Speaking totally rhetorically has it ever occured to those with ears (or any of the organs of sense) precisely how opportune has been Keir Starmer's rise to prominence within the British establishment? That Keir is commodius for the globalising NWO is surely not in doubt for only an imposter posing as the "humane alternative" could possibly persuade the mass of the population into abject survitude. Herbert warned us years ago concerning the tool of state-craft (well beloved by a certain orange Don) whereby one is presented with an alternative to obvious brutality and extremism by an apparently constrasting pretty face; "A tank-brain. Muscle-minded tank-brain. They will be bloody pulp here when he's through with them. Then, when I send in Feyd-Rautha to take the load off them, they'll cheer their rescuer. Beloved Feyd-Rautha. Benign Feyd-Rautha, the compassionate one who saves them from a beast. Feyd-Rautha, a man to follow and die for. The boy will know by that time how to oppress with impunity. I'm sure he's the one we need. He'll learn. And such a lovely body. Really a lovely boy.[8]" -Vladimir's Harkonnen's thoughts on his nephews, Frank Herbert "Dune"-:
As with the Harkonnen's perfidy, however, the posturing, swaggering alternative presented is hugely unconvincing. Starmer only has to open his mouth for one to be able to determine his true origin..
Yet the complacent British are so terrified of their own shadows (suspecting the truth concerning our over-exposure re: the Credit Crunch but being too frightened to countenance it) that they will persue their Pentagon Paper Mentality wherever it leads.
The days when the British could (at least partially) hold their heads up regarding the degree of liberalism within and the compassionate nature of their state are a very long way behind us now. We are mutton dressed as lamb (the lamb having laid itself down for sacrifice on Wall St.):
Only European island nations (Ireland only being partial in even this regard) spend less on welfare as a proportion of their GDP than we do now yet our MSM constantly platforms those who would inveigle the rest of the population into believing that it is necessary for the good of all to cut provision for the most needy and vulnerable within our society. This is where the carefully constructed image breaks down for it is clear to most that the beast of burden will not be able to gain access to the citidel, furthermore, using titled people to attempt to convince us that it will is grotesque in the extreme. Did it not occur to the U.S globalists that eventually the British might become a little tired of having to address their Prime Minister as; "Sir!"? Clearly the notion was that idiots like us will wear anything!
 |
| Sir Charlie Mayfield former head of the John Lewis Partnership led the "Keep Britain Working" Review |
Their posture smacks of desperation too as it reveals an over-reliance on the old dichotomy that (along with our membership of NATO) enables the State Dept's. pied-a-terre whereby U.S Republicans support the Loyalist cause in Ireland and the Democrats support the Irish Republicans.
Go to: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2020/07/the-two-treasons-assassinations.html
Now-a-days the simplistic polarisation of the welfare debate is engined by a nationalistic "fear-of-the other" that conflates immigration by people from countries that the NATO-ised imperialist European agenda has denaturalised with the collapse of our standard of living (including Europe's outrageously high energy prices which are in-fact another creation of our NATO-ised agenda).
We are being disenfranchised across-the-board, quote; "What is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ)?
An SEZ is a designated region ‘freed’ from the host country’s regulations, including suspension of the rule of law which is then tailored for financial gains, and extraction purposes, be that minerals, fossil fuels. Corporations are trusted to ‘self-regulate’ inside the boundaries of the SEZ, meaning they can create their own rules, this is known as Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand’ something the EU implicitly rejects as antithetical to the Single Market.
SEZs can house a Freeport, an airport, whole towns, entire cities, and rural areas under a ‘private/public governed authority.’
The UK’s 74 SEZs range from 34 to 75km in diameter.
The Liverpool SEZ including its Freeport is approximately 45km in diameter. SEZs are expansionist by nature, businesses notoriously chase 10-year corporate tax breaks, and a raft of deregulations that favour the private sector. Companies inside the boundaries of SEZs compete in an unlevel playing field without contributing anything to communities other than job displacement, modern-day slavery, environmental pollution, and badly made products.
So, think of an SEZ as a room within a room, or a state within a state.
What is a Freeport?
Traditionally, a port is publically owned and regulated, and deals mainly with transshipment, importing and exporting goods around the world. Publicly owned ports come under port governance where local control over port infrastructure prevents profiteering.
Freeports are privately owned and are all about extending tax and customs advantages to businesses. Freeports come with relaxed laws and by extension relaxed enforcement of those laws.
In terms of what Freeports can achieve, there is no evidence to confirm that Freeports encourage economic growth or provide jobs for local people. LCR freeport management have focused particularly on attracting new employers from outside the region, this is known as job displacement. Freeports in the wrong hands share similarities with organized crime syndicates. Illegal activity comes in numerous forms, weapons trading, drugs, stolen art, private banking, moving/storing of gold, money laundering, human trafficking, and the scrapping of minimum wage amd Human Rights abuses.
