Theresa May just repeatedly lied to try and get the Tories off the hook over Grenfell [VIDEO]


Theresa May has resorted to lying in parliament. Seemingly to try and distract from her own party’s failings over the Grenfell Tower fire. The PM attempted to pin some of the blame for the disaster on Labour, when it was actually Conservative governments as far back as Margaret Thatcher’s which were responsible.

May unnerved

During Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday 28 June, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn levelled [47.40] at May the accusation that Grenfell was an example of  a “disregard for working-class communities”. He went on to say that it also showed the “terrible consequences of deregulation and cutting corners” and “austerity”. He then said [47.40] that the government must:

come up with the resources needed to test and remove cladding, retrofit sprinklers, properly fund the fire service and the police so all our communities can truly feel safe in their own homes.

But Corbyn’s words clearly unnerved the PM, as she went on to tell several outright lies about who was ultimately responsible for the regulation surrounding cladding on tower blocks, saying:

The cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government.

Lie number one

May said the cladding of tower blocks began under Tony Blair’s government. But this is not true. It actually began under Thatcher’s, as the first few minutes of a documentary from 1984 show:

Also, in 1986, Thatcher’s government changed building regulations surrounding materials used on the outside of buildings. And these alterations meant that anything used did not have to be non-combustible. This meant flammable materials could legally be used to clad tower blocks.

Lie number two

The PM said that, in 2005, Labour changed regulations for inspecting buildings for fire safety. This duty was taken away from the fire brigade and given to a “responsible person”. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 [pdf] did indeed change fire inspection and safety duties to a “responsible person”. But this was not fully applicable to domestic premises such as Grenfell Tower, as the legislation clearly states [pdf p8]. And where it was changed, the “responsible person” became the local authority. A body which most would argue should be responsible for safety in its buildings anyway.

Lie number three

May said that the report into the 2009 Lakanal Tower fire in Camberwell had criticised the 2005 order. This is not true. In fact, the 2013 Coroner’s Report which May refers to criticises [pdf p2] the then Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and the coalition government for not dealing with “uncertainty about the scope of inspection for fire risk assessment purposes which should be undertaken in high rise residential buildings”. It said the government needed to provide “clear guidance” on this; something which didn’t happen and which the Fire Sector Federation said in 2015 was still “long overdue an overhaul”.

Apportioning blame

May used these lies to make the point that the build-up to the Grenfell Tower fire was a “matter that occurred under governments of both colours” as well as “councils of all political persuasions”. This was an apparent attempt to not only depoliticise Grenfell Tower, but to deflect some of the blame from the Tories. But the reality is that successive Conservative governments have repeatedly ignored warnings that fire regulations needed updating. And they have failed to act on advice from parliamentary groups and industry professionals.

The bigger picture here, however, may well point to failings by all those in the political establishment. Because the Grenfell Tower tragedy is not merely one of inadequate regulations, loose accountability by governments and local authorities, and poor standards of social housing. It is also a microcosm of the utter contempt and disregard that the political class has held for the poorest and most vulnerable people in British society for tens (if not hundreds) of years. And no amount of reports, legislation, or inquiries can change that.



Travel Photos of  Israel - Jerusalem Western Wall

When reporting or lamenting over the gross human rights violations and genocide by the modern state of Israel against the Palestinian people, many Christians immediately freak the heck out.

In fact, I am often told that I am “not a Christian” because I dare criticize the state of Israel’s behavior as if blind support of a modern nation state were an obligation of being a True Christian.

Upon being stripped of my membership card in Christianity, many of these “internet Bible scholars” quickly remind me: God commands us to stand with Israel! But is that even true? I mean, for those of us who grow up in Evangel Fundamentalism we’re taught that from day one– but just because our childhood pastor taught us this, and just because Grandma believed it, doesn’t make it true.

I’ve long written on this topic both on a theological and geopolitical standpoint but wanted to quickly and concisely lay out a few points in response to the whole, “you’re not a true Christian if you don’t stand with Israel” nonsense.

As your Bible Explainer in Chief, let me quickly break it down for you– because no, the Bible doesn’t command we stand with Israel.

1. The entire “stand with Israel” theology is based on one verse, and the verse had nothing to do with any modern nation-state born a few thousand years later.

Preachers will claim God commands we stand with Israel in order to be blessed, but that’s not what the Bible says. In Genesis 12:3 God is reported to have told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.” This was a promise to Abraham- neither biblical Israel nor modern Israel existed when this was written. It was a promise to Abraham as part of God’s covenant with him.

2. The Bible teaches that the true descendants of Abraham are spiritual, not ethnic.

The same preachers say, “Yes! It was a promise to Abraham and that extends to his descendants- Israel” but that’s not the whole story, either. The Bible actually teaches that “not all that descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Romans 9:6) and that a true descendant of Abraham is not ethnic but a matter of the heart (Romans 2:29).

Israel as a nation state is not what the Bible talks about when it talks about Israel. The New Testament Israel is comprised of all those who accept the King of Israel: Jesus.

