APT
Address: 27 Pantyfid Road Aberbargoed Mid Glam CF81 9DT.
Tele/Fax: 01443 835086: Visit our associated website:- http://www.pointmaster.toucansurf.com
|
Address: 27 Pantyfid Road Aberbargoed Mid Glam CF81 9DT. Tele/Fax: 01443 835086: Visit our associated website:- http://www.pointmaster.toucansurf.com |
This website gives a small taste into what the Book
is about, the real meat is in pie, so place your order for a feast of
information.
|
Left is a map of the Britons' regions of the British Isles, as were identified by Rome, to prove that a British Nation is in residence.
Top right is the Welsh Flag the "Draig Goch". The Red-Dragon is connected to some islands and, the Preseli Bluestone mountain range.
Bottom right is a depiction of a Celtic Shield and Sword, which shows Celtic artistry and metal casting skills.
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com
To order the book, click on the Orderform red box below
Or you can order the book @ :- Amazon.co.uk Or you can order from Kindle Books UK @ Amazon.co.uk Kindle Books USA @ Amazon.com |
Following is research of recent TV documentaries in the order they were broadcast, with brief comments on what was stated, to analyse and refute:-Nat Geo: “Decoding Stonehenge” It is suggested in this TV documentary that many Britons, over thousands of years were travelling to Stone and Woodhenge at least twice a year, at midsummer and midwinter solstices, to a great banquet. It was also evidenced that other Britons resided in a village of at least 1,000 houses near there and, other Britons visited to honour their ancestors, who are assumed to be the stones themselves. It was also stated that ordinary people cast their dead relative’s ashes into the river Avon. Six huge post holes were excavated on a ridge overlooking a track way, of which it was suggested they held three platforms to place the dead upon to rot in the sun; with ritual killings also acted out here. Can the latter be true, as we are told that the entire ancient monuments throughout the British Isles are burial places; then why carry dead bodies or ashes and all the rigmarole to Stone or Woodhenge? Strabo, Poseidonius, Caesar and others suggest that the Britons were a proud refined nature loving nation who dressed in fine plaid clothes, with gold hair-braids and elaborate waxed hairstyles; with neck and armband jewellery and artistic designs displayed on their bodies and fineries; so apparently were not morbid fanatics. Caesar wrote that the British could use their chariots with great skills, with trained hunting dogs running alongside (that were bred and trained over thousands of years) so was the 3 platforms or one huge stage on 6 posts possibly for overseeing any games, or 3 separate podiums. Why do some archaeologists have an unhealthy obsession for incessant morbid death explanations, for it is well documented that Britons cared for their aged, young and infirm; and then surely any event at Wood or Stonehenge was possibly for a seasonal fair or games entertainment, in very much the same way as the festivals and athletic events are the traditional venues of today; “rather than any morbid twice yearly funerals” over thousands of years. The Britons could have raced chariots (called trotting today), coursed hares, raced horses or dogs, archery, or entered into any number of entertaining competitions. (Did other countries copy this event)? Possibly thousands of Britons and invited Europeans came to partake at this magnificent complex, culminating in the magnificent sights of the rising and the setting of the Sun; with the Moon playing its part perhaps in fertility or wedding rites. It was estimated in this program there was 1 death every two years over thousands of years, with one injured archer; suggesting these were ritual killings? How can the latter be ritual deaths; and some fights would have broken out, usually for the love of a beautiful British woman, surely are normal incidents of death? The Amesbury Archer burials were also said to be linked, with new pots and a bit of gold brought in by him; and another skeleton said to be his family member, that was evidenced he originating from the Wales area, contradictory don't you agree? Can you compare the mining and smelting technologies of the Britons on the Great Orme, to simple clay pots and a little gold, to say that one European is the source of it? Is it possible the likes of the Amesbury Archer came to Britain to learn their skills or to attend at Wood and the Stonehenge arenas? 18-07-09 Nat Geo: “The Great Druid Massacre” In this documentary, a grave was excavated in Stanway on the east coast of Britain, of a Druid doctor and his possessions of medicinal pots, fine surgical instruments, and metal rods; of which it was said he used to throw onto the ground to create shapes for divining the future (surely this is a bizarre comment)? In my opinion, these grave finds of this Druid doctor of finely manufactured surgical instruments, metal cauterizing rods and various medicinal pots, evidence that the Druids were a well educated people indeed? It was also said in this film that the Romans asserted that the Druids sacrificed people to cut out their entrails to forecast the future. It was also noted “there is no evidence of this” so what is the point of citing this unfounded speculation? It was then suggested that 150 individual skeletons found in a sink-hole crevasse in Alveston Gloucestershire, was a Druid single event ritual killing of these Britons, to the Gods, which would give them the ability to massacre thousands of Romans (is another bizarre comment)? When a cracked thigh bone was found, it was said it was evidence of cannibalism. A beautiful British bronze figurine of a greyhound was also produced to relate to a Dog God? These TV presenters then suggested that these were Druid ritual killings of 150 Britons, in order that thousands of Romans would die in battle, is an off the wall tactic to presume don’t you think? Logically, it would have been more sensible for these Britons to have fought against the Romans, if they were able. There is good reference that the Britons cared for their aged, young, and infirm, so why would they massacre their own beloved people and obedient dogs? Is it possible these 150 individuals were the old, very young and infirm who were hiding out, and it was the Romans who massacred them and their dogs and then dumped them all into the sink-hole crevasse? Also, how can it be established out of thousands of bones which had been hacked, bludgeoned and battered by the well know practice of the Romans of stoning people to death, that one cracked thigh bone was the evidence of cannibalism? Does the finder of the this one cracked bone, think that one Briton survived this single event, or crept down into this stench hole, cut the flesh from this one thigh bone and smashed it to extract the marrow, why, with all the flesh about; and then left that one bone in the cave after eating the marrow, and then crept back out again? Evidently, the beautifully crafted bronze figurine of a greyhound dog has absolutely nothing to do with these killings at all, for it is from another site. But surely the figurine does evidence a highly educated people who had the ability to produce fine (lost wax moulded) bronze work, and had trained greyhound type dogs; perhaps this beautiful bronze figurine was a prize for winning a greyhound race, or hunt? It was then alleged, because the ritual killing of 150 Britons did not work, and the Romans were still marching to Anglesey, the Druids ritually killed a high status Briton (Lindow Man). It was also said that this was a 3 death ritual killing, because Lindow Man was bludgeoned, garrotted and had his throat cut; and also had 4 mistletoe pollens in his stomach. Is the latter TV presenter's three death ritual theory of Lindow Man realistic or any other theory for that matter? Accordingly, should the Druids have killed 3 people? Or is it a better explanation that this high status Briton was tortured by the Romans? The evidence is, he was smashed on the head twice (is not any Celtic 3) then slowly torque garrotted, with his hands tied behind his back, possibly to gain information of the Britons whereabouts and strengths, and when nothing came forth, the Romans cut his throat for good measure and tossed him into the bog. The presenter’s mistletoe theory is also suspect, why 4 grains of pollen (why not the Celtic 5)? Is it simply possible that this pollen was used in a medicine preparation, or a fruit brew, or cooking procedure, which Lindow man had for lunch? Are not 150 bludgeoned individual Britons who were killed and dumped in a crevasse, which had numerous bone fractures, a little more than 3, so why do these TV presenters always suggest a Celtic 3 death ritual, when logically more than three incidents are usually evidenced in any torture or massacre? Surely it was only one death this man encountered? Why is there this never-ending hum-drum morbid tripe to try to portray the British as barbarian heathen (cannibals), savages and peculiar mystics? What is the presenter’s evidence that proves that the British threw metal rods onto the ground to forecast the future? Why would the British frequently ritually kill their family and friends, to place them onto platforms to rot in the sun, or pull out their entrails to forecast the future; or strip the flesh off their thighs, to crack open the bones to eat the marrow. Is this disingenuous TV reporting and to what outcome does this sort of deception try to achieve? Is it all in order to degrade the British? It was then alleged, the Romans marched up to Anglesey (with their especially made boats or made them when they arrived at the Menai, it was not indicated which) crossed over to Anglesey and massacred all the Britons there. And then cut down all the Oak and Apple groves. It was then suggested that finds in a Lake of buckled swords, and bones etc, evidence that the Britons were offering expensive items and performing ritual killings, to the Gods. Let’s consider the latter TV reporting: - Did the Romans carry their hundreds of sea-going boats with them on their backs, or pull them along on trolleys on their very long march? Did they ferry at least 10,000 heavily armed legionaries across the Mighty Menai Strait? How long would it have taken to execute this gargantuan dangerous task? Lord Nelson is an authority on the Menai Strait which he describes as one of the most treacherous areas of sea in the world, with rock-bottoms from 30 foot, in some instances raising directly to within 3 feet, with whirlpools, eddies and tides running to at least eight knots, of which the Britons would have known about. It is not an easy passage to go through or across the Mighty Menai at anytime, and this is a commonly well-known fact by the amount of ferries and boats that have been lost there. Let’s do the sums for a minute: - Did the Romans make their boats and march with them from London to Anglesey, and not to forget they were fighting along the way? Well, at least 10,000 men divided to, say about 20 men per boat is 500 boats; a lot of large boats to make near London and carry them all the way to Anglesey, and a little bit conspicuous, that would suggest where they were going I imagine, so we will rule out this strategy. If the Romans did make their 500 boats at or near London, then surely they would have boated around the coastline and up to Anglesey? Did the Romans make these 500 boats when they reached the Menai? Well, given the fact that the Romans would have taken some considerable time to make 500 sea going boats to carry 20 men in each, to safely cross the Mighty Menai, I don’t think the Britons would have hung around until they did so? If the Romans at the Menai, made in quick time, say 10 boats, this means they would have ferried across 10 x 20 = 200 divided into 10,000 equals, at least 50 times; and on the first wave, I am sure the Britons could have dealt