UK Freeports are privately owned and run by stand-alone corporations with a future scope and incentive to expand into the surrounding SEZ territory.
All UK SEZs and Freeports were set up with secondary legislation, which means pretty much zero Parliamentary and public scrutiny." Go to: https://davidpowell.nl/transparency-and-review-of-the-free-zones-and-ports-impacts/
"We are concerned about the question of value for taxpayers money AND high projected costs. WE call for a review to consider the impact of deregulation, the potential for land grabbing, split of profits between public and private sector, 10 year corporate tax breaks, potential for green washing by fossil fuel companies, plus digital AI Growth Zones
We urge the Govt to release data on all free zones operations.
My petition to the UK Government was accepted earlier this year, it has now reached 10,000 signatures, meaning that the government will respond to this petition" Go to: https://davidpowell.nl/transparency-and-review-of-the-free-zones-and-ports-impacts/
Hand in glove with all of this going the threat of hugely increased governmental oversight on our indvidual activities enabled by massive growth in and further reliance on; ubiquitous WiFi-technology, Artificial Intelligence (the only kind our parasitic adminstrators now posses) and a concomitant digital currency. I had an unexpected encounter with this iron fist myself at the beginning of the week, Quote;
"05/11/2025
Chartwell Green Surgery
Wessex Road
West End
Southampton
SO18 3RA
Dear...
I am writing to complain about the treatment of myself....
by the NHS regarding the new appointments service.
On the 3rd November 2025 I rang Chartwell to make an appt. only to find that a new online appointments system had been instituted that very day. Having first attempted to navigate the new system I immediately rang the practice and tried to explain that without the help of an advocate in such circumstances my elevated stress response makes it very difficult for me to formally address such issues and often causes me to have an MH episode which can vary on a spectrum between; increased anxiety, self-harm threat episodes, panic attacks, full self-harm episodes and other severe behavioural reactions (which is in-fact what happened). The staff merely insisted that I had to fill in the online proforma or could come into the surgery and use a laptop there. I explained that I live alone and have mobility issues (of which the surgery are aware) and that my issue of requiring advocacy would still not be addressed, however, the staff were adamant that they could not otherwise help. As a result I struggled in my attempt to use the online proforma at home and deliberately did not fully engage with some of the questions asked (in order to manage my MH issues). I have been in a very poor psychological state since and am suffering from heightened symptoms of my disorder (this complaints process itself being very challenging for me). Furthermore the proforma questioned me on my employment orientation, something I only discuss with employment advisers in the presence of an advocate, however, there was no alternative but to make some response on the form in order to secure an appointment, something that equates to duress and that I was not expecting. I do not give the NHS permission to use this data (esp. considering the bullying and deceitful way it was acquired) and maintain that both the use of such data and its acquisition constitutes a breach of my human rights and is effectively illegal. I discuss my health condition with my primary health care providers not my employment status unless I choose so to do.
As I have stated my health has suffered considerably as a result of being forced to comply with these new strictures and I am seeking redress from the NHS for both the infringement of my rights and the subsequent deterioration in the condition I was seeking medical intervention with.
I wish the practice to acknowledge my complaint, to attempt to address my subsequent deterioration and to help me in complaining further regarding this new (and entirely inappropriate) appointment system to the NHS.
I would like you to carry out a full investigation into my concerns and provide a response in accordance with the NHS Complaints Process.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours sincerely"
It so happened that I rang the surgery (having been "lost" on an over-stacked "phone-tree" whilst trying to secure an appointment the week before) on the very day the new NHS appointment system was instigated at the surgery and whilst I say such was "unexpected" I was already aware that such breaches of my human rights were being planned by our deeply compromised government (its leadership being subordinate to the strictures of an intensely sinister international -"Globalist"- agenda). The government now intends that DWP work advisers be embedded in our G.P's surgeries. I can't imagine than many surgeries are likely to welcome the intrusion and I question the notion that they can reasonably accomodate same without compromising patient care, this being especially so considering the right of many vulnerable patients to access advocacy when dealing with issues not directly related to their healthcare such as employment. The Google AI Overview (that many patients will refer to first for help and advice) is, Mr. Starmer, stunningly clear, quote;
"Safeguarding the right of mental health patients to access employment advocacy involves legal protections, dedicated advocacy services*, and specialised support programmes. Key mechanisms ensure individuals can assert their rights and receive necessary support in the workplace.
Legal Rights and Protections
The primary legal framework in the UK is the Equality Act 2010, which protects individuals with mental health problems from discrimination in employment. A mental health problem is considered a disability under the Act if it has a substantial and long-term impact on day-to-day activities.
Key employment rights include:
Protection from direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation by employers.
