Tag Archive: Ukip

Carswell: what next for Ukip – and Farage?

When Nigel Farage entered a press conference accompanied by Douglas Carswell jaws may well have dropped, immediately followed by a realisation of the content of what they were about to hear.

In the aftermath of the announcement of Carswell’s ‘defection’ there are many imponderables; namely, will the Conservative Party actually move a writ or leave the seat vacant until May 2015; will Carswell retain his seat as a Member of Parliament, whenever an election is called; will Carswell’s ‘defection’ prompt more of his ex-colleagues to follow – unlikely, according to media reports and a recent statement by Nadine Dorries.

More intriguing – and hardly raised elsewhere – is the question of should Carswell still be the MP for Clacton post May 2015, what might happen to Ukip as a party. Will it still be Nigel Farage’s party were Carswell to be elected and Farage fail in Thanet? Media commentators seem to be of the opinion that Carswell has taken a risk, but in view of the foregoing scenario (Carswell MP – Farage not) it is logical to ask whether Farage has taken an even bigger risk.

Interesting times ahead, methinks.

Afterthought:

On the subject of further Conservative MPs following Carswell: While it can be said that Carswell has taken an honourable course and resigned his seat, one has to wonder whether those being touted as further possible defectors are more interested in their careers than in facts which are staring them in the face on the question of Cameron’s renegotiation ploy and ability to hold a referendum by 2017.

Until such MPs can explain how Cameron’s policies can be delivered, my cynicism of them must remain.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
05/22

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Pot, Kettle (2)

Peter Oborne has an article in The Spectator which will no doubt cause Farage, Ukip and their supporters to preen their feathers and revel in that which he writes. The article is headed: How Nigel Farage gave British democracy back to the voters. While that which he writes may have an element of truth in it, in that a subject (immigration) is now being openly discussed when it wasn’t years ago, I must take issue with some of his statements.

First, readers of this blog will not be surprised when I question how has Farage given back to the voters something that they never had in the first place?

Second, how has Farage re-invented British democracy? If Farage had his way we would still be subjected to representative democracy; albeit with referenda on certain subjects which would be chosen by him.

Third – and I hate to mention this – but how can a man be lauded for giving back to voters something that they have never had but who, more importantly also has no idea of how that might be accomplished?

Just asking……………………………

Afterthought: No doubt critics of any criticism of their hero will be up in arms at my views. However, if it is possible for them to calm down for a moment, I would ask them to remember Farage is a politician and as such has an agenda, one which he may not have spelled out but can be summed up in one phrase: power over his fellow man. If Farage managed to gain power and subsequently extricate this country from the grip of EU rule (two highly unlikely events) believing in independence as he reputedly does, he would promptly hand the country back to those that own it – the people.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Wallace, or is it Grommit, that wrote this? Oh and not forgetting Farron……

Appearing under the by-line of Mark Wallace is an article on Conservative Home about the European Elections, the debate this evening twixt the five contenders vying to be the next EU President of the Commission, democracy and a demos.

The article ends with these words of suppose wisdom about the aforementioned debate:

By contrast, Cameron’s speech demonstrates that the British union may have its issues but it rests on far stronger foundations. Those watching or reading about it, of all sides in the referendum and of all nations in the UK, know that it matters to them. They recognise the man delivering the speech even if they dislike him, they share his language (if not his accent), they acknowledge – even the Scottish separatists – that they are at present part of the same nation. And, even more importantly, they know that they can change the direction of that nation if they choose, by using their freeborn right to vote.

Instead of moaning that the British aren’t tuning in to the EU debate, the EU’s apparatchiks could do worse than tune in to watch events in the UK. They might learn what a real democracy – and a real demos – looks like, warts and all. (Emphasis mine)

Yes, the electorate can change the direction of our nation, but only every five years – they cannot do that at the time a policy is implemented with which they vehemently disagree.

No, we do not have a real democracy in that the demos obviously only comprises 650 of the inhabitants – and those 650 are but warts; there being no ‘all’.

