More on The Presidential Election

19
891

I am well aware of course that this is a general election, and that there are important Congressional races as well, but the presidential election is the big one. It’s getting a lot of coverage over here.

The Attacks on Donald Trump

These have reached fever-pitch, and are little short of hysterical. They are also desperate, and suggest that the Democrats and RINOs are really rattled. Their private polls probably show Hillary 2.5 to 5 points behind.

The October surprise backfired, when it turned out that the ‘Trump Tapes’ had been leaked by a Ryan staffer. The latest efforts by assorted bimbos, no offense intended, who may or may not have met the Republican candidate, are likely to backfire on the Democrats as well, IMHO. They are so obviously timed to influence the election that most voters will smell a rat.

The expression ‘bimbos’ is used in strict accordance with the Bar Standards Board’s valuable equal opportunities and diversity guidelines, by the way. If you have been sexually assaulted, you will generally know about when it happens, or when you wake up, if you’ve been drugged. If you’re genuine, you go to the police. You don’t wait until your alleged assailant has been chosen to stand for president, has overhauled his opponent in the polls, the election is only a few weeks away and you’re voting Democrat.

Trump’s Famous “Grab Them by the Pussy”.

The stakes in this election could scarcely be higher. Hillary Clinton is pro-China, anti-Russia and pro-NAFTA. She intends to pursue policies which will ensure the continued export of American jobs to China and Mexico. Her policy of confrontation with Russia is dangerous.

Trumpy is right, with respect, to attack Democrat dirty tricks and predict more. The Democrats wanted a nasty, personal campaign and they’ve got it. With Bill and Hillary’s pasts, it was always likely to backfire. It will be interesting to see what further revelations, if any, there might over Bill Clinton’s dealings with Epstein, e.g.

The Second Presidential Debate

This was a slam-dunk for Trump. He wiped the floor with Hillary, who was clearly not expecting such a strong come-back. Trumpy was smart enough, with respect, to recognise that it was 3 against 1. The ‘moderators’ lost as well as Hillary.

Trumpy had some great one-liners. It was a barn-storming performance. This could turn out to be the most important presidential debate since Nixon v. Kennedy in 1960, when the American candidate won, at least on TV. The German candidate might have done better by going whole-hog and growing a beard. Not sure many people listen to these debates on radio anymore, so winning on radio no longer counts for much.

Since Hillary won’t release her medical records we won’t know for sure if there’s anything in Donald Trump’s interesting suggestion that she may have been medicated. I wouldn’t rule it out, and anyway, he was there. I wasn’t.
The third debate should be worth staying up for.

The Polls

cthulhu

These are all over the shop like a dog’s breakfast. Rasmussen are probably the best of a poor bunch, and they’re showing a lead for the Good Guy. The MSM are so desperate for the Naughty Girl to win they are perfectly capable of twisting poll numbers, not difficult to do.

Polling organisations have still not learnt to correct their inbuilt anti-conservative bias. In order to be sure of winning I think Hillary needs a steady 5% lead in the polls across the board.

I’m still predicting a Trump win. I think the Democrats are in trouble in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I don’t think he’ll win by a landslide, but I don’t think it’s going to be particularly close.


Wikiwars Part Deux

My battle with Wikipedia is ongoing! The biographical entry for me is still largely an attack piece, mainly written by an anonymous troll calling himself or herself ‘Psychonaut’. It’s full of factual errors and distortions. If I don’t correct them publicly it will only be said that I agree with them. Legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation has suggested mediation, and I have agreed. Hopefully that will produce results.

In the meantime, for the record, the Bar Standards Board did not revoke my ability to participate in cases involving children in 2014. I gave a voluntary undertaking to that effect. The distinction is a narrow one, but it is typical, with respect, of ‘Psychonaut’s’ casual regard for the truth that he or she should refuse to correct the entry.

I am a published author, but another editor, JzG, who agreed with revoking my editorial privileges, which prevents me from correcting errors and introducing balance by editing, has consistently over-ruled another editor with greater regard for the facts. According to ‘JzG’, who apparently works for Dell UK, a company implicated in evidence-tampering in the indecent images case (their website was tampered with so as to remove the details of the model of hard drive fitted to my Dell laptop), I am not an author “by any rational definition”. Excuse me!