3. Not even the prophets in the Bible blindly stood with Israel– including Jesus.

The biblical prophets are the last people who would seem “pro-Israel” because they were constantly rebuking Israel for bad behavior. And they didn’t hold back forceful language, either– some wrote that God utterly hated every expression of their religion because they were ignoring justice for the poor and marginalized.

On top of the prophets, remember that Jesus was executed as a traitor and a threat to Israel.

4. The Bible doesn’t command we blindly support people who are committing evil acts.

This is a concept we seem to understand in day-to-day life, but all logic goes out the window when it comes to standing with Israel. For example, yes– God wants one to be faithful to their family, but does that mean you stand by and support them if they want to drive drunk? Do you support them if they want to shoot their neighbor and steal their car? Of course not- that’s nonsense.

Blindly supporting Israel would be like supporting a friend or family member regardless of their behavior, and I see nothing in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus that suggest we are supposed to support those who do evil, as they do evil.

Israel is an apartheid state where the indigenous people are oppressed and victims of untold daily discrimination and violence; it is a state that offers government subsidized abortions regardless of the reason, a place where Christians have had to petition the government so that they can walk down the street without being spat upon, a place where Christian places of worship are routinely attacked, where Palestinian children are mercilessly oppressed and even slaughtered, and a nation that is consistently rebuked by the international community for human rights violations that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the world.

Any theology that tells you to support all that is garbage, and you can figure it out without even having to dig deep into the theology. Like they say, you don’t have to stick your head in a trashcan to know that garbage smells.

The bottom line: What the world calls Israel is NOT what the Bible calls Israel. The world is referring to a nation state that was created just a generation ago– the Bible is talking about the people of Abraham, which are a spiritual people who have accepted their King: Jesus. It’s not a people group one is born into, but a people group you join by pledging your allegiance to Jesus.

So is standing with Israel a biblical concept? No. In fact, the stronger biblical case would be standing in opposition to Israel’s ungodly behavior.

Follow BLC:


One year on from the EU referendum, it’s become clear that the EU will decide the Brexit deal for us

Gina Miller,The Independent Fri, 23 Jun 

Boris Johnson’s interview disaster won’t be treated like Diane Abbott’s | Hugh Muir | Opinion | The Guardian

When Abbott floundered in interviews, the media pounced. But the foreign secretary’s blundering is filed in the folder marked The Joy of Good Old Boris

Source: Boris Johnson’s interview disaster won’t be treated like Diane Abbott’s | Hugh Muir | Opinion | The Guardian Boris Johnson is a menace, in fact, he is Dennis the Menace .he is the epitome of ignorance, arrogance, well he is just plain thick.Nasty, evil and dangerous.


With the explosion of cannabinoid research over the last 5 years, researchers are looking to other plants to see if they can locate similiar properties. Believe it or not, there are some other plants that have cannabinoidal properties.

1. Rosemary – Rosemary, black pepper, and cannabis all contain a compound called beta-caryophyllene (BCP). BCP is a terpene that acts like a cannabinoid. Terpenes are flavor and aroma molecules found in plants. BCP is what gives all three of these plants a peppery punch.

BCP has quite a bit of therapeutic potential. The terpene engages CB2 receptors, which are predominant in the immune system. Recent research has also shown that BCP has antidepressant and anti-anxiety effects. When combined with cannabinoids like THC and CBD, the terpene may help heal stomach ulcers and aid addiction recovery.


2. Black Truffles – There is a difference between cannabinoid compounds created by plants and those created by animals. Animals create endocannabinoids and plants create phytocannabinoids. These chemicals are very similar to each other, but they have some differences.

Much to the surprise of many, Italian researchers have found that black truffles create anandamide (AEA). AEA, also known as the bliss molecule, is the human version of THC. This endocannabinoid is usually made by animals and binds to the CB1 receptor.

Funny thing, while these truffles don’t have cannabinoid receptors, they do produce AEA. So, the theory is that the mushrooms create the compound to attract animals that will eat them and spread around their spores.

Black Truffles

Click Here and Enter To Win A Free Glass Pipe!

3. Helichrysum Umbraculigerum – While many of the compounds in plants behave like cannabinoids in the body (they engage the endocannabinoid system), scientists are still on the hunt for plants that contain the exact same chemicals. One particularly interesting finding comes from a South African flower, Helichrysum umbraculigerum.

Researchers have found both cannabigerol (CBG) and cannabigerol acid-like compounds in this plant. CBG occurs early on in the cannabis growth cycle and is thought to be a precursor of sorts to better-known cannabinoids like THC and CBD.

CBG has shown potential as an antibiotic, antidepressant, and even chemotherapeutic agent. Helichrysum umbraculigerum is the first non-cannabis plant to contain this compound. The flower has been traditionally smoked in Southern Africa. This is a major hint that there might be something a little funky in this obscure plant.