If there is a freeborn right to vote, since when should a minority of us decide when the majority may exercise that freeborn right?

When highlighting crap presented as informed opinion (which leads me to believe even more that the above article must have been written by the dog) I received the following, unsolicited email from Tim Farron:

Click image to view it in full size

 Clicking on the video in the email to play it one is redirected here - and at which point the reader of this post will be able to view the video – which informs us the Liberal Democrat Party believe in a Britain that is open, modern, tolerant and diverse – which is all very well; but when have the people been specifically asked? They have not – they have had the policy imposed on them; and that is not democracy.

While I have no time for Ukip in its present incarnation, where the Liberal Democrats are concerned, one is forced to turn the question they pose around and direct it back: 

 If you want to know what sort of party the Liberal Democrats are, listen to what they say. Watch this video and ask yourself a question: Are you going to let these people win the next election?

In fact I would widen the recipients to which the question was originally aimed – do we really want any of the current political parties, in their current incarnation, to win any election now or in the future?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Political Merry-go-round

Having spent 4 days enjoying the best that the County of Durham can offer (company, food and leisure activities) I note that not much has changed during my absence from the blogosphere where our politics is concerned.

With all the problems we in the UK face it would seem that, according to Benedict Brogran’s ‘Morning Briefing’ George Osborne has achieved some flattering coverage in today’s papers due to the fact that having been on the  5:2 diet (which means restricting himself to 600 calories a day for two days a week), the mockery of his weight has come to an end. According to the Mail, Brogan reports, the whole Cabinet seems to be “a model of lean government”, with Cameron reportedly cutting back on his dairy intake (though Downing Street doesn’t like to comment on such matters); Nick Clegg starting kickboxing; and Michael Gove recently losing 2st on an “fat farm” in Austria. Ones initial reaction is that politicians of all hues have been milking it for some time now; that Clegg is always kicking against something or other; and that Gove is no doubt doing ‘Vine’ where losing weight is concerned – but I digress………. 

I note that Richard North has justifiably written about the shortcomings of Ukip and Farage, especially viz-a-viz Cameron’s seven ‘target’ areas for reform; that some MPs have been claiming expenses for riding their bikes even though one has ceased claiming as he realises it costs him nothing while another has claimed just over £400 for maintenance of his two bikes; that Farage has announced he would step-down within 12 hours of Miliband gaining a majority at the general election while Ukip went ‘seatless’ (the  Daily Politics interview  while it remains available, can be viewed here – starts at 12.12). Interestingly during this interview, Farage was questioned by Andrew Neil in regard to what preparations he was making for his debates with Nick Clegg, to which the response was that he had been ‘boning-up’ on his facts – specifically mentioning Clegg’s oft-claimed comment about 3 million jobs depending on the UK’s membership. Hmm, for a man not renowned for ‘doing detail’ the outcome will sure be interesting.

In other news today we have seen Viviane Reding launch her 2014 EU Justice Scoreboard, her accompanying statement ending with the words: Every national court is a Union court and thus justice policies are no longer simply ‘national business’. It is all very well Grayling being reported as stating: We have no intention of the UK becoming part of a one-size-fits-all EU justice system, and it is just this kind of meddling that really irks the public. The Commission claims the Scoreboard is a tool for promoting effective justice and growth. I do not believe that the Commission has any role in the detailed monitoring or assessment of the justice systems of Member States to secure this goal - he needs to go read Article 4(j) of the TFEU where he will find that the area of freedom, security and justice is a shared competence. In any event it is worth recalling that this document by the Spinelli Group is lurking in the background and if any new treaty is forthcoming and is based on that document, it won’t matter what opt-outs one has on this, that or the other – they will be worth squat-diddly, especially where our politicians wish to remain a full member of the European Union.

