having three children. After about ten years, the marriage broke down and they were divorced. Our Royal Court – the ‘High Court’ – granted custody of the children to the mother, with specified, limited, access for the father.

After a while, the Norwegian father left Jersey, saying he had no interest in the children.

Then, in April – I think it was 2005 – he came back to Jersey with the grandfather, staying for a week in a flat (which he never paid for).

Then he asked the mother if he could take the children to school. She agreed and took a day trip to nearby France. When she learned the children hadn’t arrived at school she became concerned and when she got back home found they had been abducted. Later, it transpired, taken to France on a private boat (it’s a 33 mile journey to St. Malo in France).

Naturally, she informed the police – and wondered how they had got away seeing that the childrens’ passports had been cancelled. At that time it was assumed they had travelled by ferry – only later was it discovered a private boatowner had facilitated the abduction.

But that was just the beginning of her problems.
I won’t go into all the details here – it would take several pages – but suffice to say her trust in Norway’s legal system was seriously misplaced – hence my comments above.
I do not joke when I say the Norwegian legal system is the most corrupt I know.

So what happened?
The ex-husband filed a case in Sandnes stating the children were in Norway – and that the mother had abducted them. They weren’t in Norway, they were in the process of being abducted, so that was straightforward perjury.

Did they send Mr Muren to prison? No chance. But his ex-wife had a Court Order proving she had custody, so that would prove the truth and get the children home?

If only.
In Norway, their custody laws are quite different, so they didn’t understand the Order. No problem, you might think – it will be explained. Yeah, right….  Just to help matters along, the ex-husband crudely altered the Royal Court Order to his advantage. He forged his ex-wife’s signature (looking absolutely nothing like the genuine article) to enter the children on the Norwegian Folk Register – again with more lies.
Then there were ‘expert child psychiatrists’ who gave evidence in court. They never met the children – just took instructions from the father.

I would have no problem with the above, provided a court did its job properly. Unfortunately, in Norway, you can take the judge out to dinner the night before a case ‘to explain things to him’. And provided you are Norwegian, you can get the judge changed for a more amenable one if you wish. And the court (unworthy of a capitol ‘C’) will accept any ‘evidence’ – even if it’s known to be a forgery!  I joke not – all the above happened.

And don’t trust your lawyer, because you’ll find later on that he is actually working for the other side as well, and merely using your brief to undermine you.
Columbo or the Pink Panther couldn’t have done worse – only this was for real – we’re talking about a mother’s and childrens’ lives here.

And so the court found in the father’s favour. It was his ex-wife who was delusional. She had abducted the children and he had retrieved them!

The next five or six court cases went the same way. Or maybe not the last one. During that ‘trial’ the court remarked how badly the mother had been treated and how scheming and nasty the father had been.
And when the verdict came a couple of weeks later? Exactly the same as before – custody for the father with only limited access for the mother – basically when it suits the father. For the first few years (yes, years) that was only for an hour about once a month – and then only under supervision at a designated place.
For the umpteenth time, the ‘trial’ had merely been a charade, with the conclusion known before it even began. The father used to boast he knew the outcome before a trial – we know why.

At the time, I was in contact with the British Embassy in Oslo, the Foreign Office in London – not to mention Jersey’s Attorney General.
I raised the matter in our States Assembly and briefed our Chief Minister. I also tried to correspond with the Norwegian Justice Ministry. I say tried, because, according to the minister, they never make mistakes and their justice is just marvellous.

I was called as a witness at one trial and travelled to Norway (at my own expense) to explain, amongst other things, the Royal Court Order and its custody meaning.

However, I had my suspicions about the mother’s lawyer, Knut something or other – never could spell his last name - and didn’t tell him all I knew. Just as well – it later transpired he, like the others, was in collusion with the father’s lawyer. He was a frightful figure I recall calling ‘the viking’. Sadly, in Norway they have no more sense of humour than of justice.

Anyway, I suppose it should have come as no surprise that when I arrived at the court, this clown told me I wasn’t needed – and promptly went into court leaving me standing in the corridor.

I hadn’t travelled a thousand miles at a cost of several hundred pounds for nothing, so I marched into the court myself and tried to understand, as best I could, what was going on. My presence didn’t make them very comfortable, I have to say.

In recent times I have learnt that there is a backlog of Human Rights cases against Norway at the Hague, many for similar reasons.

Despite being signed up as a participating party, when it comes to repatriating abducted children, Norway’s policy is to go, using armed force, to fetch back any Norwegian child – but to refuse to release any child abducted to Norway by a Norwegian. Apparently there’s about 30 children a year abducted to Norway.

And their courts will twist and bend anything, no matter how absurd, to arrive at the conclusion they desire.

And so I warn not only Jersey, but any country who anticipates signing any agreement with them. Sadly, they have not come far from their Viking days.
My analysis is that whilst the courts do an average job, the verdict handed down comes from above, most probably the Ministry of Justice.
If this is so, the courts should tell the minister to stick his interference where the sun don’t shine – but they don’t: hence my label of corruption.
I was told by the British Consul that a couple of years before Muren abducted the children, there was a judicial clean-up and some judges went to jail.
Seems they need another clear out.
Until then, any bi-lateral agreement or indeed any other agreement another country has with Norway is unlikely to be honoured.
The is no ‘fair play’ there, so best avoid doing business with them.