with 200 men in 10 boats? If the Romans made 20 boats, clearly a massive task, as at any of the latter. Also, how many boats would have capsized, with the weight of heavily armed men, in this very dangerous stretch of water and, were they all rowing, a bit cumbersome if they were? If they capsized, I don’t think the Romans would have been able to swim in heavy armour, shields and weapons? If the Romans were not in armour etc, then all would have been lost to the sea, unless they could carry it while swimming. I don’t think the Romans would have been allowed to land and get dressed before battle though; and how many could swim at all, we must ponder? Surely, if the Britons were hard pressed on Anglesey, they would have just simply crossed over the island and exited by boat; in more calmer seas than in the turmoil of Mighty Menai Strait, at anytime, to exit to the Isle of Man, or into the Isles of Scotland, or over to Ireland. It is recorded that the Romans then marched back towards London; why didn’t they boat back, seems bizarre they did not? Are these “Roman” records, believable; for the Romans could not possibly march back to London to say they had been unsuccessful at Anglesey? Why did the Romans march back when apparently it would have been quicker by boat; if they had known that Boudicca had destroyed St Albans, Colchester and London, while the Romans were up the creek without a paddle so to speak; so is the Roman account of their Anglesey campaign believable? It was also suggested the Romans destroyed all the Oak and Apples groves on Anglesey, what a task that must have been, for most of the island was Oak and Apple groves at this time. Britons were likely bending and buckling enemy’s swords out of shape and tossing these with the slave chains, into the lake, so they could never be used against them again; and were the bones, of the enemies’ skeletons? I will admit that benevolent offerings were also made, just as we throw coins into wells today to make a wish and perhaps these benign offerings were to keep the Gods happy and on the Britons’ side, to keep their enemies and their swords from ever attacking the Britons again. Rome’s depravity was mentioned in this film, but if you blinked you would have missed it. Nat Geo: “Stone Age Apocalypse” In this documentary it was suggested we evolved from apes; and the human revolution started at about 75,000 years BC (not 30,000 BC, as some historians insist). It was also stated by these TV presenters that a vast area around Indonesia was wiped out by a super volcano eruption at about 75,000 BC, after which, it was stated, that most of the origins of man came out of East Africa, from a small leftover DNA pool of peoples who survived, of which we all belong. Can the latter be correct, let’s consider this following? It is known that Boxgrove man was in Britain up to and after at least 500,000 BC, who apparently, by date and location, was not effected by the lower latitude Indonesian volcano, because evidences of human existence in Britain follows these dates to present day? If we evolved from apes, then why from 4 million years ago are the apes still aping. If evolution predicts that brain capacity gets larger, then why did the alleged first (upright) humans have a head about 30% smaller than the first apes? All dogs came from the wolf, which apparently dogs are still the same old dogs; so is this evidence of a weakest link barking up the wrong tree of “human life”? I do not refute Darwin’s theory; nor do I think that anyone will deny we have a “human soul”. Have any scientist found the origin of the “human soul”, or the DNA of it, or the natural selection process of the first humans with a “human soul” of which the soul advanced in “humans”? 25-10-09 Discovery: “Discovering ARDI” In this documentary a fossilized 4.4 million years old skeletal remains of a (bipedal) female, named Ardipithicus ramidus, was found in a site called Aramis in what is known as the badlands of Ethiopia. Her teeth were small and blunt, suggesting she lived in a hominid social group, possibly partner-bonded with a male, which brought high value food to her, while she tended to the family objective. Her hand and fingers were not that of an ape, suggesting this is a specific species of which traits the human race evolved from; of which this book predicted. Other skeletal remains are being found in this area to be 5.7 million years old, named Ardipithicus Kaddaba, meaning ancient father. "Timewatch" In this TV documentary the Amesbury Archer hypothesis is televised and it was stated that Stonehenge was built as a healing centre, because the Archers’ bones showed signs of healing? Let’s analyse this:- The Archers grave is many miles from Stonehenge; so the above is a bizarre comment, without any evidenced connection? It was also stated that the Bluestone chippings found at Stonehenge were chipped away by the sick and maimed, to be held or kept for healing purposes? But the stone chips actually remain there abandoned; isn’t that contradictory? It was also suggested that several pieces of organic material found below a newly excavated “re-erected” Bluestone, dates Stonehenge to 2,300 BC. Surely the latter only dates the last phase of building or simply a stone replacement; for there were at least 5 construction phases previously, is 1, 2, 3a, b and c; and then of course the Bluestones would have been transported to Stonehenge perhaps thousands of years before 2,300 BC, which were apparently used in some of these earlier phases of construction; and so the monument must be thousands of years older than 2,300 BC, so is this TV Timewatch article misleading? “How the Irish saved British Culture” In this documentary the TV presenters could not make up their minds to name who brought Christianity to Britain, they say was in 597 AD? Surely they must know that Tacitus wrote that Gwladus (the sister of the Briton Caradoc, the Romans called Caractacus) was accused of embracing her foreign superstition (Christianity) and was converting Romans to Christianity at about 50 AD, which clearly predates any candidate of 597 AD. 28-09-09: “The Seven Ages of Britain” In this documentary, in the First Age, the TV presenter speculates upon the progression of the Ancient Britons from about 10,000 BC, but fails to identify from apparent archaeology and from the burial time of the Red Man of Paviland, to highlight the Britons’ superiority in astronomy and founding of the basics of mathematics, thousand of years before Pythagoras. The presenter also fails to mention British construction techniques and following technologies and sciences, particularly in large-scale mining and metallurgy etc on the Great Orme; from which times the British pedigree evolved and exists today. The presenter did mention the unique houses of Skara Bray. I elaborate: are the forerunners to you modern semi with drainage systems, draft-proof air conditioning, built in beds and wardrobes etc, with an on-suite indoor toilet, built before any "stone" Pyramids in Egypt. The TV presenter then cited a Roman pay-as-you-go taxed toilet AD, to say it was a marvellous innovation, but of course it would be, for any Tax Lords. But surely the indoor toilets on Skara Bray BC that were tax-free were a better innovation for the British? The presenter’s comments that the flint pits at Grimes Graves were excavated for the white lime tips above, because ‘they were an awesome site in the landscape’, is another bizarre comment? Surely the flint was mined for the flint, and the limestone was used in kiln construction and the burnt lime by-product for fertilizing the land, whitewashing their daubed houses and not to forget, for spiking up their hair styles and; in fact these bell-pits progressed into the coal mining bell-pits of recent years, to extract coal, evidenced in most coal mining areas of Britain. In the Second Age the TV presenter mentions that the British were feasting well and had built fine residences of the day, was correct; but then suggested they were in an arms race. Evidently, the British metalworking was an enormous inventive secret technology that progressed from making implements for working the land, so where does the TV presenter get this "arms race" theory from, because it is evidenced that the Romans entered into Britain to gain this technology for weapons, so apparently weapons were a by-product? The presenter then said that Lindow man was a ritual 3 killing whereby the garrotte finished him off, and then his throat was cut to gush out blood, and was laid in a bog. Surely if the garrotte finished him then his heart had stopped, so how could the blood gush afterwards? Understandably, and logically, the bog was a lake in those far off days. In the Third Age the TV presenter says that the Romans in 55 and 54 BC entered into Britain on scouting expeditions, with at least 4,000 legionaries (is that correct?); quite a large expensive force to bring across the channel for scouting party’s one would assume. The fact is that on these two occasions the Romans were beaten and sent packing, by the British. The TV presenter then said that the British were trading slaves and hunting dogs; but again there is no proof of trading slaves. Slave chains were evidenced, but with no proof they were British chains. Surely the chains were Roman slave chains, because it was they who invaded Britain (and evidently other lands) by this very fact, for supplying Rome with slaves to use and rape, and kill for their entertainments in the Colosseum. The presenter celebrates the Roman achievement and the demise of the southern British clans with glee, but fails to mention the achievements of any British Kings or Chieftains such as Caswallon, Caradoc or Emrys, why? The presenter then mentions Boudicca, to say, only because Tacitus did. The fact is that when Boudicca’s husband died, he had made a will to leave half of his British kingdom to Rome, to try to protect his family, another instance of “comply or die” for the British people. The Romans honoured his will by taking all of his land and raping and defiling Boudicca and her children in an open despicable animal like display. In fact, as Tacitus wrote, the Chieftain King Caradoc had “predicted” this in 43 AD, “that if the British did not repel the Romans as their ancestors had in 55 and 54 BC then they would enter into eternal slavery”, isn’t that correct? Tacitus also confirmed on the lines, that the British think they have been brought into civilization when in fact it is a condition of their slavery; is quite a clear instruction of events by Tacitus, don't you think? In the Fourth Age, the TV presenter infers that Britannia is exclusively a Roman name; when actually Britan and Britanishan are the ancient British names. The TV presenter then inferred, that a chronicle that was written 450 years after the fact of about 1,600 years ago, cited that 50% of the British of the southeastern side of Britain were replaced; can that be believed? We know the Saxons suppressed the British of the eastern side of the country, but surely they would not have killed 50% of their golden-slave-goose would they? Just as the Vikings knew what a values existed, to want to invade in 793 AD to exploit it. The TV presenter then stated that the Saxons taught the British to read and write English; have these presenters forgotten that the British were speaking their own tongue BC, and learnt (and wrote) Latin and other languages in order for Europe to trade with Britain, before Britain was invaded and made downtrodden slaves by Rome. The TV presenter then stated that the eastern side of Britain are Hybrid, cannot be correct because even this presenter stated that the British people were called “pathetic little Brits” (slaves and commoners) of whom any invaders did not mix with. It was then said that out of this became a stable England and the “Julius work calendar”; but I guess the British knew this as the “Julian slave calendar”. In the Fifth Age