With the launch of the Tory Pro-EU EUMainstream event today (‘manifesto’ here) we are also treated with an article on Conservative Home by Jeremy Lefroy suggesting that Westminster, not the EU, controls our spending in the UK. It would seem that a concerted attempt is being made to further sway public opinion. Surely any political party worth its salt would be hitting the airwaves (eg: twitter?), especially one so opposed to the views of such a pro-europe group. If Labour can respond, should we not have seen something from Ukip? Er, don’t they have a Director of Communications, someone who moonlights as a chief reporter for a national newspaper? Just asking………….

Richard North is, again, quite right to infer that while we have politicians of all parties obfuscating; while we have a media who do not do the job that they should; and while we have a public so totally – and one might say, deliberately – uninformed, just why do we bother with all this talk about holding a referendum on our membership of the EU? The result will be, after all, a well-engineered given.

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

‘Flooding’ us with false information

 

During ‘the floods’ the public has been fed a ‘load of tosh’ by our political class (all of them!) which has been dutifully parroted by that section of our society known as the media. For sure our political class have, unknowingly to the public, ensured that parts of Somerset have been ‘levelled’ with up to 10 feet of water in places, but the one thing they have not done is ‘levelled’ with the public where the cause of flooding is concerned.

 

While understandably Somerset has dominated the news, other areas are still experiencing high levels in their rivers. Driving back from Camberley this afternoon, I crossed the river Windrush at Newbridge and witnessed the fact that river is still considerably higher than is normal. Further downstream from Newbridge is Northmoor Lock and its associated weir – just past which the Windrush feeds into the Thames. In view of the higher than normal levels at Newbridge, one can but wonder whether the sluices at Northmoor have been ‘regulated’ to spare areas further down the Thames – but again, I digress.

 

Not once, listening to Parliamentary debates, or reading/listening to our media, have I heard one politician mention ‘Sites of Special Scientific Interest’; the Birds Directive; the Habitats Directive, or the Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) Regulations 1994 by which the latter is better known in the UK. When I write ‘one politician’ I can hear the groans from some readers of WfW; accompanied by their thoughts that I am about to ‘have a go’ at Ukip and Nigel Farage – and how right they are!

 

Ukip employ ‘researchers’ – at least that is what they are called – so why did they not produce a report such as this? That would have enabled Ukip and Farage to ‘grab’ the news agenda; have thus enabled Ukip to ‘drive’ the debate; educated the public; and, more importantly, have provided Ukip and their spokesman untold publicity. Instead we were treated to Farage publicly stating that he knew not how the European Union ‘influenced’ the actions of the Environment Agency; and purely for that reason calling for a public inquiry. The man is an MEP of 15 years standing – should he not know about that which he complains? Of course, had he not thrown one researcher, worth his weight in gold, out of his pram in a fit of pique, perhaps he and his party would be better informed and thereby be more of a political force than they are? But again, abject apologies, I digress.

 

Digressing once again, I note that Ukip spokesman appear to possess good ‘heads of hair’ – why? Should they not all be bald, having torn their hair out at the roots in frustration of their leader being unable to hit the nail on its head?

 

(At this point it becomes necessary for the insertion of what might be termed a ‘declaration of interest’. I have always publicly acknowledged the expertise of the author of this linked report where his ability as a researcher is concerned. Before any accusations are levelled at me as one who is a sycophant of the author I should make known that I am no longer an active member of The Harrogate Agenda ‘hierarchy’, having resigned nearly a year ago due to a serious – and, on my part, deeply felt – disagreement over the methods of furthering that movement.)

 

The British public lack information about the European Union, its effect on their lives and that of the governance of this country – and they do not receive that knowledge from any of the Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat parties because all three of them, in one way or another, wish the UK to remain a full member. One has to ask why does the one party, whose basic raison-d’être is to make known that information, continue to exist while it does not fulfill the objective it should – unless of course it is but to further that which some of us believe: namely to keep its leader in the limelight, while keeping him in a lifestyle we would all like to enjoy.

 

Much is made in the media by political commentators that Ukip’s ‘support’ will disappear come May 2015 and the general election. That it undoubtedly will can only be laid at the door of Ukip and their penchant for missing the open goals that are presented to them on a plate.