The right to "reasonable adjustments" in the workplace to mitigate disadvantages caused by their condition. Examples include flexible working hours, quiet work areas, or access to therapy appointments during work time.
An employer generally cannot ask health questions before making a job offer.
Access to Advocacy Services
Individuals have access to various advocacy services to help them understand and exercise their rights*:
Independent Mental Health Advocates (IMHAs): Individuals detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 have a legal right to an IMHA, who helps them understand their rights regarding treatment, detention, and complaints. While their primary role is related to detention and treatment, they ensure patients are aware of all their rights, which includes general access to support services.
Care Act Advocates: Local authorities must provide an advocate to individuals who have substantial difficulty in being involved in decisions about their social care needs and have no one else appropriate to support them*.
Community Advocates/NHS Complaints Advocates: For those who do not qualify for a statutory advocate, general community advocacy services are available to help with various issues, including raising concerns or making choices about health and care services*.
Specialised Employment Advocacy:
Able Futures delivers the Access to Work Mental Health Support Service on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), providing nine months of advice from a mental health specialist to help manage mental health at work and work with employers on adjustments.
Organisations like Rethink Mental Illness and local Mind branches offer dedicated employment support services that provide one-to-one support, skills assessments, and advice on disclosure and job retention using models like the Individual and Placement Support (IPS) model.
Safeguarding Mechanisms
Safeguards are in place to ensure these rights and services are accessible:
Legal Obligation for Provision: Local authorities and health boards have a legal obligation to ensure advocacy services are available*.
Information Provision: Public authorities and healthcare providers must take reasonable steps to ensure patients are informed of their legal rights and how to access advocacy services.
Challenging Denial of Access: If a person entitled to a statutory advocate (e.g., IMHA) is denied one, they should seek legal advice, as the absence of an advocate can invalidate an assessment or decision.
Confidentiality: Advocacy services offer a confidential space for individuals to discuss their concerns and wishes without fear of dismissal or discrimination.
These measures collectively work to ensure mental health patients are empowered to access the employment advocacy they need to maintain or seek work effectively and fairly*."
*Italics mine.
Are we seriously expected to believe that a "human rights lawyer" was unaware of the legislation regarding such?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/20/contents
So if I venture to see the practice nurse, MH nurse or G.P will I be forced to drag along an advocate on every occasion in-case my rights are otherwise breached by ambush from a DWP "adviser"? It's ludicrous. If not why not just conduct any such interrogations either at the Job Centre or by speaker-phone conference as before? Yet our government ("for evil to flourish all that is necessary is that good -people- should do nothing!") maintains that such is both possible and reasonable; "Job advisers to be embedded in GP surgeries" Go to: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/job-advisers-to-be-embedded-in-gp-surgeries-as-tens-of-thousands-more-sick-and-disabled-people-offered-help-into-work
This idiocy has come about as a result of ableist and eugenicist scapoating.
I advise all such claimants to insist on the presence of an advocate wherever and whenever they are expected to engage with any state insitutions such as the Department of Work and Pensions.
The rights of state benefit claimants are also being compromised in other sinister ways. Again I have personal experience of this, so much so that I complained to my M.P about the two-faced and deliberately stealthy way I was put under "enhanced review", quote; “I was pleased to be able to attend a telephone appointment today with......however, I was not pleased that my adviser should be the one with knowledge of my financial affairs, I would far have preferred an unknown (to me), third party (to whom I was previously also unknown), who was versed in such matters as the Data Protection Act and acting in its accordance, I believe that behaving otherwise may contravene the Data Protection Act (for instance I pay subs to UNITE Community once a year). It is for this reason/that I now request that I be allocated an adviser other than....from this point onwards. I also hope that U.C will feel able to respond to my criticisms asap.”
...... told me that they were only doing an I.D check but asked me specific details about specific purchases and withdrawals …as part of my “enhanced review” I had to present all my bank statements for the previous three months and a host of other stuff…all (so the DWP maintain) part of an I.D check.
Quote; “Your information which you provide is managed securely in accordance with GDPR and is treated with dignity and discretion. The information is only available to the staff who are conducting the review and their managers”
If these same staff are those routinely dealing with the client’s case it is clearly totally inappropriate for them to be aware of any of the personal transactions of their clients. I have no right to know what theirs are*. In such cases surely the review should be carried out by specific members of the staff, staff who do not otherwise interact with clients and staff who do not communicate any of the specifics of the information they are party to to anyone else? .....informed me that my i nformation was for I.D purposes only (conversation recorded), how can this be the case if those dealing with my case are also aware of my affairs? I am seeking further advice on this subject and would very kindly ask that U.C respect my wishes and hand my case over to someone who is not (and will not be), party to any of the specifics of other personal affairs. I also question the necessity of asking questions about specific transactions of clients.