I have published a 700 page intelligence text, which is still in print and has gone into a second edition. I was also one of the joint authors of AIDS And The Law (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1990). How many books do you have to write, or help write, before you can be described as an author?

I was also joint author of The Edinburgh European Council: A Legal Assessment, which was translated into Danish and published in Denmark by a national newspaper in 1994. ‘JzG’ is clearly conflicted out. It is however one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia that it permits editing of living person biographies by editors with a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia also gleefully quote a long-term political opponent of mine, Bill Rammell, a Blairite and former Foreign Office minister, without mentioning that Rammell opposed me in an election for President of Cardiff University Union. He was also a member of the pro-EU faction in the Labour Party and close to Tony Blair.

Michael Shimpton
Michael Shimpton

When I defected to the Tories, Rammell was wheeled out by Blair’s chief spin-doctor, Alistair Campbell, to smear me with the absurd claim that I was once a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) They are a hard-left, Trotskyist organisation, only marginally committed to the democratic process.

According to Wiki’s version of this smear, within the space of one year I was a member of the Tory Party, the notoriously Europhile Social Democratic Party, the Labour Party and the SWP. One would have thought that even the meanest intellect could see that this was obvious nonsense. Aside from any other consideration why would three other parties accept me within a year of supposedly being a member of the Tory Party?

I have only ever been a member of two political parties, the Labour Party and Conservative and Unionist Party, defecting from Labour to the Tories in 1997. Wiki assert that it was only years later that I gave Europe as a reason for my defection, but in fact I was a member of the Labour Euro-Safeguards Committee, the principal Eurosceptic body inside the Labour Party, and had supported the Eurosceptic Bryan Gould MP against the Europhile John Smith in the 1992 leadership election.

I was briefly Chairman of the Conservative student’s association at University College Cardiff in 1978, but soon became disenchanted with the Tory government, mainly over economic policy and unemployment, but also over EEC membership, a prime cause, of course, of Britain’s economic decline. By 1978 our trading surplus with the EEC had turned into a deficit and the costs of membership were spiralling. The claims that I joined the SDP and SWP were simply invented. I had a brief look at the SDP, before the late Tony Benn’s arguments, not least over the EEC, persuaded me to join the Labour Party in 1981. I was put off joining the SDP by its pro-EEC stance and Roy Jenkins. I took one look at him and said ‘no thanks’. This was years before I found out that he was a German agent.

The claims about my running an “intelligence network” from my house have been deliberately distorted in order to smear me as some sort of crank.

The same goes for the ludicrous assertion that I held myself out as being able to issue D-Notices. Yes, I did have a direct line number for the D-Notice Advisory Committee, and yes I did tip them off about a potentially dangerous article about to appear in the News of the World referring to poor little Madeleine McCann being held in a boat in Moroccan territorial waters.

The article never appeared. In fairness to the News of the World, who were following the case closely and knew that I was leading the Gerard Group International team investigating the kidnap, they did not know that I was making representations to the Joint Intelligence Committee, the office of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Pentagon about a rescue attempt by Special Forces. Once they became aware that a rescue attempt was being discussed they backed off. No D-Notice was issued, the newspaper in question behaved responsibly and to its lasting credit put the life of Madeleine McCann ahead of a news story.

At no stage have I ever suggested to anyone that I had authority to issue a D-Notice. The assertion to the contrary by Wikipedia is simply a lie, no doubt put there in a desperate effort to damage my reputation. The Wikimedia Foundation knows that people can be libelled on Wikipedia with impunity, thanks to the absurd and unjust Section 230, a libellers’ charter, which stands in urgent need of amendment or repeal.

‘Psychonaut’ insists on smearing me as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ but will jump all over any attempt to set out, even briefly, my arguments. If any Wikipedia editor thinks that Dr David Kelly CMG actually committed suicide then they are clearly unfamiliar with either the facts, the arguments, or both. For the record, he was tortured and murdered by GO2.

The respected intelligence author Gordon Thomas states in the second, current, edition of his excellent history of the Mossad, Gideon’s Spies, that some of my material on the Kelly Assassination is taught in Mossad’s training school. Wikipedia editors know this, but it’s too strong a statement for them to permit it to appear.