 

Where our politicians, be they MPs or MEPs, are concerned, when cashing their payslips and submitting their expenses; why is it we metaphorically hear the accompanying words: More please, sir. It is not about time that we made a ‘Dickens’ of a row about this waste of our money vis-a-viz democracy?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

There’s sovereignty – and there’s sovereignty (and Ukip)

There is an element of irony in the British government’s reaction to the dire situation in Ukraine with the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, complaining bitterly about the fact that Ukraine’s sovereignty has been violated and David Cameron viewing the Ukraine situation as ‘grave’.

It never ceases to both amuse and amaze me that our politicians expend so much energy defending the need for sovereignty, democracy and the independence of other countries while being complicit in the fact that that is exactly what they deny their own people.

If there does indeed exist an element of irony in this sad affair, unfortunately it also includes Ukip and their response to it. If one consults Google and inputs the words: ‘Nigel Farage’ and ‘Ukraine’, all that appears which is relevant to that query is a press release by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group of the European Parliament, a statement quoting the leader of Ukip.

Some readers may well wish to castigate me yet again for ‘having a pop’ at Ukip, but for a political party that wishes to restore the UK’s sovereignty, democracy and independence their silence is puzzling to say the least. Is there not an element of hypocrisy in the pronouncements of those in the political class where sovereignty, democracy and independence is concerned? Should not Ukip be making more of this?

Now that Ofcom has upgraded Ukip to a ‘major’ party, is it not time that they began earning their promotion?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
03/01

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
22 Comments »

Its ‘Ukip time’ again!

I see that both Richard North and Autonomous Mind have indulged in further – what some might call ‘Ukip Bashing’ – but which I prefer to call ‘Forensic Dissection’. At the outset, let me make clear that I fully endorse the criticisms that are made by both of them. Like both I wish Ukip well – and like both I hold out little hope that they will do well.

Ukip is the only political party wholeheartedly campaigning for the cessation of the UK’s membership of the European Union – do note that I did not use the phrase ‘full membership’ as I doubt anyone in Ukip is even aware that an ‘arms-length’ form of membership even exists.

Ukip stand in elections, both national and European, asking the electorate to vote for them – but based on what? Why would the electorate trust a political party headed by someone who has been an MEP since 1999 but who has no idea how much the EU affects the actions of the Environment Agency? Why would the electorate trust said politician who calls for a proportion of Overseas Aid to be diverted to home use when it is patently obvious that this cannot be done? Why would the electorate trust a party when a Director of that party publicly states that flooding is not the fault of Brussels?

Nigel Farage, during his Spring Conference speech (which some have exalted as brilliant, but which actually did not rank as high as a damp squib) mentioned that there were just 84 days until the European elections. What better opportunity then for Ukip to discuss ‘matters EU’; to discuss exactly how the UK could cease its membership; the problems entailed therein – and the benefits; to enlighten the electorate about just how much the European Union affects and intrudes into their daily lives; to discuss democracy per se (especially relevant for a party with the word ‘Independence’ in its name) and the fact that it is not to political parties that the UK belongs, but to the people of the UK – but on that latter point, I digress.

Autonomous Mind writes about open goals that have been missed – well here’s another that Farage and Ukip have missed. Nick Clegg has challenged Nigel Farage to a public debate about the UK’s membership of the European Union – some may say Clegg’s motive is a last throw of the dice to bolster his vote come the EU elections. It is well known that both Cameron and MilibandE will go to any lengths to avoid discussing this subject. It is also well known that the European elections are used by the electorate to thumb their noses at whatever political party is in government – in other words the European elections are not about the European Union, but merely used to express their dissatisfaction with the ‘government du jour’. Were I Farage I would have issued long ago a public challenge to both Cameron and Miliband for a similar public debate as that with Clegg – and I would keep issuing that challenge every day and every hour – assuming of course that Farage learns to do ‘detail’. Should Ukip not be using every means at their disposal to make other political leaders talk about a subject they would rather not; should not Ukip be using every opportunity to ‘educate’ the electorate about the European Union and how it impacts on this country’s sovereignty and independence?

