Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.

Website by

Website by
Ecommerce Help

Social Media



You must login to post a message.

26-09-2014 10:16
Doomwatch is the best show around

31-05-2014 09:13
Missed you this week.. Happy Birthday Alex for Sunday. you misunderstood my text last week as I meanth a local broadcast audience. ie Local Bar or suchlike

04-11-2013 00:50
Fantastic first show Alex and great to hear Patrick Henningsen again

03-04-2013 21:37
Good guest this week. When is someone going to knock on the Royals' door???

20-03-2013 21:40
pass the parcel lol

Doomwatch 43 - Brian Gerrish - Your Constitution - The Day the UK Stood Still

Doomwatch 43 - Brian Gerrish - Your Constitution - The Day the UK Stood Still

Friday 3rd October 2014, 6.00pm-8.00pm UK on Peterborough FM

You are invited to join host alex:g and Text Jockey Lexy Manning for the 43rd variant of the radio show DOOMWATCH

The usual mix of news stories, comment and audience interaction, with special guest Brian Gerrish, of the UK Column newspaper, who will be joining us in his capacity as one or the speakers at the "Your Constitution - Your Health" conferences, over the weekend of 1st and 2nd November 2014 at the Ramada Birmingham-Sutton Coldfield Hotel.  

"Your Constitution - The Day The UK Stood Still" - the Saturday part of the conference, brought together by the British Constitution Group, will tackle some tough issues, without aligning itself to any political group. Brian's presentation is entitled "Constitution trumps communitarian".

Catch us live in sound and vision via www.ukcolumn.org/live every Friday 6-8pm.

For more information on the "Your Constitution - Your Health" conferences please visit www.doomwatch.biz

And please find below the archive recording in sound and vision this variant of the show:


Possibility of devo-vow breach grows as chaos engulfs No parties

The likelihood of pro-Union parties honouring their pre-referendum pledge on more powers has diminished this evening after key pro-Union figures publicly disagreed over the extent of further devolution promised.

 On Tuesday, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson appeared to try to limit the scope of the Smith Commission which will look at defining the extra powers Scotland will receive as a result of the vow signed by the leaders of the three London based parties. In a speech at her party's conference, Ms Davidson told delegates that the SNP had to show "good faith" in discussions over more powers. She added: "That means ruling out so-called Devo Max.  Such a plan – which would devolve everything bar foreign affairs and the Armed Forces – is a complete non-starter."

In a bizarre intervention, former Labour leader Gordon Brown called for voters to sign a petition demanding the No campaign keep its promise of more powers.  According to media reports, the former Kirkcaldy MP has described devolution proposals outlined by David Cameron as a "Tory Trap" and has urged 100,000 Scots to sign a petition.



Tory voters and MPs deserting David Cameron as Labour gains six-point lead in poll

Voters are deserting the Tories on the eve of their annual conference, our ­exclusive poll reveals today. David Cameron’s party has slumped three points since our poll last month, leaving Labour with a six-point lead. The ComRes/Sunday Mirror survey shows Labour are up one point on 35 per cent and the Tories down three points on 29 per cent, with UKIP up one point on 19 per cent. The Lib Dems drop one point to just 7 per cent.



David Cameron pledges tax cuts for millions

Nearly a million middle-class Britons will be taken out of the 40p income tax band if the Conservatives win the next election, David Cameron has declared. In his last conference speech before the general election next May, the Prime Minister unveiled an unexpected pledge that will lead to anyone earning more than £50,000 a year enjoying a tax cut worth more than £1,300 by 2020.

The announcement, which will cost the Exchequer £1.6 billion a year, is expected to electrify the forthcoming election campaign and is designed to woo back disaffected Ukip voters and wavering Labour supporters across middle England.

Conservative strategists hope that it will have the same impact as George Osborne’s pledge to scrap inheritance tax for the middle classes in 2007, which is credited with ending Labour’s grasp on Downing Street.

In a boost for low-income workers, Mr Cameron also said that he will raise the personal income tax allowance by £2,000 to £12,500. That will cost the Treasury a further £5.6 billion a year. Taken together, the pledges will mean significant tax cuts for 30 million people.



Tories lead Labour in opinion poll for first time in two-and-a-half years

A YouGov survey for the Times shows that the Tories have overtaken Ed Miliband’s party following David Cameron’s party conference speech in which he promised tax cuts for 30 million people. Labour has not been behind in the polls since March 2012, just before the chancellor George Osborne’s “omnishambles” budget.

Asked who they would vote for if the general election were tomorrow, 35% of people backed the Conservatives, compared with 34% for Labour. YouGov’s research, which was conducted after the Tory conference, also shows voters support Cameron’s pledge to lower income tax by 2020, but remain sceptical over whether they will be better off as a result.