Don’t say you haven’t been warned about Norway.

                                                ———————-

                                       UPDATE.

Below is English version of the article in Norwegian newspaper. (Blue clarifications in parenthesis are mine).

My story ABDUCTED TO NORWAY
During a visit to Jersey UK where I lived with my three children for whom I had custody, I made the fatal mistake of letting my Norwegian ex husband take them to school one day. They never arrived. Instead they were abducted by him and his father and smuggled off the Island by private boat to France some 10 (actually 33) miles away by sea, where the grandfather had cunningly placed his Norwegian registered car ready to travel through Europe up to Denmark where they would all take the ferry to Norway the next evening. The children had no passports or ID, and my ex husband admitted that he had planned it all. He had also forged my signature to register the children in the Folk register in Norway. He did not submit the Court Order or the true documents.  

The Jersey Court immediately issued an Order for the return of the children with an attached Arrest Warrant, which was faxed to the Police after Kristiansand Port Authority had confirmed they had arrived in Norway.

A false petition made by his Norwegian lawyer was also submitted to the (Norwegian) Court prior to their arrival in Norway, and this petition was completely untrue, false in everyway, made with the sole intention to deceive the Court. Attached to it were the illegal registration forms from the Folk register and a forged letter that he claimed I had signed to give him custody of my children. Again, he did not mention or submit the valid (British) Court Order or the Agreement he signed. He knew he would not have been able to register the children if he had.

The British Embassy in Oslo, UK Foreign Affairs Office and the Jersey Royal Court requested Norway to respect my Court Order and return the children. Norway dismissed this. The Attorney General in Jersey contacted the Justice Department in Norway requesting it take into account that the Hague Convention on child abduction in Jersey was about to be ratified, again all requests were rejected. When his next letter asked for the case to be resolved through “Judicial comity”, an action between countries to try to resolve disputes in diplomatic ways, this request did not even receive a reply.

During a hearing in the District Court, the judge concluded that there was no reason to return the children to Jersey, and no evidence or documents suggesting they should be. It was clear the judge failed to read the requests, Court Order and all other evidence, but it is my view that this was all deliberately ignored.

During a hearing in the Court some months later, his Norwegian lawyer stated that she knew of my ex husband’s intention to abduct the children and had drawn up the petition with him prior to him leaving Norway. He himself also stated that he had planned it all for a long period with the help of his lawyer and the Norwegian Consul in Jersey, and he had also had taken advice from the Norwegian Ministry, whom he stated all advised him that the best way to get custody of the children was to ensure he got them to Norway as quick as possible and applied for custody there as he would be favored.

Evidence of the statements they made were submitted to another Court later, which further showed the extent of the Norwegian Consul’s involvement, and proved that my ex and his father had kept the Consul fully informed of the progress of the abduction as they headed to Norway after abducting, and further to inform him they arrived in Norway, and again months later, to inform him of the progress.

The Consul, who was fully aware that there was an existing High Court Order in Jersey for which my ex husband had no rights of custody and no right to remove the children from my care, did nothing. He alerted no police and no authorities Instead, he chose state to my lawyers that although he was informed during many meetings with my ex husband that he wanted to abduct them, and he said he was in Jersey to help Norwegians, not Jersey people. Even after being told of the abduction and knowing my ex husband’s whereabouts, he failed to advise the Police who could have detained him and my children at that point, and prevented them traveling further.

In Court he also lied at first stating quite strongly that he was annoyed his name had been mentioned as he did not know who my ex husband or his father were. He said he had ever had any contact with either of them and had actually never heard of them…. Until however, when confronted with transcripts of his own written evidence by way of letter to me, and also in documents submitted by my Jersey lawyers, his memory returned very quickly and precise.

The judge however, even being aware of all the lies told in Court from my ex’s side, against all the extensive evidence proving my case, against the Court Orders, and also after hearing my ex husband’s own statement of how he had carefully planned the abduction with the help of his lawyer and the Norwegian Consul, took my children and dismissed me as the children’s Mother.

He gave me only 4 hours a week visitation under strict supervision, stating that the FATHER had to be safeguarded against me taking my children home!  

And so began a 6 year battle in the Norwegian Courts at all levels, judges who persistently refused to take into account any evidence or background of my children’s lives before Norway. Judges who continuously deprived not only me but my children of their Mother, and made it impossible for me and my children to have any real relationship like we once had or any decent contact for that matter, against all the evidence of what my ex husband did. They did not care he forged my signature, prevented my access, or how he used the children for his own gain, the law was “irrelevant” to him.

My children were happy children. There has never been any history of abuse, alcoholism, drugs or anything untoward in our family. My children had a nice home, a close family, many friends, they were settled in school and most of all, they had a Mother who loved them but all of this accounted for nothing in the Norwegian Courts.

In Norway, it’s okay to abduct children – as long as you are Norwegian”. You can forge documents and give them to authorities because its “irrelevant” or “not valid for the question”. There is no law for Norwegians. The Norwegian authorities actually help their citizens abduct children from abroad, regardless of circumstances or other countries Court Orders.

For 6 years I have been treated like a criminal and subjected to horrific injustice. Many Christmas’s and birthdays with gifts only exchanged in front of impersonal visitors and mostly behind a locked door, never alone. No cuddling or talking with my children as this was seen as me manipulating my children with love. The emotional stress of hearing your child whisper in your ear “take me home Mummy”.