Having said that, debate is not a subject on which Ukip seems very keen – for example, on Twitter I have confronted prospective Ukip MEP candidates about things they have said, pointing out that as Twitter is not the forum for debate – limited as it is by character content – and providing them with my email address and telephone number to allow such a debate to be had. The response? Zilch, da nada, nothing! In the comments section on this blog I am asked to ‘lay off’ Ukip because they are the only hope we, the electorate, have. Hope for what exactly?

Vanessa, commenting on Autonomous Mind’s blog writes that she too agrees with his comments; that she has written to the ‘top table’ within Ukup but to no avail. Speaking from personal experience when a member of Ukip and branch chairman of Witney, Vanessa: save your time and effort, I’ve got the ‘T’ shirt! Having become disillusioned with Ukip and those in ‘Witney Ukip’ I resigned as branch chairman, but whilst my membership was still active offered my services to Aylesbury for leaflet distribution, their campaign involving litter picking, etc – response from Aylesbury? Once again Zilch, da nada, nothing. Having been an active member of the Conservative Party and seen their ‘organisation’ in operation (campaigning with the MP, door knocking) I offered, at my expense, to visit every branch in Oxfordshire to talk about Electoral Law (again of which I have experience, having acted as Election Agent on more than one occasion) and campaigning per se. This offer was made, in person, to Steve Harris, then South East Regional Organiser (he may well still be, I know not) and, yet again, the response was Zilch, da nada, nothing.

Readers should realise that why I relate matters ‘internal’ it is done for a very basic – and important – reason. Ukip are asking the electorate to trust them with matters national and international. If they are unable to deal with – and understand – what might be termed mundane matters (which they are not, by any stretch of the imagination) what hope is there for their future as a coherent, competent and trustworthy political party?

Ukip wishes to save the United Kingdom – methinks the United Kingdom needs saving from Ukip!

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Are Ukip finally ‘waking up’?

Following my posts in which I have criticised Ukip for its ‘amateurish’ and ‘directionless’ public attitude, the last of which was yesterday evening, in fairness it is only right that when someone in Ukip starts being objective that credit should be given.

I refer to an article in the Guardian yesterday featuring remarks by Janice Atkinson made last week at a public meeting held in Brighton – an article sub-headlined: Remarks by candidate for May’s European elections underline extent to which party’s policies have yet to be developed. Immediately one has to point out to the author of this article that Ukip is not the only party whose policies still have to be developed – the Conservative Party on the question of ‘renegotiation’ and the Labour Party on the question of ‘One Nationism’? I will also set to one side the use of the words ‘Article 51′ and presume this is a typographical error rather than accuse Janice Atkinson of having made a slip of the tongue.

The important point that needs to be acknowledged is her admission that one cannot just walk away from membership of the European Union; that the negotiations will take time; and that finally the admission is made that there are many trade agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party purely through our present membership of the European Union and which will require renegotiating directly with the countries involved.

There are other matters that need to be taken into consideration where any attempt is made to cease our membership of the European Union – matters which I am not at liberty to discuss until such time as the result of the IEA Brexit competition is announced. One can be forgiven for wondering just to what extent Ukip, in their internal discussions, will be considering those.

Having acknowledged that Ukip are finally starting to think logically, criticism still remains, unfortunately. It is obvious that if the party has finally admitted that they have yet to evolve a policy for withdrawal, their previous call for a ‘referendum now’ is immediately shown to have been a pointless and ill-thought through ‘rallying call’.

Likewise Janice Atkinson’s statement that 70% of our law originates from the European Union and that we have to ‘unbind’ those laws would appear to still not recognise that a vast majority of law that originates from the European Union is but law that is being implemented as a result of quasi-legislation that is handed down from United Nations bodies, such as UNECE, for governments to implement through their own legislation.