Remember, Wikipedia is an organisation so devoted to suppressing the truth as regards public affairs that it is still asserting, 16 years into the 21st century, that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy! That is a claim so preposterous and so at variance with the facts that making it is now in the exclusive province of the uninformed, the deranged, psychopaths who favor the use of assassination as a political weapon and the remaining members of the Obama Administration who do not fall into any of the first three categories, no offense intended.

Wikipedia also have no business continuing to assert that my distinguished counsel, William Clegg QC and Jon Trussler, suspected me of having a personality disorder. I have copied Bill Clegg in on emails to Wikipedia’s legal counsel, but still they persist with this nonsense. I’m now going to take Wikipedia’s alleged source, The Scotsman, to the UK press regulator. The Scotsman had no idea what they were talking about, with respect, probably because they weren’t actually in court.

It’s a bit of a cheek Wikipedia using a spelling for Deutscher Verteidigungs Dienst I haven’t used for several years and then inserting “sic” after their own mis-spelling! Misquoting your target and then having a go at him or her over the fake quote is a classic smear tactic, used down the ages. It was a favorite of the Reich Propaganda Ministry, some of whose propaganda, such as the false claim that the Me262 was the world’s first operational jet fighter, is recycled on Wikipedia. That’s right – if you want your kids reading Nazi propaganda for their school projects all they have to do is to look up the section in Wikipedia on the Me262.

Wiki still cannot get their heads around the fact that the MoD’s Barry Burton rang me, not the other way round. It makes a nonsense of the bomb hoax allegation, but those are the facts, accepted by Burton himself and the CPS in their opening speech to the jury. ‘Psychonaut’ apparently isn’t interested in the facts, however. He or she must know by now that the claim that I rang Burton is wholly untrue, but this junk still gets recycled.

Wikipedia are also suppressing the fact that both my convictions are under investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which had a huge triumph this week when the wrongful conviction of a professional footballer for rape was finally thrown out. The footballer’s original trial was clearly a farce, with respect to all involved. The footballer may not have been a gentleman – if he were a gentleman he would have been playing Rugby Union – but he was clearly no rapist. Another classic CPS cock-up!

There is scarcely room here to refute all of Wikipedia’s untrue claims about me. Their biography of me is basically junk and I wouldn’t advise anyone to pay any attention to it.


Philip Hammond

Philip Hammond

Hopes are rising over here that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will soon be walking out of the government. This nutter, no offense intended, wants the UK to stay in the EU’s Single Market!

That’s the discredited ‘Norway’ option, which the Prime Minister has rightly rejected, with respect. It means shelling out vast sums of taxpayers’ money to subsidise the bloated and corrupt EU, unlimited economic migration from the EU into the UK, huge unwanted regulatory costs of at least £75 billion per annum and a massive continued trade deficit with the EU27.

The Olympics scandal can’t be buried for much longer. Theresa May was Home Secretary at the time and is presumably aware of the two ex-Kursk warheads recovered, and then safely dismantled by you guys, from London and a sunken DVD refitted Type XXI U-Boat in the Indian Ocean.

Hammond, remember, is the idiot who left east London wide open to nuclear attack and then went along with the malicious prosecution of me by the CPS in a pathetic attempt to cover up the awful truth.

With apologies to Yes Prime Minister his departure will lower the average age of the Cabinet and increase its average IQ.

He is also thought to be opposed, when we finally break free of the hated EU, to holding a National Service of Thanksgiving in the Presence of Her Majesty the Queen at St Paul’s Cathedral to tender humble thanks to an Almighty and Merciful Providence for the safe deliverance of our kingdom from our European enemies. What a scumbag, no offense intended.


Sir Thomas Bouch

Sir Thomas Bouch
Sir Thomas Bouch

I’d rather spend time restoring the reputations of others than defending my own. Sadly, I’ve been under ceaseless attack since I discovered the existence of the DVD. They are ruthless bastards and the attacks on my reputation will continue until they are shut down.

Some people will attack me because of a personal animus, like ‘Psychonaut’, others because they have defective personalities and just like attacking people, others because they are being blackmailed, like poor old Michael Smith, an Internet troll who eventually jumped off the top of a church tower after years of being blackmailed by GO2 over his sexuality, and others still because they are on the DVD’s payroll, either directly or indirectly.

One man whose reputation I started to restore in Spyhunter (perhaps Wikipedia think it was ghost-written?) is the great Victorian civil engineer Sir Thomas Bouch. My current, enjoyable, reading is Railway Blunders (Ian Allan, 2003), by that fine former railwayman Adrian Vaughan.