the TV presenter explains that the British of the eastern side of Britain are still slaves to foreign invaders, to mention the “Doomsday Book”. I guess the "British" knew as the “Doomsday slave book”. The presenter then said that the landlords carved up the land in order for the peasants to work to supply the manor houses with food and good fuel, while the peasants eat the leftovers. It was further stated that the British were called the "un-free", who slapped horse-dung mixed with straw onto the inside walls of their homes, to dry, to then use as fuel; what a delightful existence the British had under these foreign invaders. In the Sixth Age the presenter said that government brought in the Pole Tax of 1380. It seems nothing has changed from the Roman occupation, for the British are still under these rules. The TV presenter then said that a commoner named William Aston married an aristocrat named Poston; but Aston failed to doff his hat to a Norman aristocrat, who then called him a churl (a peasant). Aston then sought through a friend who was a member of an "exclusive" aristocrat club (a house of lords perhaps) a Royal declaration to say that Aston descended from Norman aristocracy (was a lie). This proves that the aristocracy does not mix with who they perceive to be “pathetic little Brit slave commoners”, do they? In the Seventh Age, the presenter cites Roman Catholic which became the new Roman Empire; and Protestant the Monarchy (I therefore guess the British religion is “The Church of God” is within you, from BC). The presenter then said that Protestant was a break from Rome, and to the English Nation. I must ask here, does any presenter realise a British Nation? Does the TV presenter differentiate the British from the English, and what she is actually portraying is from her perspective of an invaders point of view and not a British point of view? Aren’t all British, British? 03-10-09 History: “The Roman Invasion of Britain” In this documentary, the TV presenter says that the British defeated the Romans in the first century BC. The presenter then said that in 43 AD the Romans gathered at least 800 war ships on the shores of France to invade Britain; but were deliberating about crossing because the Roman legionaries were in two minds to cross for they were afraid of what awaited them. It was then said that Caractacus (British name Caradoc) was in Britain, spoiling for war, but heard that the Romans were afraid to cross the British Channel; and so Caradoc and his warriors thought oh bother, and went home, (What a load of tosh). But how can this TV presenter know this? It was then stated that the Romans plucked up their courage and crossed (but the presenter could not identify the landing place) and then took Colchester (a place the presenter earlier described in this documentary as a "small" fortified village in these times). She then said the Romans celebrated this as a great triumph for Rome (seems an odd great triumph for taking a small fortified village). The presenter then rightly identified the Silures who fearlessly defended Britain at all times, destroying legions; but she identified some tribes (as she put it) became client kingdoms of the Romans; she seems to be confused. The TV presenter then inferred that the British were illiterate primitive savages, ragbag tribes who were continually warring amongst themselves. She then misinterprets to malign Caradoc’s Speech in Rome, to say it was Tacitus’ words. Another TV presenter likened the British to Vietnamese. Let’s analyze the latter:- It is well documented that the British actually defeated the Romans on at least two occasions BC; of which Tacitus referenced that Caradoc recited this in his battle speech to his warriors before their campaign against the Roman invasion in 43 AD, so the British were not all that pathetic were they? Why would the Romans marshal such a large force of at least 800 warships, to ferry at least 40,000 legionaries and more mercenaries, to deal with a small fortification of a ragbag of pathetic little Brits? Why did Claudius have to send for more reinforcement to place under the command of at least three Roman Generals on British soil, to attack (as the presenter put it) a small, fortified village called Colchester, a bit contradictory that, isn’t it? How would Caradoc know what the Romans were thinking, across the expanse of the British Channel? (I say British Channel because there was no England, Wales, Scotland, or Ireland etc at this time and so apparently there was no English Channel) How can this TV presenter say that the British were illiterate when there is an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary, particularly the references of, Strabo, Caesar and Tacitus? Why does another presenter liken the British to the Vietnamese, Al-Qaeda, and infer that the Americans are likened to the Romans? The TV presenter forgets there was a traitor called Verica of the Atrebates who let the Romans in; and it were the other Clans of Britain who attacked the Atrebates for their treacherous collusion with Rome and; the evidence shows that the true British Clans joined, to remove the Romans. In the second article, the TV presenter trumped up (again) that Boudicca’s husband had agreed to respect Roman Rule, how does she know that? Surely it was always the Roman instance of “comply or die”. It was then stated that Boudicca’s husband left half of his British land and possessions to the Emperor of Rome, to protect his family. I would mention here though, the Romans respected the latter by taking all of his land and raping is wife and children in a well know Roman (Nazi type) open mob spectacle. This started another British uprising as we know. The TV presenter then suggested that Boudicca had only fought Roman old age pensioners. Is the presenter biased? It was then stated that the Romans built Colchester; but the “fact” is, the Romans took over any British sites to build upon them; and also built over British paths and drover roads. The presenter then inferred that 50% of the British became romanized? Does she mean 50% of the southeastern Britons? Does she mean 50% of what she suggests was the peasant’s of the southeast, of which she says the Romans called “pathetic little Brits” were romanized? Seems misleading of this TV presenter to suggest that 50% of the whole British nation was replaced, don't you think? The TV presenter then mentioned Minerva in connection with amalgamating Roman and British religion 50% 50%. Well we know that the Roman Constantine took the British faith to be superior to his own, to amalgamate, but we know that was a ploy to stop the Christian uprising which was a real threat to Rome. So surely if what this presenter states as matter of fact is true, then clearly these were Roman ploys to try to brainwash the British of the southeastern part of Britain, because the Romans had no real control over the rest of Britain. It was then mentioned by this TV presenter that the Silures were formidable foes (is the presenter speaking on behalf of the Romans). The Silures defeated the Romans on many occasions and had destroyed legions; but again the presenter did not mention the Mighty British King Caradoc who was allied to the Siluri. A single stone was then mentioned which was found near Careleon (which was a British Silurian fort before the Romans took it over) with a Siluri name on it, to suggest as a matter of fact the Siluri bowed down to Rome and became Romanized The latter cannot be true because the Silurians fell back into the depths of what is now known as Wales, Anglesey, Ireland and Scotland, of which these British clans people and their descendants are the best candidates for smashing the Roman garrison at Deva (Chester) at least twice; of which their descendants routed the Romans from Britain in 410 AD. The “British” people we now call the Celtic Britons, most all joined as one Nation at this time. Not as suggested were separates as Irish, Welsh and Scottish etc. As a matter of fact there was no English either, because this was a brainwashing idea of a Saxon Monk called Bede hundreds of years later. Why do TV presenters distort history as a matter of fact, to try to glorify the Romans (Saxons and Normans) in favour of giving some credence to the British? The presenter then suggests that the British became romanised and took up great British residences, is again not true because the British logically once owned such residences. The presenter is confused to identify with Roman Lords placed into British residences and who she frequently describes as pathetic little Brit slaves; who in fact are the majority of the real British people. Another TV presenter suggested that the Roman atrocities of the British after the Boudicca rebellion were a one off. It was stated on the lines, that by enlarge the Romans were good people. Does the presenter forget all the atrocities in and below the Coliseum? Does he forget the genocidal destruction of the Dacians; and the European Celts at Alicia? Does he forget Dougga in North Africa whereby the Roman Emperor Scipio in 146 BC destroyed Carthage by fire and the sword, killing most of the men women and children, and assimilated the remainder into being unidentifiable slaves, used for every immoral Roman depravity, absorbing these people into diluted obscurity? These TV presenters only remember what they want to portray and will distort the rest for their own reporting to what can only be to support their own positions in their TAX funded existence. I note here, the Romans could not plagiarize anything of the British for there was no knowledge written down, and I say this is the very good reason why the British did not commit their vast amount of knowledge to parchment. Nor could the Romans assimilate, absorb, or dilute all of the British into the obscurity of becoming another Romanized slave nation, nor should this Roman ploy ever be attempted now. In the last showing of this documentary the TV presenter states that the Roman invasion did achieve its aim by separating the North from England in the South? What “England”, there was no “England”! Can anyone imagine the Romans building a wall separating the western side of Britain what is now called “Wales”, a bit longer than Adrian’s wall don’t you think? The Normans tried a Dyke. Or was it the Welsh who built the Dyke to keep the Tax-Lords out of Wales. This TV presenter then said that 10% of the Roman Empire was in Britain to control what was only 4% of the Roman Empire (bit of an overkill force for pathetic little Brits don’t you think), does that seem appropriate to compare with what the TV presenter describes as 50% of Britons being Romanized, either her calculations are wrong or the presenter is misinformed. Or is it a matter of fact that the British were not cowering down to Roman rule, because even the Roman Caesar had written "the Britons had no fear of death and would not willingly yield to any foe". The presenter also mentioned that 5,000 legionaries were placed to fight the Siluri; which is contradictory of her comments of fact that the Silurians were complying with Roman rule and had become Romanized; and from the TV presenters own evidence of alleged fact, it becomes farce and is false witness! The TV presenter then attributed the Pumpsaint Dolaucothi mines in what was one of the densest forested areas (of Wales) to Roman prospecting and “open cast mining” expertise, again cannot be correct. Firstly how did the Romans know where to go prospecting in a mountainous maze of an expanse of what is now known as mid Wales? Secondly the mines are firstly deep shaft mines and the British open cast mining progressively followed; and thirdly they are of early British mining expertise, likewise the mines on what is now called the Great Orme, up to and from at least 3,500 BC. The presenter then said as fact that the mines were run by European miners, using British slaves, suggesting that the British were not experienced in mining? It must be asked - why do these programs mostly denigrate the British people in order to glorify any invaders on any level they can distort? The presenter then mentions the lead curse tablet of the “native” British (are there any other type). Romans are "named on lead folded of the cursed within and sealed with a copper pin" etc; whereas the British were cursing the Romans. I do not think the latter supports the TV presenter's perception of fact, that the British were being romanized, for this is again contradictory. The presenter then mentions (with the Roman name) Ambrosius, who we know is the British King Emrys, who defeated the Saxons at Bath, and he is also linked with a King called Arthur; well we must thank her for this British mention at least. This TV presenter then suggested that some Britons were still fighting any invaders, is again contradictory. Does she realise that British descendants are still here? Why is there so much disingenuous misrepresentation of the British; when in fact the Romans were no better than the Nazis, for the Romans actually tried to enslaved all the British and take over the British Isles for the mineral wealth and to keep the British alive (like animals) to exist and breed more slaves to supply the Romans for their every immoral act, to do with as they wished. Should these TV presenters apologies for making their slanderous’ remarks about the British in their own lands, to liken the British to Al-Qaeda and Taliban; when the latter paragraph is the true description of the Romans who were the indisputable despicable “terrorist” invaders of Britain. 