David Craig, on November 28th, 2017Enter – Emma Thompson
Whenever the (IMHO) self-regarding, attention-seeking, virtue-signalling, holier-than-thou, look-at-me-me-me luvvie Emma Thompson gets involved in a ’cause’, the truth is usually the opposite to that spouted by Emma Thompson and her admirers.
In 2014, luvvie Emma traveled to the Arctic to warn us all about supposed Man-Made Global Warming melting the polar ice cap. Conveniently she didn’t try to visit the Antarctic where, just a few months earlier, record amounts of ice stranded a boat full of environmentalists on a similar mission and then stranded the boat sent to rescue them.
Nor, as far as I know, has Emma or any of her idiotic companions in stupidity yet explained how – if the polar ice caps are now melting because of Man-Made Global Warming – a US submarine managed to surface in open water at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959:
and then three US submarines surfaced there in 1987 – again in open, ice-free water:
something that would be completely impossible now due to the increased amount of polar ice.
Can brave Emma save Nazanin�Zaghari-Ratcliffe? (and does any one really care?)
And now the mighty Emma Thompson has emerged from her sickbed – she claims to have pneumonia or what I suspect the rest of us might call “a cold” – to lead a march demanding the British Government acts to free Iranian citizen Nazanin�Zaghari-Ratcliffe from an Iranian jail. And the mainstream media have been lapping up the great Emma’s version of events and praising her for her courage.
I have written before that the Iranian citizen Nazanin�Zaghari-Ratcliffe once worked for the BBC Media Trust – the BBC is hated by the Iranian authorities – and then for a Reuters news charity. It would appear that certainly one and possibly both of Nazanin’s employers were involved in training and supporting journalists in countries that don’t particularly like journalists. What role Nazanin played in both organisations is unclear. But given that she speaks Farsi (or whatever they speak in Iran), it’s not improbable that she was involved in some way in one or both of these organisations’ work with Iranian journalists.
Moreover, in Iran’s eyes, she is an Iranian citizen, who visited Iran on an Iranian passport, and was therefore subject to Iranian laws however reprehensible we in Britain may find those laws.
The Foreign Office advises
But let’s not accept my ignorant, biased opinions about Nazanin and the wonderful, courageous, selfless Emma Thompson. Let’s instead look at Foreign Office travel advice for Iran:
“There�s a risk that British nationals and British/Iranian dual nationals could be arbitrarily detained in Iran. In such cases the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has serious concerns that the subsequent judicial process falls below international standards. The Iranian authorities don�t recognise dual nationality for Iranian citizens and therefore don�t grant consular access for FCO officials to visit them in detention.
Any behaviour that doesn�t have an obvious explanation can put you at risk, no matter how innocent you believe it to be. This may include travel off the beaten track, being present near crowds or sensitive sites, having contact with Iranians who are of interest to the authorities, taking photographs (except in major tourist sites), or behaviour that could be perceived as contrary to official Iranian interpretations of Islam. The threat to travellers is likely to be higher if there�s any national unrest, terrorist incident or an increase in tensions between Iran and the international community.
You should consider carefully the risks of travelling to Iran. If you choose to travel, you may wish to keep a low profile.”
Ooops! Was Nazanin unable to read? Can’t Emma Thompson read? Couldn’t Nazanin’s British husband read simple, straightforward English? In view of the above, wouldn’t Nazanin have been better advised to bring her parents to Britain if she wanted to see them and them to see her daughter? Or has Nazanin never heard of Skype?
The Foreign Office advice concludes:
“If you�re a dual national and are arrested and detained, the British Embassy won�t be able to provide routine consular assistance as Iran doesn�t recognise dual nationality.”
I’m really not sure the warning could have been much clearer – you put yourself in danger, you get yourself out!
Did the biased, dishonest, misleading British mainstream media ‘forget’ to mention this as it lambasted Boris Johnson for not doing enough to free Nazanin?
Sorry Emma. Sorry Nazanin. But it seems to me that Nazanin’s present predicament is entirely self-created and Britain has no responsibility to get this woman out of the rather unpleasant hole she has got herself into, whatever the (IMHO) blethering, virtue-signalling, self-promoting, publicity-hungry, multi-millionaire luvvie Emma Thompson and her adoring fans in the lying mainstream media claim to the contrary.
(Of course, I hope Nazanin soon gets out of prison and is reunited with her family. All I’m asking is that this is done honestly without having to listen to BS from attention-seeking former one-dimensional actresses and a pack of lies from the utterly corrupted mainstream media)
Category: 
To be fair I hope she is able to come back to Blighty and be returned to her hubby and little one however from the point of view she travelled to a Iran on an Iranian Passport and when it goes pear shaped decides to be British, I have no sympathy. Your one or tuther. Britain should join th elist of nations that ban dual citizenship. You can’t serve two masters. We even have alleged asylum seekers living here claiming they need asylum because its to dangerous in their own country yet they visit their home country and the government doesn’t even look into this.
Don’t worry, when Britain hands over the �450m the Iranians claim we owe them, she’ll be freed. I just wonder if Nazanin, her husband and Emma Thompson would like to reimburse British taxpayers for the �450m we’ll have paid for Nazanin’s release. They could do it by direct debit over the next few thousand years.
Egon Von Greyerz 2 Articles.