It reveals that people expect their finances to suffer less under a Conservative government, but believe they will be poorer after five years irrespective of who is in Downing Street. If the Conservatives win the election, 28% of voters expect to be better off at the end of five years, compared with 37% who think they will be worse off. If Labour wins, 17% expect to be better off and 42% worse off.

Eight out of 10 voters approved of the proposal to raise the income tax personal allowance to £12,500.



Conservatives pledge powers to ignore European court of human rights rulings

Under proposals to be included in the party’s general election manifesto, the Tories would reverse more than half a century’s tradition of human rights authority residing in Europe by giving parliament the right to veto judgments. The authority of the court in Strasbourg would be severely curtailed, with parliament given the final say in deciding whether or not to adopt ECHR decisions.

A document setting out the plans promised to “restore sovereignty to Westminster” through a parliamentary override that would prevent politically unacceptable Strasbourg rulings being enforced in UK law. The far-reaching changes would enable a future Tory government to limit human rights to only the “most serious cases”, deport more “terrorists and serious foreign criminals” and defy policies such as the ECHR’s requirement that some prisoners be given a vote.

Opponents warned that what would in effect be a judicial opt-out risks unravelling the rule of human rights law across Europe at a time when Russia and other nations are chafing against the enforcement of ECHR decisions.



From the Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights?

Proposals for a British Bill of Rights have come from across the political spectrum.  The various plans would have very different consequences

The Human Rights Act (HRA) was introduced in 1998 to “bring rights home”.  Essentially, it allows UK nationals to rely on rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights before the domestic courts.

The legislation has not been universally popular.  Some have branded it a “criminals’ charter”, following suggestions that it had been abused by various litigants.  In 2006 Tony Blair complained that a judgment about a group of Afghans who had hijacked a plane was an “abuse of common sense”. The judgment was later upheld on appeal.

A Bill of Rights might also be brought forward together with a new written constitution.  This could entrench constitutional legislation and allow the courts to rule legislation unlawful.  Gordon Brown raised the possibility that such a document might be published in time for the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015.  Creating such a new constitutional framework would need to be achieved with political consensus in order to be sustainable in the long term, but also perhaps with public involvement.  One criticism of the HRA has been that the public has felt no ownership of the legislation.  There have been suggestions for a “citizens’ convention” to formulate or debate proposals before they are put to the country in a referendum.

Commentators and Non-Governmental Organisations involved in the Bill of Rights debate (whatever their views of the 1998 Act) look upon it as an opportunity to gain public support for a new constitutional settlement.  Most recognise that while the HRA may have had a substantial influence on UK law, it has not found popular support amongst the general public and has been subject to sustained criticism by parts of the press.



Theresa May plans new powers to ban extremists from TV appearances

Theresa May will announce the measure as part of a widely drawn counter-extremism strategy that is intended to catch so-called hate preachers such as Anjem Choudary, who was released on bail last week after being arrested on suspicion of encouraging terrorism. The home secretary’s new orders would be aimed at those who undertake activities “for the purpose of overthrowing democracy”, a wide-ranging definition that could also catch a far wider range of political activists.

May will also set out proposals to ban non-violent extremist groups that fall short of the current threshold for being banned as terrorist-related organisations.

May’s extremist disruption civil orders would contain wide-ranging restrictions on individuals who “undertake harmful activities” to spread, incite or justify hatred against people on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or disability. The orders would be issued by a high court judge on an application from the police on the lower legal test of “balance of probabilities” rather than the stronger test of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The restrictions are expected to include banning individuals from speaking at public events, protests and meetings, having to inform the police in advance of any public event, protest or meeting that they plan to attend, and banning individuals from particular public locations. May also wants to include restrictions on banned individuals from broadcasting, from associating with named people, and restricting their use of social media or the internet by requiring them to submit in advance any proposed publication to the police.

In her party conference speech, the home secretary also:

  • Called for changes to the way police stop and search powers were used, saying legislation would be used if necessary
  • Attacked the Liberal Democrats for thwarting attempts to introduce new data monitoring powers
  • Said the Home Office would take control of all of the government's extremism policies
  • Warned about the establishment of the "world's first truly terrorist state" in Iraq and Syria
  • Said she had so far removed the passports of 25 Britons seeking to travel to Syria

The new measures will be targeted at people and groups who "stay just within the law but spread poisonous hatred", she said.




9/11 activist hands himself in over Cameron remarks

A 9/11 British activist hands himself in to UK’s counter terrorism police following British Prime Ministers David Cameron’s speech at the UN General Assembly last week, Press TV reports. In response to Cameron’s remarks equating people, who question 9/11 and 7/7 attacks in the US and UK as well as the West’s policy towards the Middle East, with Takfiri preachers who radicalize extremists, Nick Kollerstrom handed himself in.