14-08-11 History: “Britain BC” In this documentary, I congratulate Francis Pryor for his well-presented knowledgeable unbiased report of the sophisticated Ancient Britons, as apposed to the dirty grubby history of the Romans. Although, I thought he should have mentioned Boxgrove or the Red Man of Paviland as a starting point for the identification of the British Nation. I also think there is another explanation than Mr Pryor’s for Lindow Man, as herein. There is also another explanation for his Seahenge theory, for simply a tree could have tumbled off a bank and into a ditch whereby the sand blew in to cover it; and hundreds of years later the sand blew away to reveal an upturned tree stump; whereby Britons could have used this as a central pole to erect a roundhouse or make a beach windbreak. Why do most academics trump up incessant death and misery theories of every aspect of British life, when of course we do agree that the British had no fear of death, and we could reasonably place a few good words to describe the British, rather than being labelled as religious fanatics, such as following:- How about the status’: Honourable, Chieftain, Brave-heart, Warrior, Esteem, Champion, Winner, Defender, and these are the very same principals the British, particularly our British Soldiers have today, and likewise Francis Pryor suggested, we should raise a glass to thank them one and all. “Britain’s real Monarch” In this documentary the TV presenter exposed a farcical British monarchy, whereby a chap called Michael Hastings now living in Australia, by divine right of succession, is the rightful King of Britain. It was suggested that the current Royal family line are murderers and thieves who concealed the rights of Mr Hastings. I wonder if the presenter informed Mr Hastings that by his new found knowledge, he may only have 3 years by the "governments" Limitation Act in order to pursue his claim; however it seemed that Mr Hastings thought the monarchy was a sham and were pretenders who can never be true British Kings, Queens or Princes, by the fact they are not "British". "Seven Ages of Britain 2nd showing" The TV presenter describes a statue (as seen at the website – Aphrodsias -) of the naked Roman Claudius about to deliver a deathblow to a half naked young women, the presenter names Britannia (of which I say depicts Boudicca or one of her young daughters being raped in an open public spectacle by the Romans). The presenter then goes on to glorify this statue to demonstrate the defeat of Britain. Well I must say that the British actually defeated the Romans on at least two occasions and Britain was not defeated entirely, and I cannot see what bravado there is in Claudius raping and killing a defenseless young lady half his size, can you? Nor should these TV presenters glorify the vile homosexual and child molesting acts of Tiberius Caesar, or the child murders and possibly child abuse at a Roman bathhouse in Ashkelon. Or the atrocities carried out in and below the Colosseum in the name of sport. Under the Geneva Convention these Romans would have been tried for their appalling crimes. Claudius and his historians apparently labelled the British as ignorant heathen barbarian savages, clearly was to hide the evidences' of Roman depravity, which deception by Claudius has lasted for nigh on 2,000 years. 30-05-10 : "Dark-Matter" (and below at date 06-10-11 BBC4) In this documentary it references dark-matter, although there is no evidence of it; but I must ask: are we held in a "superior force" of the actual-matter we are in, by which all galaxies and all the universes’ are held? I will try to explain this as: if a being could only live near the middle bottom of the ocean, it could not establish or identify that the water was held in place by the force of the earth’s basin-sides and gravity and that there was anything beyond it. Likewise, our planet could be held in place by the gravity of a "greater orbital density", and when our universe has expanded from the big-bang, or my collision, or vortex theory (of which example you can see is the Jupiter-great-red-spot) to be an equal (perhaps lesser) force, and then it could merge back into the greater orbital density. The latter would explain why it is thought that universes collide to form a super-universe. Or in another analogy such as water eddies can collide to form larger eddies that will allow debris to be pulled into a whirlpool to be later dispersed into the greater-expanse. This can then explain why black holes are wormholes that can pull planets in, to be dispersed into the greater orbital density and to another position. Did the Mayan experience such an event in the past, of which they predicted would happen again in 2012 regarding the black hole in the middle of our Milky Way? "Wales and the History of the World" In this documentary the TV presenter is misinformed (or this may be what his colleague references as brainwashed pathetic little Brits). Clearly, the British are of the multitudes the indigenous people in the British Isles and abroad, and I am offended by what seems to be a racist remark in this TV program, to be called multicultural. Of course we have welcomed foreigners and many fine decent people have actually joined our British Nation (not the other way round). But it must be realised that we are mostly of existing British lineage which evolved from many thousands of years BC; evidently with our red dragon image and passant. Our huge British Nation has not been absorbed into any multicultural faction at all (of which is an old Roman ploy to suggest, and it is evident that the British actually avoided that part of the Roman scheme) for the British Nation exists. "Finding the Hoard" In this documentary there are evidences of 1,600 pieces of "Saxon” treasure found in Britain. Does this program suggest it is all Saxon, or is simply from the Saxon period? Clearly it is Celtic British designs and workmanship, and why would Saxons be dismantling their weapons to bury the precious metal in this area alone? Did the British relieve the Saxons of what were once British artefacts, to make use of the blades and bury the precious metal for later use? I must also evidence here: From British mines up to and after 3,500 BC are wherefrom British technologies craftsmanship and designs were being produced. The British taught and remembered in verse suchlike my example for Bronze:- "From the earth’s life veins mix copper and one tenth tin, out of the furnace flows blood metal to a stone cast sword within; unto the lady of the lake to be tempered in brine, then honed on blue pennant and polished by time". As evidenced, the British advanced and evolved up to and after 3,500 BC to have progressed to astronomy, mathematics, and in mining for metals such as gold, silver, lead, copper, tin, etc, and to the sciences to exact the combination of metals to produce bronze and so on. The British also founded and developed in some of their own specific sciences of inventing the furnace, to metallurgy and smelting and moulding, and all this did not happen overnight, did it? 17-04-11 Nat Geo: "Stonehenge Atlantis" This documentary is of the Mesolithic period, of finds of refined artefacts' found on the seabed around the British Isles recently. These areas are dated from around and after 30,000 BC were flooded by glacial ice melt along with glacial rebound, which lowered the southern land to be submerged. The TV presenter stated that the archaeological world would have to take a U-turn on their thinking, that these middle stone-age peoples were ignorant hunter-gatherers. I note here that very intelligent British people were at this frontline point and settled on the land at and across the ice-shelf, particularly at the catchment area of the Gulf Stream running into the west coast of Britain and up against the ice-shelf, bringing in superb fishing etc. In this area and particularly on the Gower Peninsula there is ritual burial evidence of the Red-Man of Paviland, provisionally dated at about 30-24000 BC, which evidences that it is these people who pioneered along this latitude. It seems that my findings and format are now being utilised by certain archaeologists, which is the old Roman filch Ploy. Time Team: "Britain's Drowned World" In this documentary (regarding the latter) it now seems that the “Time Team” also takes up this story:- Clearly the human bone finds by the Dutch, in what they call "Doggerland" are evidenced to be that of the short thick-set Neanderthal, which supports my theory's that the British from Boxgrove-man who was at least six foot tall, dated at about 500,000 BC; and up to the Red Man of Paviland who also had modern human features, dated at about 30 - 24,000 BC resided in front of Neanderthal; which is further corroborated with human bones found on Caldy Island West Wales, also dated at about 30,000 BC, who are our true ancestors. I also note that the British had progressed from the flint knives, and arrowheads, which were found in great quantities near the Paviland Caves, to use the discarded microlith chips for small hand knife-like blades, by using up these smaller chips from the actually making the arrowheads. These hand-knives were better suited for carving up the meat, or for harpoon design; and logically because these microliths were readily available it was a much easier innovation for novices to utilise these than make a full blown knife or arrowhead point from one piece of flint; which undoubtedly many fractured or snapped. So it was wrong for the TV presenter to insinuate that the British were poor innovators to make microliths into blades, to further note that they were not found in Europe, to try to suggest that the Europeans were somehow superior to the British, is apparently incorrect. I must also remind the TV presenter that the British progressed into astronomy, mathematics, mining, smelting and stone and lost-wax forging of combinations of metals, progressing from 30,000 BC and up to 3,500 BC and thereafter. Here again in these TV programs you can see the use of the format of my book, for I theorised all of the latter pre these programs. 