The Trade Of The Century And Why The Public�s Money In Banks Will Be Incinerated.
Quote:
Whatever central banks and politicians say, nothing has been solved. On the contrary, risk has grown exponentially since 2006. As an example, global debt has now doubled to roughly $230 trillion. If global unfunded liabilities of $250 trillion and derivatives of $1.5 quadrillion are included, the world is now staring at total liabilities and risk of a staggering $2 quadrillion.
Egon von Greyerz continues: �Just look at the US. It is no accident that Jerome Powell will take over from Yellen as Chairman of the Fed. He is a safe pair of hands and has been a Fed governor for 5 years. He is the perfect choice for expanding the Fed�s balance sheet infinitely. US Federal debt is guaranteed to continue to double every 8 years, as it has since 1981. That means the US debt will go from $20 trillion to $40 trillion by the end of 2024. Even the Central Budget Office�s forecast is not far from $40 trillion. But we must remember that this figure doesn�t include what will happen to the US and global economy in the next few years. And in Europe, Draghi has now made it clear that the Protection Deposit Scheme is no longer necessary. Thus, the ECB is no longer guaranteeing customer deposits up to 100,000 euros. This should come as no surprise. When the crisis starts, no depositor will get real money back form any bank.
Two Disastrous Outcomes
As money printing escalates hand-in-hand with defaults, the world will experience hyperinflation on a level that no one can imagine today. At that point debt will probably have grown to tens of quadrillions of dollars. Most people will say that it would be impossible for debt to grow to these levels. Anyone who has studied historical debt defaults, money printing and hyperinflation, will realize that during these periods, debt grows to many multiples of the original debt.
Money printing and hyperinflation become a vicious cycle that feeds on itself. Powerless central bankers lose control completely and always panic into the next level of money creation. In the end it all fails, since printed money can never create wealth. At that point the hyperinflationary depression turns to a deflationary depression. All credit disappears into a black hole, and so does a major part of the financial system. The assets backed by the printed money collapse in value by 90% or more.
In a deflationary scenario, gold will not go to those high levels. First, gold will at least maintain its purchasing power. But since the financial system is unlikely to survive in a deflationary implosion, gold, and probably even silver, will be the only real money available. Thus, even in the deflationary case, gold is likely to go up substantially in real terms. With the troubles the world is facing, gold is clearly not going to be the sole solution to the massive problems we will all experience. There will be a lot of poor people and a lot of hungry people. Owning some gold will be extremely important, but the magnitude of the problems that the world will experience will likely negatively affect us all.
https://kingworldnews.com/greyerz-will-this-be-the-trade-of-the-century/
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
THE BIGGEST WEALTH TRANSFER IN HISTORY.
Quote:
Let me first put the facts right. It is not capitalism in its traditional sense which has created this enormous concentration. One definition of capitalism is:
�An economic and political system in which a country�s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state�
The �controlled by private owners� part of the definition fits our current Western system. But what is missing is that the current economic system could not function without complete state sponsorship and interference. This is the clever construction that a group of top bankers devised on Jekyll Island in the US, in November 1910. This was the meeting that led to the creation of the Fed in 1913. The Central Bank of the US was set up as a private bank, and thus controlled by private bankers for their own benefit.
This will be the biggest wealth transfer in history. But it won�t happen without strife. There will be social unrest and possible civil war before all this is over. This was not the case during the 1930s depression except for in Germany with the persecution of the Jews. Today, population in the US or most European countries is not as homogenous as it was in the 1930s. The great number of immigrants in many Western countries will lead to much greater conflict and unrest than in the 1930s.
Except for the average person who is likely to become debt free after the implosion of the financial system, the major beneficiaries will be the investors who have no debt and hold hard assets such as agricultural land, commodity investments, including precious metals of course and also certain food sector investments which will benefit from food shortages and food price inflation.
Forecasting exact time and price is a mug�s (British for fool�s) game, and therefore likely to be wrong. However, what is indisputable is that global risk is currently greater than any time in history. What is also certain is also that gold is the best insurance against these risks, just as it has been for thousands of years.
https://goldswitzerland.com/the-biggest-wealth-transfer-in-history/
Re the �450 million as I understand it the Shah of Iran used state money to order tanks from Britain but was deposed in 1979.The UK refused to supply to the new Islamic Government, However they should have returned the money.
In 1953 M16 and the CIA organised the overthrow of the elected government of secular Iran and the Shah became a US supported dictator.
Recently 5 Iranians on diplomatic passports came to the UK seeking the return of the money which had been frozen,then Home Secretary Theresa May had them detained for five days than expelled.
It isn’t only Thompson who is supporting man made climate change. Richard Dawkins is also a believer and as “evidence” he quotes disappearing polar ice in his latest book “Science in the Soul”. The man who promotes evidence and rational thinking seems to have forgotten his own advice. Observations of polar ice are not evidence of humans being able to influence the climate. Towards the end of the book he quotes Christopher Hitchens: “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Both Dawkins and David Attenborough supported our remaining in the EU and promote so called man made climate change. They do so because they see the EU as a precursor to global governance and climate change as a supposed global threat demanding a unified global solution-a one world government.
I really couldn’t care any less if I tried really hard.
On the other subject, as Alan Thorpe points out, Dawkins has clearly lost it altogether. His absurd comments on Brexit were laughable, now this!