The Court said this was how it had to be as there was a risk I would take my children home to Jersey. Yet I never abducted my children to Norway. He did. But as I was not Norwegian, I was put under strict and extreme conditions, the type of interaction I was allowed with my children is the same given to parents in severe child welfare cases, incest, molestation, family violence, alcoholism and drug addicts, murderers. And all because I had legal custody of my children and we lived in Jersey, but the father wanted them to live in Norway.

I was convicted on assumptions and presumptions by the Courts, penalized by so called “experts” named psychologists and child welfare services who did not have a clue about the situation at all, all who said my children’s lives were “irrelevant” before they got to Norway, and all  who sided with my ex husband and his lies. They all wiped out my children’s previous life. All that mattered was Norway. Their background was unimportant, not relevant they all said. Anything and everything was used against me, yet nothing was said about him or what he did or how he was manipulating the children to his advantage with extreme Parental Alienation… Nothing was either mentioned about his lies. The Court said he did nothing wrong in abducting my children against a Court Order. They looked for ways to praise him instead of seeing him for the calculating lying manipulative abductor that he was.  

Legal witnesses were dismissed as irrelevant with judges stating that I had been given too much advice, was focused on the law instead of the fact my children were in Norway, referring to me being the abductor for taking my children home after my marriage failed, having spent only some 200 days in Norway during a temporary reconciliation of marriage period, all despite the fact that I had rights of custody and legal agreements in place.

I moved to Norway to be near my children after they were abducted. Even then I never got a fair hearing. There has been no equality in the law for me.

What is very clear however is that if you’re Norwegian it’s accepted by the Courts, the Norwegian Ministry, the authorities, the psychologists, everywhere you look, it’s accepted for you to go to other countries and abduct your children against your spouse’s custody rights and Court Orders without any fear of repercussion in the Norwegian Courts for doing it. And we only have to look at the Skah case to see this.

Sadly for me, there were no Jersey Elite Soldiers with ties to the UK Intelligence Service to smuggle my children out of Norway back to Jersey on a sailboat. I took the legal route and abided by the law… did it help me?… NO!

Norway took my children regardless of the law. They ripped a Mother out of the lives of three small children whom they had lived with all their life, a happy life full of love and security. They gave them to their abductor on a silver plate after a well planned and calculated abduction by their Norwegian father and grandfather! 

This is how Norway treats foreign parents.

                                                                           ********************Les også A-magasinets artikkel ”Dømt til å tape”  11.03.11.

Update 15-10-’11.

Just to demostrate how corrupt Norway is:
The media made a documentary about Mrs Muren’s childrens abduction, together with other abduction issues.
The first part was shown on TV – and then the rest was suddenly banned from transmission just an hour or so before it was due to go out.
By a court? No, by the Justice Minister – who did so because the broadcast would have shown him in a bad light (ie he lied).  I call that corruption – which is rife in Norway.
But, happily, there’s a thing called the internet – so the banned programme was put on Youtube – where it went international. As a result, journalists from around the world are meeting to find out what’s going on.
Let’s hope those bastards who support child abduction (eg that ‘Justice’ minister) end up in jail.

                                                                  000000000000000000000000

Once again a pressure group has managed to inflict its ill-conceived ideas on others. You know the type – either expects everyone to walk or cycle everywhere - or wants all drivers to pass their property at 20mph or less – whilst they do 40+ past every one else’s.

None of this would be so bad if politicians had the balls to say no to this tiny but vociferous minority.
And let’s be honest – it is a tiny minority. Take St Clement’s Coast Road as an example. When it was a 40mph area, the vast majority of drivers travelled at 33mph (as measured by speed checks). Are we saying that every one of those thousands of drivers shouldn’t have a licence because he / she can’t judge an appropriate speed for a given road / driving condition? Because that’s what it boils down to.

But no – democracy doesn’t matter. A handful of people with their own agenda can overrule the majority simply by persuading one politician to do their bidding.

It’s a disgrace. Actually, it’s worse than that, because these people now have blood on their hands. When a 30mph was mooted a few years ago, I warned that it would result in more, not less, accidents. And sadly that has been the case. The 30 signs had only been up a few days when there were three serious accidents, including a fatality.

How does a reduced speed limit cause more accidents? It’s not rocket science.
At 40mph a driver is watching the road ahead (or the majority are) – looking to see if a pedestrian is about to exit his / her property onto the road – or a car about to pull out. Maybe some children are on the pavement and playing around as children do.

So the driver is prepared..

Now take 30mph. The driver is frustrated. The journey needlessly takes longer as he knows he could safely go faster. In fact, so little is happening so slowly that he resigns himself to ‘autopilot’ mode, just staring at the back of the vehicle in front and no longer studying the road ahead. Why should he look ahead? It’ll be ages before he gets there.

All a recipe for accidents.

Then let’s take the speedster. Once upon a time he did 45mph or slightly more – just ‘pushing his luck’ a little. Not that it was unsafe to do so – at certain times 60mph would be safe on certain sections of that Coast Road – it’s that he was breaking the law. Also, at his 45mph his lust for speed was almost satisfied. He felt he was ‘getting there’.

Now take the 30mph.