19-07-10: “Great British History” In this documentary about “King Arthur’s Round Table Revealed”, clearly the table was not revealed, and what has the amphitheatre at Chester they trump up got to do with any round table; so why this continual disingenuous speculation? I must ask here, are we British taxpayers paying some academics to brainwash the British, which academics clearly despise and racially call the British ethnic, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, barbarian ignorant terrorist savages? Apparently from the evidence it can be extrapolated that the Roman fort of Deva in Chester, (was once a British site) which was raised to the earth at least twice by the only candidates to do so were the “United British” up to 410 AD. Likewise the British obliterated Calleva Atrebatum in the south, possibly in a cleansing of the earth ritual in both instances, to destroy any Roman remnants from British soil. Including the burying of the Roman “slaughter” tether stone the TV presenter cited. Evidently, anywhere the Romans cowardly killed and crucified the British, the British erected shrines in those places in honour and remembrance of the brave Britons who died for Britain. I see these academics cannot refute the many graves of the invading Romans and Saxons that were wiped out by the British, who were actually allowed honorably burials by the British. It was not so for the many British who died at the hands of Romans or Saxons though. As historical evidences predict, the possible best defense areas of the British at this time were in their areas in and around the Silurian, Dumnonii, Brigantes and Cauci regions, which are in the areas of Britain of which the Saxons named Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland, using all the “original” British drover roads and systems. Possibly, a British King called Arthur was from the Silurian area, within a mostly United Britain in his time. Apparently the Romans could not keep the British at bay in certain regions up to 410 AD, and then I am sure that no defecting Roman rabble or Saxons could have after 410 AD, as TV presenters suggests. The TV presenter insinuates that the Celtic Dragon was a Saxon or Parthian icon, but the evidence is paramount that the Celtic Draig Goch extends from the many named islands and the sleeping dragon image of the Preseli hills outcrop of many years BC, and was also a feature of the British hornpipe (and Viking connections). 24-08-11: “Treasure of the Anglo Saxons” In this following documentary, It seems the TV presenter fails to realise that the British existed through any period, and that the main reason the Romans and subsequent factions invaded Britain was to try take over the British technology’s, mining, metallurgy, agriculture and wealth etc, and most importantly to create their “golden goose” slave nation in the southeast of Britain. The Romans knew the British did not write anything down, and so wrote anything of British historical value as Roman innovation, as the Romans had evidently done at Carthage. Logically, the Saxons (and Normans) invaded Britain to inherit a Roman setup of an in-house slave nation to bend to their every immoral need and to use the British to make weapons and finely crafted metalwork and art etc. This TV presenter then referenced a field at Stafford, but this reference actually evidences that the Saxons must have been defeated by the British, and the (British) steel of the these weapons etc was thereafter used again for British swords and they buckled the gold and silver to bury for later British use. So in reality the metalwork the presenter talks about was in fact British metalwork with Saxon designs incorporating the far superior British Celtic designs within. Understandably, designs and art progressed and work was copied and improved, so to say that any Saxon work was far superior to British work is a misconception, particularly when it was the British slave craftsmen that were producing it. If you own a dog you do not bark yourself, just as detestable people that controlled a slave nation would use the enslaved to produce their metalwork and for their "every" immoral need. The presenter then said that St Augustine (the so called missionary of 597) viewed Angle slaves in the Roman slave market, to comment they were Angels not Angles. However at this time they would have been British slaves in a despicable Angle (Saxon) slave market, which Augustine must have condoned. Augustine did not ask that these British children be freed, did he? It is no wonder that the Saxons Vikings and the Normans invaded after the Romans, wanting a piece of this golden goose slave setup for themselves. And you would not kill all of your golden geese, would you? 25-08-11: “The God Delusions” In this documentary, firstly I do agree with the TV presenter who stated that science is the best evidence of evolution (is of nature). Just as the British of BC realised that the natural courses of life are of nature. To respect the Sun as the Father the Moon as the Seed and Mother Earth, is an analogy of 'Man with Woman and Child as Family' is apparent throughout nature. Yet the presenter actually refutes evolution by saying that our life on this earth is all there is, but surely he must agree that there is a soul, or should I say an intelligence that is separate from the flesh that can evolve into a higher power or condition. The TV presenter then suggested that homosexuality is an accepted practice. But I must say that I have highlighted the Roman (Nazi) 'unnatural homosexuality and paedophilia' of which apparently British morality did not accept. The presenter suggested that these unnatural practices are now rife in the Catholic Church (is the Papal regime of which Constantine had apparently high-jacked Christianity for “Roman Catholic” use) which is not so different from most factions the presenter cited which also preach hell and damnation in order to brainwash (meme) control to live off the masses. 26-08-11: “Digging for Britain” In this documentary this TV presenter at last cites that people resided in the British Isles in front of Neanderthal at about 800,000 BC, but wrongly added that we are not descended from them because they would have been wiped out by the ice age. How can this TV presenter be so categorically sure of her comment when apparently the indigenous North American Indians retreat to a temperate climate, from their ancestral homes, when it got "progressively" colder at certain times “over many thousands of years”. More than possibly the indigenous British did the same. The TV presenter then cited what she described as the oldest rock art in Britain at Creswell Crags, of a deer and a bird dated at about 12,000 BC; but the presenter again failed to cite the Paviland caves on the Gower Peninsula in South-West Wales. The latter warm Gulf Stream location is possibly where the British also retreated to in a more temperate clime; where the skeleton of the “Red Man”, with tangible items of flints arrowheads and sculptured artefacts' of drilled periwinkle and fox incisors adornments and mammoth teeth are evidenced that he resided here, dated up to and after 30,000 BC. The presenter said the Creswell Crags people were hunter gatherers, but this presenter failed to recognise that the British Isles was partly covered by the ice shelf at this time, with the Gulf Stream running into a catchment area of land and ice-shelf near and above the Paviland caves area where they has settled to reside. Understandably at these times, the hunting and fishing would have been very good indeed, which allowed the pioneering British people to have settled here, for they could not go any further north, but from this ideal settlement area could work behind and across the ices shelf west and east. The TV presenter rightly evidenced there were people on the Orkneys making pottery, growing barley and herding sheep and cattle at about 4,000 BC, but failed to grasp the fact that it would have taken about 26,000 years for the ice shelf to have retreated from the area of Paviland, to the Orkneys. The presenter identified mundane beaker pottery was made throughout Britain at about 2,500 BC and said the British people were very mobile. Surely children could have made mundane pottery, and logically these people were mobile, so why state the obvious? The term Beaker People (of the mundane pottery) is another academic misconception to suggest that the British are German; and I must say that the names Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are Saxon names, for the British name for the British Isles was Britan or Britanishan with many British Clan regional names. The presenter cited British finds at Sercombe in South Devon which yielding tin-ingots, iron-ore and refined gold work, possibly for export dated at 2,300 BC; so why do they contradict themselves later, to infer that anything good is Roman or Saxon? In Forteviot Scotland a burial was described as a Celtic Chieftain, which turned up a magnificent crafted dagger, a dog skeleton, with the tender act of placing flowers, for the presenter to say a complex society developed. But the presenter failed to relate all this to the British technology’s and sciences and of the industrial mining and smelting on the Great Orme from at least 3,500 BC. "British Made" artefacts are not Roman Saxon or Norman are they? The evidence is that the British were first to domesticate and train the dog; and the 4 headed dog ring the TV presenter exampled in these finds from 3,500 BC 'which represents protection from all quarters' can only be of British workmanship; as evidenced above was made by the British. 17-10-11 Discovery: “The Incredible Human Journey” In this documentary, again the evidences are misread, for clearly the British finds dated at 980,000 BC, and Boxgrove man from at least 500,000 BC, and the cave burial and associated finds of the Red Man of Paviland on the Gower Peninsular dated to at least 30,000 BC, is evidences of a specific front line British Nation. This Nation would have exclusively settled in a fruitful landfall to ice-shelf Gulf Stream catchment area, in the farthest habitation northwest. Going further north was not possible up against a 100-meter thick ice-mass that was not accessible by any person or animal. One “academic” said that the Chinese were a specific species. Perhaps correct, because DNA evidence only proves that people mixed, and by the passage of at least 980,000 years of mixing DNA I do not think you can prove a person is from an original specific species out of Africa; as the “TV presenter” said you could. The latter is evidenced by perhaps British whites (not out of Africa) pioneering east to mix with darker skinned people along this latitude, as the presenter suggested these brown colour people possibly pioneered north; and perhaps travelled the coast around Alaska to colonize down the west coast of America, in a more recent temperate climate. The relevance the TV presenter misses is that British people evolved or were first in the British Isles areas, who are the only candidates to have pioneered west; and also east on this latitude from at least 20,000 BC. Black people it seems remained behind in Africa and possibly pioneered east by a different lower latitude route. However the TV presenter suggests that it was only black people that came out of Africa, she said had turned white because of a vitamin "D" deficiency, and had arrived in the British Isles area, and that cannot be correct. I say the latter because rickets would have wiped out all whites and no rickets have been detected in any British skeletal finds. Or from being so weak would have been wiped out by beasts. I cannot imagine a vast Nation evolving from black people with a vitamin D deficiency or Rickets, to remain white and healthy, can you? It is possible that the British colonised the British Isles from where they originated or had migrated. I suggest the latter because Pangaea as we know had dispersed from its magma epicenter, of which academics say was Africa. If the latter is so then of course the outer regions of the Earths crust from the baron magma epicenter are where humans could have first originated and evolved, whence vertebrates first ventured from sea to land from about the Silurian period. Thereafter people could only have migrated back into Africa. When the Americas plate separated from the British Isles perhaps it was below sea and had not developed any substance for human evolution, because no human evidence have been found there yet as I know of, that is older than about 20,000 BC. It amazes me that some TV presenters and authors always present their theories as a matter of fact when clearly it is not. 02-04-11 BBC: “The History of Ancient Britain” This seems to be a copy of the format of my book. 28-09-11 BBC: : “Digging for Britain” It seemed that this TV presenter is having difficultly in her pronunciations’, perhaps this programme should be renamed “Digging for Rume” and surely she meant the British King Caradoc, not as she sounded it “Caracatarcas”. Apparently the format of my book is being followed, for evidently the layers beneath Calleva are now being excavated for these historians to recite what my book realises, that there was a cultured British society in place before Roman occupation, which is evidenced in the approximately 87 acres of “British” foundations at Calleva (and other “British” sites), which proves that the British had planned and developed sophisticated large towns and theatrical and sports arenas before any Roman sites (such as I mention in my book may be likewise at Wood and Stonehenge). So the historian Roman/aristocratic comment “the British were ignorant barbarian savages”, and “it was Rome that civilised Britain”, is barefaced aristocratic Roman propaganda. 