Adrian however makes the common mistakes of assuming that the official inquiry report into the 1879 Tay Bridge Disaster was a serious document and that Sir Thomas was to blame. In his chapter on the disaster he overlooks the obvious contradictions in the official account, with respect. Sir Thomas is commonly held to have been arrogant, oblivious to the opinions of others and heedless of the risks to life and limb of faulty design of the structures for which was responsible.

Yet this great and good man was broken in spirit by the terrible loss of life on 28th December 1879, and died not long after the defamatory report was published. Adrian Vaughan did not set out to clear Sir Thomas’s name, but goes a long way towards doing so by revealing that, so far from being heedless of the opinions of others, he took great care to consult with the Board of Trade about the allowance he should make in the design of the Tay Bridge for wind pressure.

Not only was the bridge built in accordance with the advice of the Board of Trade, it was thoroughly tested and inspected, for three days, by Major-General Hutchinson of the Royal Engineers. Adrian claims that General Hutchinson missed obvious defects in the bridge. A more likely state of affairs is that these defects were not present upon inspection.
Weakening bridges by removing critical bolts is not difficult, if you know what you are doing. Al Qaeda, with German technical advice, did it with a freeway bridge in the States. It was also done with a road bridge in Melbourne, Australia.

Sir Thomas was engaged in designing the first Forth Rail Bridge, a critical piece of national infrastructure, which Germany had a strategic interest in stopping. Although the Forth was later crossed, the immediate result of the Tay Bridge Disaster was that Sir Thomas’s design was rejected.

As Adrian Vaughan confirms, the Tay Bridge only gave way, over the deepest part of the river, just as a train from Edinburgh to Dundee started to cross it. That is a remarkable coincidence. Intelligence analysts and commentators instinctively distrust coincidences and rightly so.

The gale, a Force 11 on the Beaufort Scale, had been blowing for some time. Why, if the bridge was vulnerable to wind pressure, did it not give way sooner? As Adrian states, the official view is that there was then a “freak and fantastically powerful burst of wind”. Really? It is more likely, surely, that the only burst of wind involved was on the part of the official inquiry.

Gusts stronger than Force 11 are rare in the United Kingdom, even in a period of global cooling such as the 1870s. Had the wind, even a gust, been strong enough to blow a 38-ton 224 Class 4-4-0 steam locomotive off the tracks – the official version of events – it would surely have caused other damage. There is no record of any other significant damage however.

Helpfully Adrian shows a photograph taken “shortly” after the disaster, I suspect the morning after, as what appear to be rescue vessels are shown. I hope to show it in a future column, with the publisher’s consent.

Very powerful storms don’t just disappear. They tend to wind down, so that you will get at least a stiff breeze the morning after. The first thing that struck me about this historic photograph is that the water is flat calm. With the alleged hurricane force winds I would have expected to see whitecaps, indeed I would expect the weather to be unsettled for several days afterwards.

I’ve put the photo under a glass, aided by a powerful light. I don’t just have a powerful light to hand for reading, nor do I own a couple of magnifying glasses because I used to like making forensic points in front of juries, although I never knew a jury not to smile when I put an exhibit under the glass when something the prosecution said was there wasn’t!

There is no evidence of wind damage on the Dundee side of the Tay. In particular no chimneys or other tall structures appear to be down. The town appears to be normal. It’s a first principle of photographic interpretation that you don’t just look at what the cameraman wants you to see. You look at the whole photo. If you’re told a bridge is down because of a great gust of wind you look at every other structure which would have been vulnerable.

I suggest in Spyhunter that Sir Thomas Bouch’s design for the Tay Bridge should be subjected to computer stress analysis to test its alleged vulnerability to cross-winds. My invitation wasn’t taken up, and I think I know why. Deep in the darkest recesses of Whitehall, they know that the official report was a phony and that the high girders of the Tay Bridge were blown up with the new explosive dynamite, just right for a bridge job.

Author Bio
Michael Shrimpton was a barrister from his call to the Bar in London in 1983 until being disbarred in 2019 over a fraudulently obtained conviction. He is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-terrorism. He is a former Adjunct Professor of Intelligence Studies at the American Military University.

Read Michael Shrimptons’ Full Complete Bio >>>
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

Comments are closed.