A frustrating speed, and our speedster is not satisfied with 35mph – makes hardly any difference. Things are still happening at a snail’s pace. So it’s up to 40 – and 45. he then realises he’s not now ‘bending’ the law, but well and truly breaking it. Not much to lose here, so let’s try 50, or 55 …

So, in conclusion:

The guy who drives at 80mph will continue to do so, no matter what.

The driver who religiously observes the 30mph is half asleep and more likely to have an accident than before.

And the guy who used to speed actually drives faster than he did before.

I realise there are those who maintain that the problem is one of enforcement.
Enforcement will not prevent the 80mph chap.
It might deter the guy who now does 50 instead of 45.
And it will certainly criminalise good, safe drivers who inadvertently stray over 30mph.

But it will not reduce the number of accidents, which will be more than when the limit was 40mph.

To suggest enforcement is the answer is like the guy who ate cornflakes to cure his cold. Of course, it didn’t work, so he was told the problem was not that he was applying the wrong remedy – it was that he wasn’t eating enough cornflakes. 

Yep, these do-gooders really are a menace – almost as bad as the politicians who entertain them.

                                                     ————————-

From a medical journal:

Why are Health authorities pushing vaccination and Tamiflu when just a little research will demonstrate conclusively that it’s highly likely to be worse than doing nothing?

See footnote in blue for a doctor’s conclusions about ‘flu vaccines generally

And now:
A monstrous public health menace quietly threatens millions of people — you and your family included.

What’s worse . . . everyone is ignoring it — government authorities, the media, and most likely, your own doctor.

It isn’t a bacteria or virus. It isn’t something in the air you breathe or the water you drink.

The truth is that we’re squandering our health on wasteful and dangerous policies that force children to undergo massive, indiscriminate, and poorly-tested immunizations.

And that’s not all. Because we’re kept in the dark about this health threat, millions of adults are also driven into the welcoming arms of profit-making vaccine manufacturers.

The routine use of vaccines to protect us from disease is so deeply entrenched that most people never question whether it’s a good idea. Medical organizations and government agencies have us convinced that forced vaccination is an essential cornerstone of public health.

Surprisingly, the authorities who promote all these immunizations don’t delve very deeply into the details of the scientific research. There are plenty of warning signs (for those willing to look) that vaccinations can do a lot of harm — maybe even more harm than good.

Your Natural Immunity is Best

Immunizations are supposed to help your body fight off disease. What’s ironic is that by overusing vaccines, you’re actually weakening your immune system — the most important defense against illness in the first place.

You might be doing damage to your brain, too. The live virus found in many vaccines takes a huge toll on your brain cells which are already fighting off the effects of pesticides, industrial chemicals, and other nerve poisons found nearly everywhere in the environment.

Children can be at even greater risk.

It’s not easy surviving childhood these days. Before your child or grandchild hits her first birthday, there are no fewer than twenty-four different vaccines she’s supposed to get.

That means 24 different chemical and biological attacks her not-yet-fully-developed immune system has to cope with. And twenty-four different chances for possible contaminants, preservatives, and impurities to enter her system.

Then there’s a slew of additional vaccines and boosters awaiting your child before she starts school at age five or six.

Adults are targeted too. The proponents of vaccination want you to line up for a series of booster shots every few years. And when you’re older, there’s the flu shot you’re supposed to take each winter. 

But don’t worry. After all, there’s a government agency checking vaccines to make sure they’re safe. Isn’t there?

Not really . . .. Did you know that more than 40 of the vaccines used in the USA are manufactured in China?

(It’s anybody’s guess how many it will be next year.)

Shockingly, the FDA only checks these Chinese factories once every 13 years.

It’s not only contaminants and impurities you have to worry about. Not many people are aware of the alarming truth — mutated versions of viruses used in some vaccines can hide out in your body for decades!

Vaccine May Be More Dangerous Than Swine Flu

An outbreak of swine flu occurred in Mexico that eventually affected 4,910 Mexican citizens and resulted in 85 deaths. By the time it spread to the United States, the virus caused only mild cases of flu-like illness.

Thanks to air travel and the failure of public health officials to control travel from Mexico, the virus spread worldwide. Despite predictions of massive numbers of deaths and the arrival of doomsday, the virus has remained a relatively mild disease, something we know happens each year with flu epidemics.

Worldwide, during that outbreak, there were 311 deaths out of 70,893 cases of swine flu. In the United States, 27,717 cases  resulted in 127 deaths. Every death is a tragedy, but such a low death rate should not be the basis of a draconian government policy.

It is helpful to recall that the Centers for Disease Control, with the collusion of the media, constantly tell us that 36,000 people die from the flu each year - a figure that has been shown to be a lie.
In this case, we’re talking about 300 plus deaths for the entire world.

This virus continues to be an enigma for virologists. In the April 30, 2009 issue of Nature, a virologist was quoted as saying,“Where the hell it got all these genes from we don’t know.” Extensive analysis of the virus found that it contained the original 1918 H1N1 flu virus, the avian flu virus (bird flu), and two new H3N2 virus genes from Eurasia.
Debate continues over the possibility that swine flu is a genetically engineered virus.

Naturally, vaccine manufacturers have been in a competitive battle to produce the first vaccine. The main contenders have been Baxter Pharmaceuticals and Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the latter of which recently acquired the scandal-ridden Chiron vaccine company. Both of these companies have had agreements with the World Health Organization to produce a pandemic vaccine.