06-10-11 BBC4: “Is everything we knew about the universe wrong” I have published on this website as dated above 30-05-10 my theory regarding “Dark Matter”. I explained that our universe along with others are in a "superior gravitational energy force" which you can call “Dark Matter”, “Dark Flow” or “Dark Energy”, by which all these universes’ are held. But I have found that arrogant establishments and some academics will take my theories and twist them and/or use them for their own. I will explain my theory again here, in another way: - Imagine our universe amongst thousands of others. Imagine them orbiting around a gigantic super planet or sun which is also amongst others. Imagine that super planet in its own universe amongst others. I named this the "greater orbital density" of which the whole mass is under the same gravitational energy force which holds it all in place. I say we are a meagre speck of dust in the bigger picture of a fractal code. To get to the front end of this will take a giant leap into an understanding of what we are all a part of? Perhaps we are simply basic atoms of a superior body? 22-10-11 Time Team Special: “Boudicca’s Lost Tribe” This was mostly about the Boudicca uprising and her British Clan the Iceni up to about 60AD. The presenters rightly identified British master craftsman engineering gold crafted objects which were technologically superior to anything in Europe or the east (logically from which the Britons had developed over thousands of year BC). Doesn’t this contradict these presenters argument that the treasure they featured in “Finding the Horde” was Anglo Saxon? The presenters then trumped up again their fanatical obsession of miserable religious theory, to say that the gold was cut through and damaged to offer it to the gods. Strange that comment when it was “specifically” buried in layers in the ground (not in a lake as they usually trump up; I say was also to hide it from Roman use). You do not have to be a genius to work out that the Britons were damaging and burying their gold so that the Romans could not find and use it. The presenters then said the Romans massacred all of the Iceni; but do you think the Romans would kill their slave golden goose? More than likely the Romans would have put these people who they identified as British Technologically Advanced Superior Craftsmen to work, don’t you think? Just like the Saxons who followed them aye! Yes the Romans probably raped and killed a few thousand more women and children, as the presenter also portrayed the scull of a 3 year old sliced through, was in order to bring the Britons into line again, because comply or die was the order of these times. Unbelievably, another presenter a French Guy said - that while Boudicca was attacking Colchester and London the Roman legions “charged” back from Anglesey, but when they arrived just outside London they could not prevent London being destroyed and so retreated. Well let analyse this academic advice: - In my reasonable estimation it would have taken a small party of Romans about 20 days or more to manoeuvre through about 300 miles over ancient drover’s roads from London to Anglesey, without being seen. It would then have taken the Roman legions about 40 days or more to have manoeuvre back to London, without being seen. Hardly a “charge” was it, which took over two months or more? Why are the private taxpayers of Britain funding these presenters to brainwash our children with this propagandist (Roman) tripe. O8-01-12 Military: “Roman Lost legion” and Discovery History “Pagans” Both articles were considering the presenters evidence as to their other name for the British is Pagan; and asking who annihilated Rome’s 9th and 20th legion; but apparently these presenters who must be brainwashed Roman sympathisers cannot comprehend that it was the “British”. Please Note: - Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Manx are Pagan-Saxon names and any Roman invasion predates Pagan-Saxon. These presenters conveniently skip over again to not mention Caradoc and the Silurian who in fact with other Britons defeated many Roman legions. These presenters will however instantly malign the British as being multicultural ignorant heathen barbarian drunks and in my opinion these comments are also racist. Then in the next instance these presenters cite magnificent British artwork on crafted bronze, gold and ironwork swords; including to cite an historian of the time saying the British had many cavalry and were well organised. These presenters cannot simply comprehend that the British would have been very able to overcome adapt and reorganise to defeat any Roman strategies over time? These presenters then bizarrely suggested that hundreds of thousands of Britons masturbated into blue-woad to spread it onto their bodies in some weird ritual before combat; and then suggested that some Britons were homosexuals? Is it a fact that the only creepy masturbators and unnatural homosexuals are those who trump up these stupid comments? They would do better to read my book of which they plagiarise in certain parts to twist for their own version of events. 01-03-12 THE COSMOS As “Dark Matter” explained above, this relates to the magnitude of our existence in time and there have been various theories regarding what holds our mass; I will simply explain following : - Imagine an elliptical swirl to represent our milky-way galaxy, of which the Planet Earth is within this galaxy. Now imagine a number of elliptical swirls representing a number of other galaxies within the same bounds of space orbiting a giant-planet or body, I will call super-galaxies; and so on I will call mega-galaxies (or super-universes) etc. The latter demonstrates that we have come from about 30,000 BC to understand that the Earth is not flat and is just a small planet in a huge galaxy; of which there are many galaxies orbiting super or mega planets. On Earth we are joined by the air we breathe as the cosmos is joined by the space it is in, as fish are joined by the oceans. As a microbe is to a person a person is to the Earth and the Earth is to the cosmos. The latter is joined by the “Greater Orbital Density” which is a force that holds the entire cosmos (is the matter); of which explains why the force is weaker from its epicentre or epicentres of each galaxy or universe, just as any orbiting satellite’s hold (gravity), is weaker at its point from the planet than that of a more near satellite. I theorise that “Our galaxy is a meagre eddy in the cosmic ocean of life” 22-02-12 BBC 1 Wales film “The “Story of Wales Clearly this is all relative to the basic principals and the format of my book Footprints in the Stone, from Boxgrove and Red Man from about 500,000 and 30,000 BC, highlighting the Paviland Caves on the Gower Peninsula South Wales and progressing to a Celtic Culture emerging from 6,000 BC and then to the Great Orme mines from 4,000 – 3,500 BC. The presenter said that what he was taught was wrong, because the technologies etc were going out from Wales not coming in; and if this presenter did not know this before and then he or his colleagues must have learnt it from my book. The presenter then mentions the Lyne Fawr Lake near Hirwaun in South Wales in the Rhigos Mountains and the first smelting and forging process’ of the Britons, and then to identify with an hill Forte of Tre Gare near the Lyne Peninsular. The presenter then mentions Silurian’s who destroyed legions who were lead by Caractacus, whose Briton name was Caradog or Caradoc; and then mentions the first speech in history which Caradoc gave at the Roman Senate. The presenter then mentions a stone tablet found in Carewent, was actually the Silures fortification before the Roman occupation. He then mentions Constantine and Christianity and Arthurian legend of which the Britons defeated the Saxons in the battle of Mount Baden, and then goes onto mentioning Llantwit Major as the first centre of learning, but that cannot be correct because the Druids had centres of learning before all this. The presenter then jumps to 700 AD to link the basics of my book. He then cites Llangorse Lake and a royal family living on a Crannog in Wales to link artefacts, found here 20 years ago, to the Mediterranean or China. If this presenter or any archaeologist could not identify and link the significance of these artefacts 20 years ago and then they must have used the basic principals of my book? The presenter then says that Wales had a sophisticated society and distinct culture with written laws with an international trading set-up before and at these times, to say it became a European Wales. But of course it can only be a British Wales. He then identifies the Princes of Wales and that Britons were trading with the Vikings, to say this was made prevalent by citing Strata Florida where most Princes of Wales were buried. But of course these places had a connection with Europe as is identified in my book. It is clear to me that these people are placing my basic principles and format of my book. The presenter then goes onto Llewellyn AP Griffiths Prince of Wales (Llewellyn the last); Henry the 3rd and to Edward the 1st and of the suppression of the Welsh once more, is in the latter part of my book. Owain Glyndwr was then mentioned including the legend of the sleeping red dragon that will again awaken and rise against the oppression of the Welsh; of which is also mentioned in the first draft of my book which was also sent to these academics. The presenter then said Glyndwr had a vision of a Senate on Welsh soil? How does the presenter know this for fact, his he psychic? A Roman Senate no less; why does the presenter leave out some of the true facts of Welsh (British) oppression by the Romans and following invaders? As above 02-04-11, this broadcast 16-04-12 BBC “A History of Ancient Briton”- 1st episode Again this is in line with the basic principals and format of my book “Footprints in the Stone” from Boxgrove and the Red Man of Paviland in South Wales from about 500,000 and 30,000 BC (however the presenter places other misleading information into this film). This presenter disingenuously and misleadingly interprets what he says, are matters of fact. He states that there was no habitation in Britain at about 12,000 BC. He then cites a Deer Scull found in Yorkshire dated at 8,000 BC, a fishing camp in Scotland at 7,000 BC and Cheddar Man dated at 7,000 BC, logically were all in habitation at this time. Then it does not take a super mathematician to work out that it must have taken about 19,000 years for the ice-shelf to have receded from the Red Man (Red Lady) on the Gower Peninsula in South Wales dated at about 30,000 BC to the Deer Scull found in Yorkshire at about 8,000 BC or the fishing camp in Scotland at 7,000 BC. Therefore logically the land of middle and lower Britain was habitable from 30 and 20,000 BC and at least 12,000 BC and thereafter, because we know that the ice-shelf did not return. He then said that only about 5,000 people existed in Britain at this time, and a Tsunami from a landslide in Norway wiped out the inhabitants of Scotland at 6,100 BC? Is this presenter sure that there were only 5,000 people in Britain from I imagine their sexually active co-habitation of over at least 500,000 years? Are all of his matters of fact just disingenuous misleading tripe, if he has no valid evidence to prove it as fact? I do not either agree with this presenters comment that these people became a different special people; I say this because I believe the Britons are an original remarkable Nation. 