Helichrysum Umbraculigerum

4. Maca – Many of these plants contain compounds that directly engage cannabinoid receptors. Yet, other plants contain compounds that act like nonpsychoactive CBD. CBD has many functions in the body. One of these functions is blocking an enzyme that breaks down endocannabinoids (enzyme FAAH).

Endocannabinoids are the body’s own THC. Preventing the breakdown of endocannabinoids increases the amount of them in your system. This can cause a cascade of effects, including mood stabilization.

Compounds in Maca (Lepidium meyenii) called N-benzylamines block FAAH. This improves endocannabinoid tone, boosting the system overall.


5. Kava – The Kava plant (Piper methysticum) has grown in popularity for its anti-anxiety and calming effects. Kava root has been used traditionally by Pacific island cultures who make a medicinal drink from the roots. The concoction is thought to provide sedative, pain relieving, and euphoric effects.

These effects are primarily produced by compounds called kavalactones. One kavalactone in particular, yangonin, interacts with the CB1 receptor. This is the same binding place for THC and is most predominant in the central nervous system. This interaction may be partly responsible for the anxiolytic effects of the plant.


The easiest of these to add into your diet is probably Rosemary so add some to your next meal and give your body a boost!


Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II delivers the Queen’s Speech
This was a Queen’s Speech from a humbled Tory party under a leader whose authority has suddenly drained away. Photograph: Arthur Edwards/AFP/Getty Images

Westminster in the record-breaking high heat of midsummer. The elderly Queen opening Parliament for the 64th time in this longest of royal reigns. A crowded and noisy Commons chamber, with the party leaders straining to make their points across the despatch box. The unwary, catching the event on the television news afterward, may have got the impression today that this was all very familiar, that the 2017 Queen’s Speech marks the resumption of British political business as usual. Yet the unwary would be very wrong.

British politics were radically recast on 8 June. The new political landscape is different in almost every way bar the names of the two main party leaders. The Conservatives are in office but not in power. Labour is in a one-more-heave mode for the first time since the 1990s. The SNP challenge has retreated though not ended. In this hung parliament, shaped by what is now a minority government, this was a Queen’s Speech from a humbled Tory party under a leader whose authority has suddenly drained away.

Everything about the first day of the new Parliament underlined the fragile conditionality of the new order. The Queen dispensed with the usual robes and symbols, sporting instead a hat that echoed the European flag and set Twitter chirping. The speech was short and would have been lightweight, especially for a mooted two-year session, were it not for the Brexit legislation that bulked it out. Peggy Lee’s song Is That All There Is? came irresistibly to mind.

Tory MPs, still shocked at the loss of their majority, managed to do their collective duty by rallying behind Theresa May, feeding her with questions planted by the whips. The prime minister, clearly nervous, was careful and conciliatory – her tone set by a striking apology for central and local government’s lamentable response to the Grenfell Tower fire. Behind that public apology lurked another, unspoken this time but delivered to her party a week ago, for failing to deliver the majority she promised. That failure had produced an emboldened Labour opposition, whose leader Jeremy Corbyn displayed far greater flair and confidence in his speech than any he has made since 2015.

When a government has a majority, a Queen’s Speech sets out the ways it seeks to change the country. This one, by contrast, contained only what the whips think they can get away with to stay in office. The list of bills was a radically emaciated version of the Conservative manifesto. Grammar schools dumped. The scrapping of the Serious Fraud Office abandoned. Foxes left to run free. The winter fuel allowance surviving. Prison reform pointlessly scrapped. Other campaign pledges had been downgraded from certainties to possibilities, about which there will merely be consultation – on social care above all, ditto the energy bill cap. Talk of an industrial strategy continues, but measures remain over the horizon. Counter-terrorism will be reviewed, as will mental health laws, though defence remains unexamined. The King of Spain will make a state visit, but of President Trump’s trip there was not a word.

The speech contained no clues about the putative deal with Northern Ireland’s DUP. Talks continued today, but the mood on both sides is getting irritable. What must have seemed to Mrs May like a good idea on 9 June now looks increasingly vexed, as it deserves to The Ulster Party is driving a hard bargain of cash for votes that sends an embarrassing message to Tory modernisers. Mrs May should cut her losses and trash the plan.

On the two great issues of the moment, Mrs. May said little that was new. Brexit will dominate the legislative agenda for the coming 18 months, but the once-trumpeted repeal bills are now shrouded in extra layers of uncertainty. The government’s EU goals remain obscure so the legislation will contain as many unresolved clauses as there are holes in a Swiss cheese until they are clarified. Things are no better where austerity is concerned. Facing demands for extra spending on health, care, police and schools as well as pay, Philip Hammond may be eyeing a modest reset in his autumn budget. But the government may struggle to last that long. It revealed today that the UK budget deficit is set to expand not reduce this year.

The Queen’s Speech reveals a government without a clear mandate, lacking a clear plan and led by a prime minister whose stock is on the floor. It is frightened of taking action on both Brexit and public spending. Its program poses an unanswered question: What is the point of this? Unless Mrs. May can supply a better answer than she offered today, it looks a doomed enterprise.