The Baxter vaccine, called Celvapan, has had fast track approval. It uses a new vero cell technology, which utilizes cultured cells from the African green monkey. This same animal tissue transmits a number of vaccine-contaminating viruses, including the HIV virus.

The Baxter company has been associated with two deadly scandals. The first event occurred in 2006 when hemophiliac components were contaminated with HIV virus and injected in tens of thousands of people, including thousands of children. Baxter continued to release the HIV contaminated vaccine even after the contamination was known.

The second event occurred recently when it was discovered that Baxter had released a seasonal flu vaccine containing the bird flu virus, which would have produced a real world pandemic, to 18 countries. Fortunately, astute lab workers in the Czech Republic discovered the deadly combination and blew the whistle before a worldwide disaster was unleashed.

Despite these two deadly events, WHO maintains an agreement with Baxter Pharmaceuticals to produce the world’s pandemic vaccine.

Novartis, the second contender, also has an agreement with WHO for a pandemic vaccine. Novartis appears to have won the contract, since their vaccine is near completion. What is terrifying is that these pandemic vaccines contain ingredients, called immune adjuvants that a number of studies have shown cause devastating autoimmune disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Animal studies using this adjuvant have found them to be deadly. A study using 14 guinea pigs found that when they were injected with the special adjuvant, only one animal survived. A repeat of the study found the same deadly outcome.

So, what is this deadly ingredient? It is called squalene, a type of oil. The Chiron company, maker of the deadly anthrax vaccine, makes an adjuvant called MF-59 which contains two main ingredients of concern—squalene and gp120. A number of studies have shown that squalene can trigger all of the above-mentioned autoimmune diseases when injected.

The MF-59 adjuvant has been used in several vaccines. These vaccines, including tetanus and diphtheria, are the same vaccines frequently associated with adverse reactions.
A review of a number of studies on this adjuvant found something quite interesting. Several studies done on human test subjects found MF-59 to be a very safe immune adjuvant.
But when I checked to see who did these studies, I found—to no surprise—that they were done by the Novartis Pharmaceutical Company and Chiron Pharmaceutical Company, which have merged. They were all published in “prestigious” medical journals. Also, to no surprise, a great number of studies done by independent laboratories and research institutions all found a strong link between MF-59 and autoimmune diseases.

Squalene in vaccines has been strongly linked to the Gulf War Syndrome.
On August 1991, Anthony Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (USA) admitted that soldiers vaccinated with the anthrax vaccine from 1990 to 1991 had an increased risk of 200 percent in developing the deadly disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also called Lou Gehrig’s disease. The soldiers also suffered from a number of debilitating and life-shortening diseases, such as polyarteritis nodosa, multiple sclerosis (MS), lupus, transverse myelitis (a neurological disorder caused by inflammation of the spinal cord), endocarditis (inflammation of the heart’s inner lining), optic neuritis with blindness and glomerulonephritis (a type of kidney disease).

The second ingredient, and one that should concern everyone, is called gp120, a glycoprotein. Researchers found when it was mixed with squalene, the glycoprotein became strongly antigenic—that is, it produced a powerful and prolonged immune response to the vaccination. In fact, their studies show that with each dose, the intense immune reaction lasts over a year.

Now for the shocker—the glycoprotein-gp120, a major component of MF-59 vaccine adjuvant, is the same protein fragment isolated from the HIV virus that is responsible for the rapid dementia seen in AIDS patients.

Studies have shown that when gp120 is taken up by the microglia cells in the brain, it causes intense inflammation and makes the brain subject to excitotoxic damage—a process called immunoexcitotoxicity. This is also the cause of the MS and optic neuritis associated with vaccines that contain MF-59.

So, how would the gp120 get into the brain? Studies of other immune adjuvants using careful tracer techniques have shown that they routinely enter the brain following vaccination. What most people do not know, even the doctors who recommend the vaccines, is that most such studies by pharmaceutical companies observe the patients for only one to two weeks following vaccination—these types of reactions may take months or even years to manifest.

It is obvious that the vaccine manufacturers stand to make billions of dollars in profits from this WHO/government-promoted pandemic. Novartis, the maker of the new pandemic vaccine, recently announced that they would not give free vaccines to impoverished nations—everybody pays.

One must keep in mind that once the vaccine is injected, there is little you can do to protect yourself—at least by conventional medicine. It will mean a lifetime of crippling illness and early death.

There are much safer ways to protect oneself from this flu virus, such as higher doses of vitamin D3, selective immune enhancement using supplements, and a good diet.

Vaccines—The Public Health Menace that Threatens Your Family

And:

Pandemic panic still doesn’t add up

The feds, Big Pharma and doctors who should know better are all lining up to tell you how safe the swine flu shot is.

Don’t you fall for it! Almost every day, there’s new stories about misled people who roll up their sleeves for that “safe” vaccine… and then pass out, get sick or even die.

Let’s get real here and look at the facts, not media hysterics.

A 14-year-old athlete in Virginia can barely walk after his swine flu shot. He’s struggling with Guillain-Barre syndrome after his vaccine. A young woman in France is facing the same battle – again, right after a swine flu shot.

