Dalgety Bay Report "Leaked"

  Newspaper letter sent out a few days ago. That the entirely false Dalgety Bay radiation scare is promoted by SEPA and the BBC, is scandalous. The rest of the media are not willing to allow serious reporting of the facts either:

Sir,

       Once again we see the Dalgety Bay scare story being hawked around by the most scaremongering, and least reliable, parts of the media (that would be the BBC & Guardian). 

 

       The facts are that not only is there zero evidence of any harm whatsoever.

   

      Worse SEPA (nor indeed anybody else) have even attempted to deny that the very maximum radium that could have been put on that site 65 years ago was 0.25 grams, one quarter of what is there naturally and 36 billion times less than the 9 tonnes of uranium and thorium in a normal square mile of soil)

 

      Which is why SEPA have known but kept silent that the radiation at Dalgety Bay, all perfectly natural, is over 1/3rd lower than found, equally naturally, in any Aberdeen street.

 

      Rather worse that, though SEPA have publicly claimed to have found "the daughter elements of radium" as part of their collection of rocks there is only 1 such element, Radon gas, which, being an unreactive gas, could not possibly be a rock.

 

      This scare may have provided years of gainful employment to government "environmental officers" but it has cost the taxpayer many millions of £s and by planning blight, cost homeowners in Dalgety Bay at least as much. All for a scare which any honest scientist knows to be false.

 

      If it were not the Ruhr, over which a thousand times as many, with miniscule amounts of radium containing paints, were destroyed, would have been uninhabited ever since.

 

Neil Craig

 

Ref - the theoretical maximum exposure http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/dalgety-bay-what-is-theoretical-maximum.html
a range of articles on the subject, none disputed by SEPA http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Dalgety%20Bay

20 Leftist Policies From UKIP (Certainly too radical for Labour)

1 - Not being ruled by an unelected elite in Brussels - or is Tony Benn a rightist? When Neil Kinnock took over the Labour party they were committed to leaving the EU without even a referendum. Since then his wife, himself and now his son have each been making about £200 K a year out of the EU and coincidentally Labour support staying in without even a referendum.

2 - Opposing unlimited immigration of unskilled workers which pushes down wage rates for the poorest - also a world class welfare system is obviously incompatible with allowing unlimited immigration from countries with average incomes of £350 a year. - in early 20thC America mass immigration was largely opposed by the trade unions, who feared the competition and supported by business owners who wanted cheap workers. Now Swedish trade unionists, following the race riots there largely unreported by our media, have launched a nationalist campaign, urging the government to impose restrictions on immigration in certain economic areas. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) complained that more than two thirds of work permits issued to people from non-Nordic countries were related to economic areas where there was already high domestic labour competition

3 - Popular right of referendums.

4 - Popular right to an EU referendum - rather like the Labour one in 1974.

5 - Being progressive as in actually supporting progress and not wanting to return to the middle ages - OK UKIP is not quite as enthusiastic for technological progress as Trotsky who said "technology, which takes nothing ‘on faith’, is actually able to cut down mountains and move them" & "that in the future this will be done on an immeasurably larger scale" but clearly Trotsky would be far closer to UKIP than to today's "environmentally aware Trotskyites with their faith based global warming scare.

6 - Against rich people passing a law to increase the price of only the sort of drink poor people buy.

7 - Opposed to fuel poverty - the other parties are all creating ever more expensive electricity through demanding we subsidise technologically backward windmills. Particularly in Scotland where Holyrood voted unanimously for the world's most expensive Climate Change Act. This is why every single honest MSP has publicly admitted supporting more fuel poverty - but only every single honest one.

8 - UKIP is opposed to poverty generally ending it in the only way it can be done. Ending recession and growing fast which can only be done with cheap energy.

9 - UKIP has been against all the illegal wars, hospital bombings, ethnic cleansing, genocide, sexual enslavement of children and dissection of living people the LabConDems did in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.

10 - Opposing corruption, from the EU where, for over 10 years no accountants have been willing to certify their accounts to the Forth bridge where £2 bn is going walkabout

11 - Opposed to a state enforced licence fee to pay for the BBC a corrupt and dishonest state propaganda organisation masquerading as news.