One cannot but resist commenting on the remarks made by Tim Fallon, the Liberal Democrat President; remarks that are totally fatuous and disingenuous – and thus totally ignores the fact that it is not necessary to be a full member of the European Union in order to trade with it.

While acknowledging that the foregoing is offered for consideration purely on the basis of a newspaper report – and we all know how unreliable they are – it is only right that some credit should be given where it is possible so to do. No doubt the announcement that Ukip hope to make ‘pretty soon’ is one that will be eagerly awaited by those of us who have been hoping for something sensible and thus worthwhile from this party.

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Even Ukip supporters don’t really understand

Peter Kellner has an article, which ppears in the March edition of Prospect, about where Ukip gets its support, maintaining that it is plain UKIP is mining a rich vein of unhappy voters who feel out of sorts in today’s Britain. While listing the groups to which Ukip appeals, Kellner notes that they have had far less success appealing to better-off voters, graduates and those under 40.

The most striking finding of this article is that when Ukip supporters are asked: Which three of the following do you think are the the most important facing our country today, Europe is placed third. When asked: Which three of the following do you think are the most important facing you and your family, Europe is placed sixth. When you consider the European Union has a finger in each of the subjects placed above ‘Europe’ – and that even their own supporters do not understand this then is it any wonder Ukip’s poll rating continues to bump along at around 12% among the electorate?

One has to wonder what the level of support Ukip might garner were they to set out their stall in a logical and informative manner instead of addressing the public with sound-bites. But then that is probably hoping too much for a party whose leader really doesn’t know to what extent the Environment Agency is bound by EU rules and law; or the Director of Ukip seems to believe the flooding was not Brussels fault.

Before readers berate me for one again complaining about Ukip and having a ‘down on them’, surely they must acknowledge that such an all-round level of ineptitude just is not good enough, especially from the one party that wishes to withdraw this country from the European Union.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Never mind the EU, Janet; lets consider ‘chez nous’

Writing in the Telegraph, Janet Daley considers democracy poses a threat to Europe  citing the remarks by the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, that political parties within European countries which hamper the cooperation between EU member states are a threat to peace. She continues in her article by writing about the motor-mouths of Europe causing much anger and resentment with their refusal to address the doubts and anxieties of the populations of their member countries.

Daley cites Ukip, a relatively new political party, and considers the remarks by Steinmeier as addressed to them. Unfortunately Ukip is no different to any other political party, it being controlled from the top and, as with its ‘competitors’, still intent on telling the people what it will and will not allow them to do. When Ukip Farage eventually decides on Ukip’s manifesto – and hopefully this time he will have read it – it will be no different to any other party’s manifesto.

Do we in the UK not have motor-mouths that threaten democracy? Do not those motor-mouths cause just as much anger and resentment here with their refusal to address the doubts and anxieties of our own population? 

When considering that our own politicians are also ‘motor-mouths’, a prime example comes with this politician who, given the opportunity to question the current Secretary of State about flooding, obviously either does not understand the subject matter in question or is deliberately playing ‘party politics’. (Incidentally, that last article was ‘picked-up via twitter yet, at the time of writing, does not appear on his blog – why? Might that be because, having been shown to not understand that which he wrote in this post and this, he is a tad ashamed of what can only be considered a paltry question?). It becomes more and more apparent that the EU and the UK have much in common – a surfeit of ‘motor-mouths’.

Neither does it help democracy when a member of the Monarchy also adopts what might be termed a ‘motor-mouth’ attitude while also appearing a tad clueless about flooding – but I digress.

It has come to light that the call  for the introduction of direct democracy is not confined to just the United Kingdom. It will be interesting to see how this latest idea ‘progresses’ as it is obvious that it is in its ‘infancy’ and could possibly do with a little help. In that context I have this evening emailed them, making them aware of the 6 Demands – and await a reply.

Afterthought: And what might this have to do with the problem in Somerset? DECC though, apparently, has nothing to do with it – but if they don’t, who does? It would appear that weather manipulation is ‘fully operational‘.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012