23-04-12 2nd episode: Here it emerges again that the format of my book is followed. However the presenter states that the British Isles was attached to Europe at 8,000 BC and that it were the Europeans’ who brought farming to the British Isles at about 4,000 BC; can this presenter’s comments he cites as fact be correct, let’s analyse this? Clearly the Britons evolved and were settled in their “British Isles” from at least 30/20,000 BC since evidences of the Red Man (Red Lady) on the Gower, where in fact flint arrowheads with bone fragments have been dated there of these times. Yet above, the presenter in his 1st programme cited a fishing camp in Scotland at 7,000 BC, but unwisely fails to realise that due to glacial rebound the channels had formed, and so with this and other dated evidences Britain was not connected to Europe after at least 10,000 BC. Further historical evidences record that the Britons mined flint at Grime’s Graves and also copper on the Great Orme "on an industrial scale", up to and after 3,000 BC; and were thereafter smelting and casting bronze, gold, silver and iron etc before any European evidences of such. The Britons actually mined an estimated 5 miles of tunnels to produce at least 1,700 tons of copper; and then of course these mines were worked from much earlier times. After 3,500 BC evidently it were the Britons who was the first Nation to produce enough copper for home and export. Obviously there is always a mixed transition period of progressing from hunting to mining to engineering and boat building for export etc alongside farming communities, in order to actually flourish, in particular alongside these British heavy-metals industries. There is also copious evidence of field systems in the British Isles up to and after 3,500 BC. The tombs he mentions could have been earlier constructions for purposes other than the fictional burial story’s these academics always trump up. The presenter then said his colleagues were wrong to label the Stonehenge Causeway as a Roman race track; and so it seems that these academics will try to name anything of British worth as Roman (or Saxon) invention, no matter what the true facts are. It must be asked why these academics continually force upon us this old Roman brainwashing propaganda ploy to try to denigrate the British Nation and dilute us into something we are not. Surely British history should mainly feature in any teaching of the British people in order to acknowledge the magnificent "British" early achievements up to and after the Roman and following slave masters. The Ancient British are sometimes called “The Lost Nation”. Is the correct description - “The Hidden Nation”? By overwhelming request again, I have been asked to have the (British) questions raised for the Politician debates at the 2011 election replaced, and as follows:- 1. I am one of the multitudes of indigenous British people in the British Isles and abroad and I am offended to be called by the racist remark “multicultural”. Of course we have welcomed foreigners and many fine decent people have joined our British Nation - not the other way round; and we are mostly of existing British lineage of which evolved from many thousands of years BC. So is it any governments’ open door policy to try to dilute the British Nation to destroy our original identity? 2. Is it governments’ belief that our British people are incapable of learning, and so will bring in foreign workers who they think can be more intelligent than the British? 3. Will any government propose that the British people should be trained in all aspects of every working skill from domestics to bricklaying and doctors etc, to maintain our own British establishments? 4. Why do governments bring in foreign workers when apparently there are not enough jobs for our British People; and apparently most foreign incomers are mainly a huge drain on our private working-classes taxes? 5. Why have governments destroyed or have exported our heavy industries, of which in turn supported our light engineering industries and every trade below it; who’s taxes fund the government and all the public sector quangos and public industries; so will any governments reinstate our rightful private working-class industries? 6. Does any government realise that our private industries create worth and the government public service sectors and all their quangos create cost; of which apparently when cost exceeds worth then bankruptcy must follow, so will any government reinstate our rightful industries and weed out all the wasteful cost of the government public sectors, quangos and unions? 7. Does any government realise that the government public service sectors and all their quangos are taxed, but this is a taxing of the private industries paid taxes two-fold and more; so should the government realise that ultimately it is the private working-class private industries of which taxes pay for everything? 8. Why is there generations of Council workers in multitudes of Council departments; who create more departments when their family’s need a cushy job. Will any government weed out these nepotism jobs and also advertise to allow British people to apply for such jobs - when they come up? 9. A Patent monopoly is limited to 20 years; so why is the BBC allowed to exceed this length of time to continually charge the public for a TV license each year, surely this is holding us to ransom and must be unlawful. Sky and Satanta is a choice we pay for - or not; so why can’t the BBC be a choice we pay for - or not? 10. Some of us work hard all our lives to set up and leave something for our children; however any government will grave-rob-tax anyone again on our hard earned assets and cash after we die – so do we:- (i) Put all our money in pile to burn it, to stop any government wasteful grubby hands getting at it to squander it for themselves, or:- (ii) Do we move it out of the country, or: (iii) Do we not even try to gain any assets or capital that will be grave-rob-taxed? Would it be better if governments allowed us to leave our hard earned assets and money to our children, so that:- (v) Our children could continue to work and accumulate from our set-up, and:- (vi) Would buy a few new cars or new homes they would also kit out; which would support industry and would create more tax income for any government in a more positive way - than any governments grave-robbing-us to just be squandered by any government; of which will also destroy any set-up by taken the working capital from it? 11. Companies-House is supposed to be a non-profit making government establishment, so why does it make about £32,000,000 a year profit which it passes to the DTI, surely this is the small company’s money which should be utilized to lessen Companies-House Fees, and to allow small enterprises to flourish to create more income-taxes? 12. Apparently the money in any British bank is put there by the hard work of the British savers; so why are the savers held ransom to low interest rates by arrogant bankers who take enormous bonus’ and payoffs as they wish. If we take our money out of these banks then that will be the end of that bank, so why should we be worried if any so called high flying bank clerk or manager resigns? If any bank manger whatever had a choice between the dole queue and a job with a fair wage, which will he take? Surely there must be a duty of care and a control on any person who is responsible for holding or managing our hard earned money? 13. Why do governments allow wrongdoers and perverts to continue in any government; we should have a right to sack them of course, but surely these people should be prosecuted in any event? 14. Why are government establishments; and particularly the NHS overrun with mindless managers who do absolutely nothing constructive at all, apparently because these systems worked fine by the hands-on matrons before? And why are the police turned into clerks to state the obvious of running any station, which takes about 80% of their time; and surely a simple charge sheet explains any charges made, if they have time to get out of the station of course? 15. It has been suggested that corruption is rife in the European Union, so why does any government contribute our hard earned cash to it, or would want us to be governed by any corrupt union or government? 16. Why does the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) who is funded by the financial and other establishments – of which their investigations mostly take over 3 years to complete which bars most people from taking their claims to the Court if the FOS sides with any establishment and by the Limitations Act? In most cases it seems the FOS (and Otelo etc) will take the side of the establishments, so does the FOS (etc) have a vested interest in the establishments who fund them? Is this a conflict of interest? 17. Would it be better for the individuals working in private industry to sign up to a fair works contract for fair wages has categorized by trade and qualification, and to have a share in any profits made over the norm profit margins, of which will give any workers more incentive to make profits, of which contract can be negotiable by a fair workers committee to bring in changes of the times. Surely this would be better than encountering the costs of unions and disrupting production by strikes? 18. Governments sold our fuel industries off; their reason for this was to regulate these industries to be more efficient in order to provide us with a better service and lower fuel charges. Can any politician say why there is now no control over these industries and why we are charged at any rate the industry wishes to place upon us. Is it time to regain our industry’s to service our people fairly? Or regulate them as they were supposed to be? 19. Since the abolishment of Capital punishment and the Law that justice should be “seen” to be done, why is it that criminals have more rights than moral people, and are allowed to terrorize our old and infirm? Why do prisoners have better living standards’ than most of our taxpaying and deprived people? Why does the Law allow paedophiles’ to attack our children and - then are privileged as aforementioned? If new technology can establish that murder has taken place then any murderer should forfeit their life. Surely criminals should not have any rights over that of any moral person in any criminal act, and that the punishment should fit the crime to be served in full. Likewise for any paedophiles’ who should be locked away from damaging our little children, forever? 