By some estimates, there was an eight-fold increase in Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare and debilitating autoimmune disorder that can lead to paralysis and death, after the 1976 swine flu vaccination panic.

Are we facing the same thing now? It’s hard to say, but clearly something is going on with these dangerous needles.

In China, two people dropped dead right after getting vaccinated. In New York, nurses gave swine flu shots to at least two kids without permission from their parents – sending one of the kids, a 6-year-old epileptic, to the hospital. And U.S. medical workers are fighting courtroom battles to protect their rights and avoid mandatory flu shots.

The contradictions here are endless. On the one hand, the Centers for Disease Control has advised against testing for H1N1 flu since July.

On the other, a new swine flu detection test was just given fast-track approval by the FDA.

The CDC says we don’t need to count individual cases anymore… yet everywhere you turn, there are new numbers being tossed around from all directions.

How do we know people are sick if we’re not counting them? Why do we need a new and unproven test for the disease if we no longer need to test for it?

Now, Big Pharma is saying maybe people only need half a dose of the swine flu vaccine to get full protection… after telling some people they’d need as many as two or even three doses (Side note: I’ll bet you’ll pay just as much for that half a dirty dose as you do a full one).

Plenty of people have already gotten that now-excessive full dose… with many children getting two shots. Does that mean they’ve gotten quadruple what they need?

Yes, there’s a lot more to this picture than they’re letting any of us see… and it may be years before the truth finally comes out.

You’ve been warned. 

WC Douglass, MD
the Douglass report

And here’s more news (added Dec 8th ‘09) :- 

Doctors query ability of Tamiflu to stop severe illness

Review published in British Medical Journal accuses flu drug manufacturer Roche of withholding evidence from trial 

Tamiflu tablets may shorten bouts of illness by a day or two, reviewers say.  

Roche, the manufacturer of Tamiflu, has made it impossible for scientists to assess how well the anti-flu drug stockpiled around the globe works by withholding the evidence the company has gained from trials, doctors alleged. 

A major review of what data there is in the public domain has found no evidence Tamiflu can prevent healthy people with flu from suffering complications such as pneumonia. 

Tamiflu may shorten the bout of illness by a day or so, the investigators say, but it is impossible to know whether it prevents severe disease because the published data is insufficient. Roche has failed to make some of the studies carried out on the drug publicly available, the scientists say. 

“Governments around the world have spent billions of pounds on a drug that the scientific community now finds itself unable to judge,” said Dr Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, which published the new review online and collaborated in a joint investigation with Channel 4 News, shown this evening . 

Roche has made a fortune out of the drug, with sales of £1.6bn this year alone. The British government has stockpiled enough for half the population. 

In the review, Professor Chris Del Mar, from Bond University in Australia, analysed 20 published trials that focused on prevention, treatment and adverse reactions. The authors say they were hampered by the “paucity of good data”. 

The reviewers were forced to leave out eight trials because they had not been published, and Roche offered them “under conditions we thought unacceptable, and what was offered to us was insufficient to analyse properly.” 

Because they did not have full access to all the trials, the reviewers say previous evidence on the effects of Tamiflu and other drugs of this class (the neuraminidase inhibitors) may be unreliable. They call on governments to set up studies to monitor the drugs for safety. 

A second review was carried out in the UK at Birmingham University by Professor Nick Freemantle and Dr Melanie Calvert, who analysed a series of observational studies Roche provided. (These are studies of people who took the drugs, but without a comparison group of people who did not take them). 

Although the reviewers had doubts about the data, they say it is possible Tamiflu reduced the risk of pneumonia. But if so, the benefit was small and there were side-effects to consider. 

Freemantle said he saw “very little evidence to support the widespread use of oseltamivir in the otherwise healthy population who are developing signs of influenza-like illness.” 

He added: “We have remarkably few resources in this country to spend on pharmaceuticals on health, and it is surprising to see such widespread use of oseltamivir. But I suppose that once you’ve gone and bought lots of doses, then it’s a bit like the situation with gun control in the US. If you have a gun in the house, it is much easier to use it. But it does not mean it’s the right thing to do.” 

Dr Godlee and Professor Mike Clarke, director of the UK Cochrane Centre, call in the BMJ for new global legislation to ensure all trial data on drugs that have been granted a licence must be published in full. 

Roche said in a response that it firmly believed in the robustness of the data. The company said governments and licensing authorities had been given access to all the trial information. 
Roche has now undertaken to put summaries of all the Tamiflu study data on a password-protected site.

And more:

Swine flu: children should not be given Tamiflu, Oxford researchers say

Parents been urged not to give children under 12 the anti-viral drug Tamiflu for swine flu because its harms outweigh any benefits.
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor

 Published: 7:00AM BST 11 Aug 2009

Oxford researchers have called on the Department of Health to rethink its current policy. Their study found that Tamiflu caused vomiting in some children, which can lead to dehydration and further complications.

The drug had little or no effect in helping with asthma flare-ups and the ear infections linked to flu or the likelihood of a child needing antibiotics.

Dr Carl Henegan, a GP and researcher from the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, said the current policy of giving Tamiflu for mild illness was an “inappropriate strategy”.

“The downside of the harms outweigh the one-day reduction in symptomatic benefits,” he said.

The study comes little over a week after other research found that children given Tamiflu preventatively reported side-effects, including nausea and nightmares.