12 - "the practical purpose of politics is to keep the populace scared and eager to be led by frightening them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" - as Mencken said so UKIP aren't practical politicians but then neither can any idealists be, on left or right.

13 - Opposed to unearned subsidies for landowners with windmills.

14 - Human liberty and equality of opportunity - this is the equality the French revolutionaries supported. Equality of outcome is a quite different thing, ultimately requiring massive state bureaucracy and thus incompatible with liberty.

15 - An end to EU food tariffs which add 20% to our food bills and prevent 3rd world countries developing - the average cow in Europe gets £400 a year subsidy which is more than the average Senegalese lives on. What sort of "leftist" wants higher food prices - no before the Greens became "leftist".

16 - Proportional representation.

17 - Equality under the law irrespective of race. So called "positive discrimination" ie discrimination against white people, is still discrimination and therefore anathema to anybody of the real left.
.
18 - Politics being open to all rather than just those who did PPE (the bluffer's degree) at Oxbridge and went either straight into politics (or sometimes via government regulated media) without having to meet any of the common people, let alone working with them.

19 - UKIP are opposed to giving the anti-progress Greens a veto over any sort of human progress.  They are the most literally conservative and indeed reactionary political movement in Europe since the Roman Empire was replaced by feudalism and many Greens clearly yearn for much of feudalism, as long as they are in charge. The "new left" embracing the Greens has been an act of intellectual bankruptcy.

20 - Affordable housing by cutting political parasitism and allowing modular building. Currently housebuilders spend more on lawyers than they do on bricks. What sort of "leftist" supports that. 

Labour 31%, UKIP 15% - Labour Losing, UKIP Winning

       Other polls have similar though not quite as bad for Labour, result.
YouGov/Sun – CON 35%, LAB 36%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14%
Populus – CON 35%, LAB 36%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%
Ashcroft – CON 34%, LAB 32%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 15%
ICM/Guardian – CON 33%, LAB 31%, LDEM 13%, UKIP 15%


       One might think, looking at UKIP's 15% that should be worrying but I am very pleased with this.

       Labour's vote is falling. As the economy "recovers" (still only half world average growth despite it being fuelled by an artificial house cost boom) and equally, as we get nearer the fateful moment of an election, where being against the government really could put the other rascals in, we can only expect the Labour vote to fall.

      At 31% Labour cannot reasonably be expected to produce a majority.  Their policy seems to have been to hope for 35% and thus over 50% of seats but at 31% almost any parlay of votes leaves them in a minority.

       Because of our corrupt electoral system the Tories won't either. Indeed on the shares in the chart Labour will be the larger party - Tories 284, Labour 307, LDs 31, UKIP nil according to Electoral Calculus

      On the face of it that looks bad for UKIP. But -

    It spikes the Tories greatest, argument against us. Indeed the only one they have been using. The "if you vote UKIP you will put in Labour" one. Labour aren't going to be in. The people, including their core voters, have recognised how crap they are.

    For my lifetime  few people have voted Labour because they want Labour but because they fear getting the Tories. Equally, probably more than equally, few vote Tory because they like their policies but because the fear Labour's.

    Now the Tories don't have to fear Labour - and I am quite certain that even most Tory party activists would rather have UKIP's policies than their own party's (mass immigration, EU membership & gay marriage).

   And Labour voters are also free - to vote against a party who have nothing but contempt for their voters, and secretly promoted mass immigration to replace them.

    We are very close to a tipping point. Suppose UKIP picked up 6% from each of these parties.

    We get Tories 200, Labour 223, LibDems 12 UKIP 186 MPs

    Now this takes no account for targeting of winnable seats which UKIP is doing for the first time so almost certainly understates the UKIP and LibDim votes but you get the picture.

     Another regular factor in elections has been a swing to the LDs during the campaign because they got little TV coverage at other times, but they could not be denied coverage during actual election campaigns. This, obviously, applies in spades to UKIP.

    History also shows that Tory voters have less tribal loyalty to their party than Labour which is why elections against a Tory government have generally been more successful for the LDs than ones against Labour. Disaffected Labour just stayed home.