*Nb. More's the pity in the case of even this administration's leadership, quote: "Cabinet minister, who lives in a £4m luxury London mansion, axed payments to pensioners despite having her own energy bills in her second home paid for by taxpayer": https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1983023/liz-kendall-winter-fuel-hypocrisy Quote; "Less than a month before she is due to deliver the budget, Rachel Reeves has admitted breaking rules by failing to apply for a licence from her local council before letting out her south London home.
Keir Starmer accepted an apology from Reeves, who said she had not known a licence was required, and declared the matter closed.": https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/30/what-has-rachel-reeves-done-wrong-break-rules-licence-house So why should we not have oversight on their bank accounts (they are paid from the same purse as we are) especially if they are to continue to display the degree of hypocriscy and/or down-right incompetence (at best) detailed above?
Quote: "I would also add/that although some of the sums inquired about were largish some were of the £30 size so anyone’s subscriptions could easily be demanded to be revealed! This means my adviser is allowed to know my political affiliations. The notion that anyone could “un-hear” what had been said to them is ludicrous, no this is ersatz rubbish, Starmer trying to get in the backdoor re: bank account oversight, however, any information they tried to use would surely be rendered inadmissible by the simple breach of protocol." ...
"Wobblin' Dildoes!"
Quote; "Southampton Itchen is my home constituency: it’s where my wife and I made our home, where our children were born, and it’s where they now go to our local schools. Since I was elected a Councillor in 2011, I’ve worked hard to speak up for people I meet, and to make our communities even better places to live, learn, and work.”: My story - Darren Paffey MP
"I saw Paffey at his surgery yesterday re: questions posed to me
during a phone appt. with a U.C adviser…I made the point that questions
from unqualified staff who are otherwise dealing with clients on a
regular basis must surely contravene the Data Protection Act, for having
seen my bank statements under “Enhanced Review” I was subsequently
interrogated over the phone concerning a number of individual purchases
that appeared on my statement.
I made the point I made here that some of my acc. activity includes
payment of subscriptions to a union (for instance), & that I did not feel
that it was appropriate for my regular adviser to know these things.
We agreed that the Enhanced Review process (instituted very quickly
following Labour’s victory), has been a response to problems that
manifested during the covid pandemic & had been (at least),
formulated under the prev. admin. & probably represents an ad hoc
response that requires review itself.
Personally I rather think that Starmer is running with it just to see what he can get away with!
Well, hopefully, he won’t get away with this esp. as (as I told Paffey),
the Southampton UNITE branch are now looking into the case.
I see it as a test case against further totalitarian oversight.
Perhaps if all those paid from the public purse were subject to the same
scrutiny we would see these authoritarian (& deeply hypocritical),
policies scrapped immediately.
What also occurred to me this morning is the issue of privacy with regard to sex.
What are they saying? Is it a further articulation of the deeply ableist notion that the disabled & partially-able don’t visit “WobblinDildoes.Com”!"
Nb. I am a member of Spectrum CIL, go to: https://spectrumcil.co.uk/
M.P's Response
Quote; "Thank you for attending my surgery on Friday. It was valuable to meet you in person and understand the concerns you had with the DWP and their access to information.
As discussed, I am going to write to the DWP to establish what their current process is with enhanced reviews, personal financial information, and data protection. It will be important to establish the origin of this process, as we said it may well have been from the previous government.
I am aware that this issue of access to and scrutiny of bank accounts is a concern for many and this has been raised by other constituents. People’s financial transactions are deeply personal, and it is vital that any measures taken to prevent fraud or abuse are proportionate.
I ultimately share the view that any scrutiny of bank accounts must be handled with the utmost care and with clear protections in place for individuals, as you also highlighted in our meeting. In terms of the wider issue, while the Government has outlined the intention to introduce safeguarding measures, I will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that any changes made are fair and respectful.
I can assure you that I will continue to raise concerns about the privacy of benefit claimants, particularly for those with disabilities, as we move forward with discussions on this policy.
Thank you again for meeting with me. I will be in touch when I have a response from the DWP about your case.
Kind regards,
Darren
Darren Paffey MP
Labour Member of Parliament for Southampton Itchen
Website: www.darrenpaffey.org.uk" Go to: https://forum.5filters.info/t/data-protection-act-advice-interrogation-recommended/4841/8
Nb. Pls. also see: "Human Rights Issues re: #Covid19 Why we Need a Moratorium on Benefit Re-assessments/Re-applications and Greater Attention Paid to the Needs of Claimants During a Pandemic #Advocacy #InternetAccess #AccesstoTherapy #Lockdown #Eugenic" Raised with Starmer & Corbyn prior to the Covid Inquiry yet no mention has so far been made of the issues re: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2021/05/human-rights-issues-re-covid-9-why-we.html