Researchers analysed four studies involving children aged one to 12 taking Tamiflu or another anti-viral, Relenza.

The children were being treated for seasonal flu but the researchers said their findings would extend to the current swine flu pandemic.

Dr Matthew Thompson, a GP and researcher at Oxford University, said: “I don’t think we have got any reason to think our results would be any different. The current swine flu is generally a mild flu illness… it does not seem that different from current seasonal flu.”

He said children with mild symptoms should be treated in the same way as if they had any other mild flu – with drinks to cool high temperatures and rest.

There was no need for children who were otherwise healthy to be taking Tamiflu or Relenza. Parents should be on their guard, however, for any potential complications, he said. For children with compromised immune systems or conditions like cystic fibrosis, parents may want to discuss the options with their GP.

Dr Henegan said the only benefit found in the study was that children returned to normal half a day to one day earlier if taking anti-virals.

He said his advice to GPs was “not to rely on Tamiflu as a treatment to reduce complications” or to think of it as a “magic bullet”.
And he warned that widespread use of Tamiflu could result in the flu becoming resistant to the drug.

Both researchers called on the Department of Health to review its current policy.

Dr Thompson said: “It’s possible a more conservative strategy (such as) reserving these anti-viral drugs for people, for children who are more likely to have complications of the illness might be a more sensible strategy.”

A Department of Health spokesman dismissed the claims that the findings would also apply to swine flu.
“As the authors note, the extent to which the findings can be applied to the current pandemic is questionable — after all, we already know that swine flu behaves differently to seasonal flu, and past pandemics have hit younger people hardest,” he said.
“We believe a safety-first approach of offering anti-virals to everyone remains a sensible and responsible way forward.”  

Dr Henegan added: “I think the Government should be looking at this urgently, this week.”

The experts said the studies had been publicly available to the Government before it formulated its current strategy with regard to Tamiflu.
And they said the Government should have demanded more data from the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture the drugs – Roche, which makes Tamiflu, and GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Relenza.

And:-

One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination. Almost a third of doctors do not want to be immunised against swine flu, according to a new poll.
Swine flu vaccination: Out of the 216 GPs polled, more than seven in 10 said they were concerned there had not been sufficient trials.

The survey, carried out by Healthcare Republic for GP newspaper, found that almost three in 10 GPs said they would not have the swine flu vaccine, with the same number, 29 per cent, unsure whether they would or not.

Out of the 216 GPs polled, more than seven in 10 said they were concerned there had not been sufficient trials.

Professor David Salisbury, the Department of Health’s director of immunisation, told Healthcare Republic that front line health workers had a duty to get immunised.  “They have a duty to their patients not to infect their patients and they have a duty to their families,” he said. “I think you solve those responsibilities by being vaccinated.”

A separate poll found even more GPs saying they did not want to be vaccinated, with 49 per cent saying they would reject it.

The survey for Pulse magazine, which questioned 115 doctors, said they would reject it, with almost one in 10 undecided.

More than two thirds of those who will reject it believe that the jabs have not been tested enough, while most believe swine flu has been so mild in the majority of cases that it is not needed.

Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse, said: “The medical profession has yet to be convinced by the Government’s whole approach to swine flu, with most GPs now feeling that the Department of Health overreacted in its policy on blanket use of Tamiflu. 

Vaccine recalled:-                                       

Bad batch proves shots not safe.

Let’s stop pretending: There’s no way in hog heaven these swine flu vaccines are safe.

Need more proof? Look north – at least one Canadian is dead and dozens of others are recovering from severe allergic reactions to the vaccine.

Many of those cases were linked to GlaxoSmithKline’s Arepanrix swine flu vaccine, which prompted a recall of 172,000 doses. But by the time word got out, all but 15,000 had been used.

If you already rolled up your sleeve in Canada – too bad. Just be glad you’re still alive to read about it.

Plenty of victims have suffered from anaphylaxis, a potentially deadly reaction that includes breathing problems, low blood pressure and swelling of the throat, tongue, lips and eyes.

Arepanrix appears to be especially bad — even by the low standards of poorly tested swine flu vaccines. GlaxoSmithKline’s own data shows that more that 1 in 10 patients experience pain, headache, fatigue, swelling, shivering, sweating, aching muscles and joint pain. And 1 in 10 will develop diarrhea, swollen lymph nodes, fever, feeling sick, bruising and itching.

We’re facing a pandemic all right – but it’s not from the flu. If they succeed in poking everyone, the real health crisis will come from all those bad drug reactions.

Recently, I told you about the patients who developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after their swine flu shots, and some people who even keeled over after getting these “safe” vaccines.

And the latest – Jan 8th  

How Big Pharma profits off fear

With Big Pharma raking in billions off swine flu fears, the last thing they need is a government handout.

Yet Uncle Sam is busy playing Daddy Warbucks with YOUR lunch money, helping Swiss drugmaker Novartis open a new vaccine plant in North Carolina. You’ve generously contributed around $700 million to help Novartis build their shiny new drug factory — $220 million three years ago, and $486 million this year.

And I’ll bet you didn’t even get a thank-you card.

In return for this bad investment in a foreign company, the U.S. government gets the right to PURCHASE vaccine for 17 years. Not only that, but these vaccines will be created using a new and unproven biotech method that relies on dog kidneys instead of chicken eggs.