    And the EU elections

    So a 6% reduction for each of these parties - to UKIP seems not merely possible but quite likely.

    Lets have a bit of fun and try 7% on 36% of the vote: Conservative 127, Labour 172, LD 7, UKIP 316 MPs - 10 short of a technical majority but easily able to negotiate one with Ulster if nobody else.

   

Scotsman Letter (2 days running) - UKIP in Referendum "Debate"

    I am gratified, not to say astonished, that the Scotsman have published a letter from me today. 2 days running is unprecedented.

Sir,

      Lesley Riddoch says Perspective (12th May) that "debates are being cancelled or abandoned because Better Together won't supply speakers". If so this is disgraceful. Also unnecessary.

 

     Better Together have always refused to work together with UKIP. However UKIP has not returned the disfavour and our current leader Arthur "Misty" Thackeray was the organiser of UKIP's campaign before his elevation. I am certain that he would make every attempt to produce a speaker where a debate is wanted.

 

     I personally regard open public debate of every political issue as a necessary and perhaps sufficient condition for democracy and assume the effective BBC ban on UKIP in the referendum debate means they do to.

 

     In 2012 I had the honour, along with our then leader Mike Scott-Hayward of debating in Glasgow City Chambers for No. Despite having only a few minutes preparation (the other parties had, at the last moment, found prior engagements)  we won easily. Partly by the expedient of mentioning a prior Green assertion that "nobody should vote Yes in the expectation of any economic growth in the next 10 years" which their partners had not disputed.

 

     The opposition were left complaining how unfair it was that they had to face us when had been expecting only the usual suspects.

 

     The exclusion of UKIP from the referendum "debate" has meant that a number of the clearest arguments against have gone unmade - those relating to the EU.

 

       Losing the opt-outs Britain has would mean losing our share of the rebate (nearly £1 bn); losing the opt outs from the social chapter would cost us 170,000 jobs; signing the Shengen agreement on immigration means border posts at Gretna; new members have to promise to someday join the euro. The SNP, uniquely among nominally separatist parties worldwide, deny us even a referendum on whether we want this union.

 

    Apart from the harm the Better Together campaign and the gatekeepers of the media have done to the No campaign, the Scottish people have, so far, been denied a genuine 2 sided debate on the issue. That can still change.

 

Neil Craig

Prospective UKIP Glasgow candidate

 

Ref - The Glasgow City Chambers debate http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ukip-debate-independence-campaign-ukip.html

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

    That is as good as I could ever have wanted. Not edited - check; party affiliation - check; dig at the other parties - check; pushing my own hobbyhorse of the importance of open debate - check; significant pressure to get us elbowing our way into the debate - check; bit of humour - check; getting to modestly imply I am a capable public speaker - check; getting to call the BBC totalitarian censors - check; putting forward a range of anti-separation and anti-EU arguments that have barely been mentioned - check; getting to use the word "censorship" in print to describe the censorship endemic to our politics - check.

UKIP Meeting - Scotsman Letter

   My letter on the UKIP meeting has, rather to my surprise, been published by the Scotsman today. The bits in bold were edited out:

Sir,

       Having attended the Scottish UKIP meeting with Nigel Farage may I point out a substantial factual error in your report of the event. Rather than a "couple of dozen" of us there were around 100. Granted this was probably less than the total of protestors but one must remember that they were drawn from, by their own admission, diverse viewpoints.

 

         From hooded and masked thugs at the, back of the crowd, to those waving IRA flags, SWP promoters of totally unlimited immigration, windfarmists, and various strands of gays including one young woman holding up a poster about her genitalia and another denouncing fascism, but spelling I with an H. The only common factors seemed to be their opposition to democracy and free speech and their commitment to the SNP's "Independence in Europe" (indeed at the meeting organising this spontaneous demo a few No campaigner supporters were made ostentatiously unwelcome).

 

        It is arguable that UKIP represent the views of the average Scot and perhaps even the average Scotsman reader rather better than these assorted totalitarians do. Which is why, despite almost total censorship of debate of our actual policies by the state broadcasting corporation and most of our media we are getting 12-18% here in polling for the EU election and the assorted thugs of the Yes campaign are reduced to protesting against Scots rights to vote for who they want.