20. Why have governments reduced the age of consent that allows paedophiles’ and perverts to trump up this card when caught, is it because there are paedophiles’ and perverts or the like in government (media and entertainment industry), which lobby for these Laws? 21. Why do governments turn a blind eye to the criminal acts of perverts and paedophiles' in the Catholic and any other Church? 22. Why do governments prosecute and stigmatize moral people in any event, who would correct children in order to teach them respect. Clearly, the latter Laws are not working because the children of this country are using these Laws to do what they like. 23. Why don’t governments bring in a system of National Service or the likes, in order to give youngsters respect and the opportunity of learning a trade, of which would not cost much more than just paying them dole or keeping them in prison to exist as a non functional nobody’s? 24. If foreigners come into our country, then surely they should abide by our Laws and rules - period, just as we must abide by their Laws and rules if we enter into their country? 25. Patents are too expensive for any working class people to fund and/or maintain, before they can even get to the stage of manufacture or marketing; yet Copyright is covered by English law by which most lawyers, barristers and government officials write a book or two. If you gain a Patent in the USA it will cover every USA State. If you gain a Patent in Europe you must pay to apply in every European State; so is this another instance of European greed. So why do UK governments suppress the working class inventors of this country, who will not even attempt to put their ideas and inventions into place because of the Patent expense and the cost of the obscene fees by the cartel lawyer monopoly of the UK; of which some of these inventions could be the leading edge of technology or could better our working and living standards? 26. If the monarchy and their thousands of hangers on say they are self sufficient, then why must our taxes go to support their lifestyles? If the monarchy says they are caring then why don’t they cancel our payments we must make to them, or as we have been made to do - pay more into the tax system to help our country recover? 27. Why is it that taxpayers fund our universities to produce scientists who produce medical drugs - only for large drug companies to take them over to make obscene profits; which makes it impossible for certain people to afford so is life threatening and the cause of deaths. The Hippocratic Oath recites "first do no harm", so should medical drugs be a non profit system for our people? 28. We did not have foot and mouth in our country for about 30 years before the last outbreak, so apparently it must have been brought into our islands. Domestic animals are quarantined and must have a passport of good health to leave or enter our country, so why aren't the same principals applied to farm animals or people even; for there is a vast increase in viruses and diseases in this country since the governments’ open door policy? 29. Alcohol and drugs impair individuals ability to function normally, apparently by the bans being placed on drivers who abuse the latter; so should it also be a crime to use these substance in any workplace, including the government sectors, whereby accidents and deaths can be caused and losses made in bad decisions of work practices etc; and if any crime is committed then should the laws be appropriately applied to cover any accidents, murder or manslaughter and to recover any losses caused to be made? 30. Statistics suggested that most drug, knife and gun crimes are linked to foreigners in - or coming into our country; if any foreigners are found guilty of such crimes then surely they should be deported immediately, do you agree? 31. At least half of the working people of the UK are held up in scamline 0845 telephone numbers and the likes for at least 2 hours per week to be charged at a premium to either listen to automated messages, music and advertising or just in a queue. Considering at least half the nation is held up to be charged for a service we have not agreed to, then under the Laws of England and Wales we can claim for these caused losses, do you agree? 32. I also see that the banks now withhold any maturing bond money for at least one month, in order to glean high interest while your money is making low interest, is this lawful? 33. On the 7th June 2010 David Cameron said that the Labour Government has borrowed billions of pounds from the taxpayers of this country - in what must have been an interest free loan. Cameron went on to say that the interest on government borrowing is going to be 70 billion per year of which we must all pay 10p in the pound to cover just the interest in each year. Surely if as Cameron says the government must pay 10% interest on what the government has borrowed from the taxpayers of this country and then it is we the taxpayers that should get that 10% interest, not pay it! What other place has Cameron borrowed money from to pay 70 billion interest each year? 34. If Bank managers are trustees who have a judicial duty of trust to act in the best interests of their investors/savers, but put their interests in their bonuses before any investors considerations, then is that unlawful? If it is unlawful then should they be made to pay the bonus' back (plus interest to date) and savers should acquire a reasonable interest on their saving in this time? 35. 29-09-11: Apparently, government quangos and departments side with the establishments, whereby there is no recourse available for the merits of any matters, even when a Court or barrister has found them at fault. We are actually condemned to any decision any quango or ombudsman wants to make. Evidently these bodies will also delay for at least 3 years by which time they know most people will be taken out of any further due process by the Limitation Act, of which information of such perverse consequence of such Act they withhold from you. They will also record people without asking for any express permission to do so. I believe the latter is in breach of the Human Rights Act etc, and these awful strategy’s affect every honest private taxpayer of this country, of which some establishments (like the DVLA) use to glean more money from the people (I would ask if these procedures are by government directive?). There is no unbiased government body anyone can complain too (I have proof of all the latter). And is the latter why Mr Cameron wants rid of the Human Rights Act of which helps the British People. Clearly there is protection in the Human Rights Act against unlawful migrants who blatantly come here to abuse our laws and system, to take the private taxpayers hard earned money of which we intended to help our honest people. Surely we would not be affecting any human rights if we allowed the rights of any immigrant to take their cat and family back to their homeland. 36. 29-10-11: The government now want to increase immigration, they say in order to tax these immigrants to help pay for our increasing pensioners. Can somebody buy Mr Cameron a calculator for Christmas please! I will not put in numbers here because the government does not know how many immigrants are in Britain, so read following:- There are millions of unemployed Britons and some public sector workers and their family’s to support from private sector taxes. There are hundreds and thousands of British youngsters who we must keep on benefits, and most will never ever get a job (because jobs are scarce). There are millions of immigrants who have not and will never work at all, including their extended families, we keep on benefits. There are millions of illegal immigrants and their extended family’s that abuse our system, we also keep. Does Mr Cameron really believe that by bringing in more immigrants this will help our economy? Is Mr Cameron unashamedly damaging our British people’s assets and future by bringing in more immigrants? 37. 29-10-11: The government is pondering to put the clocks back a hour, period. Scotland rightly complains because of its hours of darkness. Surely the simple compromise would be to put the clocks back half a hour, period; to save the British private sector taxpayers this hassle and cost each year? 38. 20-11-11: BBC “Your money and how they spend it”. Clearly Nick Robinson cannot comprehend how the “Private Sector” taxpayers entirely fund the government and every quango and establishment associated with it, because he cites a police inspector’s taxes as a bigger contribution to the government over other taxpayers. Let’s try to explain this for him: - Firstly there is “ONE POT” of which all “Private Sector” taxpayers pay into. The police inspector or any other public sector worker is paid out of this “ONE POT”. The “public sector” workers are then taxed on their wages and that goes back into this “ONE POT”. So ultimately it is the same “Private Sector” tax money that is in the “ONE POT”. What if “Private Sector” taxpayers went on strike until the government uses our taxes fairly and justly to pay our genuine “public sector” workers in any fair “reasonable” deal, and cut out the waste and fraud in government, whereby all our “British” people could benefit from our "Private Sector" taxes including the vitally important “Private Sector” workers who actually fund the “ONE POT”; rather than illegal defrauding incomers and EU squanderers. (But "Private Sector" Taxpayers would not jeopardize our system in any strike). Perhaps we should put in place our own Bank of which we “Private Sector” (and other) taxpayers could place our savings in order to have a fair return on our money; call it the Taxpayers Alliance Bank (TAB) perhaps? 39. 25-01-12: “Sir Richard Branson’s war on drug laws”. Have anybody explained to Mr Branson why our brave men and women are putting their lives on the line and are being killed, particularly in Afghanistan? Well Mr Branson I believe it’s to try to get rid of one drug source that is infecting our children’s lives and our whole Nation. It seems that Mr Branson cannot understand that most cannabis users are groomed from childhood, who are usually reduced to non-functioning addicts who will undoubtedly move onto harder drugs (you do not need to be a “brain” surgeon to work this out Mr Branson); of which apparently the traffickers and dealers know is their continual source of income, and certain terrorists know it will eventually destroy our Nation? Yet Sir Richard wants to give these drug lords, traffickers, dealers and terrorists a license to infect our children’s lives, to be eventually reduced to zombies who will be forever damaged or murdered by such drugs; or who may cause murder and other illegal acts. I hope Sir Richard does not promote any sort of drug use in his businesses, particularly the Northern Rock Bank he just took over, or his Virgin airlines, I would not want to have drug users handling my money or flying me anywhere; so please Mr Branson will you assure us that you do not promote any drug use or income from it. 40. 18-02-12: Logically, the money made from greedy estate agents inflating property prices; and stupid bankers providing loans upon it, to their losses; this money has not vanished in the ethos, it must be held in somebody’s account. So lets go back to face to face old school banking, its how normal “private” sector taxpaying “business people” work; it’s where the real money is made. Whereby banks could re-invest our hard earned cash into other “viable” businesses, to make us a little interest or reinvest; not rocket science is it? It could also kick start the economy again (if stupid greedy governments would relax regulations and get rid of the red tape for entrepreneurs), it is our money after all which entirely drives our economy and pays for the “public” sector and the banks to play with, (Or should I say waste and/or pay themselves grotesque unqualified bonuses at the expense of savers and shareholders).
Acquire a free PC Kindle Reader at this link amazon.com Kindle for PC |