In other words, this plan really is a dog.

I’m a doctor, not an economist. But if this is someone’s idea of stimulus, you do the math: The plant now employs 191 people making an average of $50,000 per year. At that rate, it would take around 75 years for the government money put into this joint to make its way back into our own economy.

Slice off a few years if you believe them when they say they’ll ultimately employ 350 people when the plant is fully operational in 2013 — in any case, it’ll be decades before Americans ever see that cash again.

But don’t worry — I’m sure somewhere, a poor Swiss ski resort is hosting a group of free-spending Novartis executives.

Maybe they’ll be joined by their yodeling friends at the World Health Organization.
A report at World Net Daily says at least three of the WHO’s top flu “experts” have financial ties to vaccine makers.

That sure explains a lot.

Meanwhile, anyone who doubts that money is the real driving force behind swine flu fears only needs to check out Business Week magazine.

A recent headline there tells whole story by itself: “How Big Pharma Profits from Swine Flu.”

Careful there, Business Week. That kind of thinking would have gotten you branded a radical conspiracy theorist just a few months ago!

Just check out these big paydays off swine flu vaccine sales: $1.7 billion for GlaxoSmithKline $700 million for Novartis $500 million for Sanofi-Aventis Those figures are for the fourth quarter of 2009 alone — analysts expect them to grab similar piles of cash for the first quarter of 2010 as everyone from President Obama to Santa Claus push these needless vaccines on you and your children.

Business Week also notes that vaccine sales are booming just in time: Patents on prescription drugs worth a combined $135 billion in annual sales are about to expire… with no new meds ready to replace them.

And that means you can expect another phony swine flu scare any moment now.

                                                               ——————–

That’s not the only sickening swindle. Keep reading for the latest on Tamiflu…

Hide and seek with Big Pharma

Get ready for some more flu funny business — except you won’t be laughing when you hear about this one.

Drug giant Roche is being accused of hiding key data from eight unpublished studies on its flu drug, Tamiflu… and, as a result, researchers now say there’s no evidence that the drug can reduce the risk of flu complications such as pneumonia.

What are they hiding? Who knows — but you don’t lock the smartest and most attractive kids in the attic.

The Cochrane Collaboration tried to update their earlier review of the research — but the company demanded a confidentiality agreement in exchange for access to those eight shady studies.

I’m thrilled to say the researchers told Roche where to stick that agreement. Too bad that kind of integrity is all too rare.

In an editorial that accompanied the new review in the British Medical Journal, editor Fiona Godlee tore into the company. She wrote that the studies originally used to back Tamiflu were written by Roche employees and consultants, and that one researcher named in a study even claimed no involvement in the project.

Shady? You bet. Surprising? Not at all.

It’s par for the course when it comes to Big Pharma.

So here’s about all those researchers can say about Tamiflu now: It could reduce flu symptoms by about a day.

And here’s what I can tell you about this dangerous drug: Its side effects include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and diarrhea. Some patients experience severe allergic reactions, confusion, bizarre behavior, hallucinations, seizures, fever, sore throat and more.

Some of these reactions are far more common than anyone wants to admit — especially in children, as I’ve warned you before.

Worth it? You decide — but I think you’re better off investing in another box of tissues and that extra day of rest.

Never feeding the flu fears, 

Douglass

                                                                 000000000000000

New flu vaccine is a work in progress

If you don’t mind being a lab rat for Big Pharma, then go ahead… get the latest flu vaccine. Once again, the feds have rushed a flu vaccine, called Fluzone High-Dose, through the approval process, leaving you to discover any side effects on your own.

But don’t worry… they’ve asked its maker to continue researching it in the meantime. Don’t you feel better now?

This fits right in with the FDA’s motto: “approve first, ask questions later.” Unfortunately, “later” is often after you’ve suffered from side effects like pain, redness, swelling, headaches, muscle aches, and fever. And those are just the known side effects of this under-tested drug.

At best, the FDA will pull the drug from the market with an unceremonious “oops”–and that’ll be the end of it. For them, anyway. You, on the other hand, could be suffering from the side effects for the rest of your life.

We already know that the side effects from Fluzone High- Dose are popping up more frequently than with the common flu shot. And you know darn well that because this drug is aimed at seniors, any more serious side effects that pop up will be blamed on the patients’ ages rather than the bad medicine they’ve been given.

The worst part of all is that everyone is convinced that the potential risk is worth the benefit. Not hardly…

If you want to know the truth about flu shots, all you need to do is look at what happens when the vaccines fail. And here’s what happens: Nothing.

It’s easy to sort science from scare tactics on this one… because every now and then the flu vaccine doesn’t match the strain of the flu that ultimately breaks out.
And when that happens, there are no noticeable surges in deaths from the flu or its complications.

As recently as 2004, there were severe shortages in flu shot production, and vaccination rates fell by nearly half. Remember all those widespread flu deaths? Of course you don’t–because they didn’t happen!

Back in 1989, just 15 percent of seniors received flu vaccines. Now, more than 65 percent are tricked into rolling up their sleeves. Yet flu-related fatalities aren’t dropping any. By some measures, they’ve even risen a bit.

The flu shot is hokum, plain and simple–a desperate attempt to sell you more meds you don’t need.

That’s not the only Big Pharma foolery going on this week.

                                                                 ——————