 

      It is unfortunate that your newspaper decided to falsify its report in a manner designed to support what are, at least by Mussolini's definition of the word, fascists.

 ====================================

 

      This is a case where the editing clearly reduced the impact, but I nonetheless feel this makes the point. My only regret is that I did not, at the time, know of the LibDem leader's call on Alex Salmond to "call off the dogs".

 

     One commenter disputes my remark about policies, claiming "This censorship which Mr. Craig alludes to must be why I have never seen an actual policy document from UKIP" which is open to the obvious rejoinder that we have published many policies and it must indeed be because of censorship that has not seen them discussed on the MSM.

 

     Unfortunately I my email has been censored from the Scotsman for mentioning the dissection of thousands of living people by our KLA "police" in Kosovo - something which has since been confirmed by the Council of Europe but remains non grata in our MSM. If any of those who falsely call UKIP "racist" were not deeply and murderously racist themselves they could not possibly have failed to spend several thousand times longer denouncing the LabConDem parties who promoted and have legal responsibility for these obscene racist atrocities. There are no circumstances under which we should not vigorously counterattack anybody making such claims about UKIP when they have not opposed real racist atrocities - that particularly includes the state censors of the BBC.

 

    I trust our lead candidate David Coburn will approve of this contribution since, though he has expressed discomfort with other members participating in the campaign, he drew our attention to this article himself and did not ask us not to reply. 

I Went And Saw Farage Yesterday

    Last night I was at a UKIP rally in Edinburgh.

     Misty (Arthur Thackery current chairman) confirmed that polling shows us on 12-18% which is enough for 1 MSP and within striking distance of 2. Well ahead of the Tories and far ahead of LDs and Greens. That went down well.

       Nigel encouragingly said that in parts of southeast England he expects UKIP to take more than  50%  of the vote. That the political class are terrified of us because they know they have no serious counter arguments to us.

        In Scotland the official Better Together campaign (which actively excluded UKIP)  are so Europhile that they simply will not mention that a separate Scotland would only get EU membership term far more expensive than we have as part of the UK. He also suggested that a good UKIP showing in Scotland will put pressure on the SNP to say they would allow us to have a vote on EU membership, which they are currently set against.

         He made an amusing but serious comparison between alcohol and nationalism - they make you feel better in moderate amounts but can be ugly when overdone.

         He predicted eurosceptics would do well not just in Britain but across all of northern Europe and Scotlands ruling political consensus is out of touch with the people.

         On the matter of the media accusation that UKIP is a one man band (the BBC in particular, for years, refused to have anybody else on QT and then use this line) he said that this clearly untrue but for us to win at a general election we have to be seen to have a wide ranging and competent Shadow Cabinet and that this is "one of his most important jobs".

         We are "on the verge of the most extraordinary breakthrough in British politics for 100 years.

===============================

        Unfortunately most of the media coverage has gone on a remarkably unquestioning and factually non-truthful reporting of the demonstration outside.

        Interestingly Misty told us of how he had gone to Radical Independence's public meeting organising the demo outside, without announcing himself, and heard how the organisers "led" the meeting to reject suggestions of wishy washy pseudo liberal demo handing out "foods from around the world"; or any involvement from No supporters to concentrate on chanting and being intimidating. He described this, I think correctly, as Indy-Fascism and pointed out that our First Minister and Justice Minister, among others, have always refused to even mouth any objection to their thugery.

   Certainly had anybody rioted against the SNP or any of their PC activists or Rangers fans against Celtic ones (though probably not vice versa, they would have been immediately arrested. That isn't a guess - this Christian preacher arrested purely for exercising what used to be the right of free speech, did not approach the nicest of the RI thugs in violence. It didn't even get coverage in the obedient Scots media.

     Attributed to Churchill but Huey Long got there first "The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists"

     And that the reason for their demo was not because any of them believe the multiple and conflicting things they accuse UKIP of, but because we are winning.

     As we were leaving and being followed by 2 very young girls one bearing the anti-fascist poster referred to below where Fascist was spelt with an H. He turned to the other and asked why they opposed UKIP - "Because you're anti-gay". In fact he is not merely gay but clearly so to anybody who reads body language. Our candidate is too. She went silent when informed.

     This was symptomatic of the entire pseudo-left today - not only were they demonstrating under a large variety of causes, many of them such as gay rights and the IRA, which have no connection either to each other or to UKIP, but they are overwhelmingly ignorant of the principles they are supposed to believe in and to what the word fascism actually means (and fairly ignorant of the real world too). "Left" has become a portmanteau label for those who have not thought through their beliefs and want somebody to give them some out of a box.

     I have sent this letter to the Scotsman who will doubtless censor it in their normal way:

Sir,

       Having attended the Scottish UKIP meeting with Nigel Farage may I point out a susstantial factual error in your report of the event. Rather than a "couple of dozen" of us there were around 100. Granted this was probably less than the total of protestors but one must remember that they were drawn from, by their own admission, diverse viewpoints.

 

         From hooded and masked thugs at the, back of the crowd, to those waving IRA flags, SWP promoters of totally unlimited immigration, windfarmists, and various strands of gays including one young woman holding up a poster about her genitalia and another denouncing fascism, but spelling I with an H. The only common factors seemed to be their opposition to democracy and free speech and their commitment to the SNP's "Independence in Europe" (indeed at the meeting organising this spontaneous demo a few No campaigner supporters were made ostentatiously unwelcome.

 

        It is arguable that UKIP represent the views of the average Scot and perhaps even the average Scotsman reader rather better than these assorted totalitarians do. Which is why, despite almost total censorship of debate of our actual policies by the state broadcasting corporation and most of our media we are getting 12-18% here in polling for the EU election and the assorted thugs of the Yes campaign are reduced to protesting against Scots rights to vote for who they want.

 

      It is unfortunate that your newspaper decided to falsify its report in a manner designed to support what are, at least by Mussolini's definition of the word, fascists.

 

 PS  If you decide not to publish this one either I must formally ask for your evidence that the meeting I attended was attended by only "a couple of dozen"

---------------------------------------------

 

An interesting sidenote - LibDem leader Willie Rennie, of whom I have said previously, is reported as having said Salmond should "call off the dogs" over Nigel's visit. That is a remarkable piece of phraseology (and an unusual acknowledgement of liberal free speech principles which would have been more convincing a year ago). Rennie works in Holyrood as part of our ruling "consensus" and certainly knows a lot more about the back corridors of power than I do and if he says Salmond's relationship to RI is a master to his dog I am inclined to believe him.

 

Going To See Nigel Farage In Edinburgh Tonight

   Both Herald and Scotsman report on their front pages that Nigel Farage is going to be in Edinburgh today; that "Radical Independence" demonstrators are likely to appear, as they did in their Fascist attack on him last year; and that "right wing groups" are going to defend him.

   I and a number from Glasgow branch will be there. I don't believe the papers about "right wing groups" unless right wing means anybody who believes in free speech and democratic elections.

    I have put up this comment on the Herald's article. The Herald have a long record of censoring anybody from UKIP. I doubt if they will let this stand. If they do I will report it here. If not, not. (Actually they censored it before I had completed this article)

-----------------------------------------------

"If the Radical independence thugs are shouting racist and murderous slogans they are racist. Admittedly many of RI's thugs were SWP members bussed in from Liverpool so they were false racists, tying to play to what they believed to be Scots racism, but using racism, whether falsely or not, is racist.

Note that the only people who fell for this SWP scam was Alex Salmond & the SNP, who, in publicly supporting the racists and denigrating the victims, demonstrated that he is personally unfit for any role in any democratic state and that his "independent in Europe" regime would be an uncomfortable place for anybody with an independent mind.

The Radical Independence Fascists, appropriately, remain an honoured part of the Yes campaign."

PS Just been listening to BBC Brian's Big "Debate" in which a gratuitous attack was launched on UKIP. Brian, being an honest sort, intervened to say that it was improper to attack a party which is being censored from the "debate". Just joking - of course he didn't.