“As the evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. And we know what this world view is, the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or the 7/7 London attacks were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy,” Cameron said while addressing the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September.

Explaining his actions to the Press TV correspondent in London, Kollerstrom said, “David Cameron has redefined terrorism at the UN to include people, who believe that the London bombings involve government complicity, were to some degree arranged, which I certainly do believe, and I’ve published a book on the subject and also I believe the 9/11 was an inside job. I do think Islamic nations are being selectively targeted, it’s perfectly obvious, and if the police force are going by his directive what constitutes terrorism, it seems to me that they need to arrest me.”



Richard D Hall challenges David Cameron to public debate on London bombings

Email sent by Richard D Hall to Prime Minister David Cameron on 1/10/2014: Dear Mr Cameron; In your recent U.N. speech you said, "The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and the 7/7 London attacks were staged". In this statement, regarding the 7/7 bombings you are accusing me and thousands of British people of being liars. This is a demonstrably libellous statement. I challenge you to a public debate on a subject which you have brought to light, which is, "were the London bombings a staged event?". Having made such statements, you surely should back up the statements with evidence, and then be challenged on your evidence in public. If you do not debate this issue in public and with those you accuse of being liars, then your actions are that of a dictator. I await your response,



New Australian law sees journalists facing 10 years in prison

Australia’s lower house of parliament has passed the first in a series of counter-terrorism amendments toughening the country’s national security law. The new legislation could see journalists jailed for reporting on related matters.

National Security Amendments Bill (No. 1), passed by Australia’s House of Representatives on Wednesday, says a person who discloses information relating to a special intelligence operation may face from five to 10 years behind bars. Copying, transcribing or retaining records of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is also outlawed, which is seen as a measure taken in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks of documents on the US’s National Security Agency.

Reporting on national security matters is being restricted simultaneously with more powers being granted to the country’s surveillance agency, with their power to monitor computers being expanded.



Isis, we are told, is a 'clear and dangerous threat to our way of life'. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it

Mary Dejevsky: It’s absurd to suggest that we are fighting them ‘over there’ so that we won’t have to fight them ‘over here’

Now you are welcome to accuse me of a lapse in patriotism unworthy of my British passport, but I simply don’t buy this – any of it – even though, right on cue, there was a well-publicised round-up of terror suspects in London last week. And I regret, to say the least, that so many of our elected representatives seem to swallow the notion of a direct threat to Britain, the moment a Westerner (over there, mostly, and not over here) meets death by the particularly brutal means of beheading.

In cold, hard, logical terms, the rationale for fighting “there” rather than “here” simply does not stand up to scrutiny. First, all those responsible for the atrocities enumerated by (new Defence Secretary Michael) Fallon were either born or educated in Britain. Any trigger for their actions should thus be sought “here” rather than “there”.

Second, they all gave testimony or left statements leaving no doubt as to their motive. Their world-view might embrace the idea of a caliphate, but (they) had something more immediate in mind: to avenge the killing of Muslims by British troops. In his interview, Michael Fallon rejected “with a wave of the hand” the notion that attacks in Britain might reflect “blow back” from Iraq. But that is essentially what these killers said.

Third. Given the nature of the UK’s recent wars and its high international profile – such attacks remain very, very rare. Neither the UK, still less Western civilisation, is realistically threatened with serious destabilisation, still less extinction, by an extremist brand of Islam, raping, pillaging and beheading as it sweeps in from the east.

And fourth, if the threat is indeed to the relatively small area that is within our shores, why are we not concentrating our security efforts here, rather than sending troops and firepower to inflict tiny pinpricks on a vast swathe of territory that is not ours to defend? If the purpose is to show we are loyal allies to the United States, we should say so, not hide behind an exaggerated, even trumped-up, threat to the British way of life. 



Iraqi pilots mistakenly drop supplies — instead of bombs — on Islamic State terrorists

Members of Islamic State recently received an unexpected surprise from the Iraqi military’s inexperienced pilots: an airdrop of food, water and ammunition.

A senior security official told NBC News on Tuesday that an investigation has been launched into how supplies meant for Iraqi soldiers fighting the terrorist group were dropped at the wrong location in Anbar province.

A brigadier-general in Iraq’s Defence Ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the botched military operation, NBC reported. The incident is said to have occurred 19 September.



Buyers who took out 125% mortgages with bailed-out Northern Rock now face crippling rates of 13%

These forgotten victims of the banking crisis are being left stranded - they can’t move home and are unable to take a cheaper mortgage deal - because of the eye-watering interest rates being imposed on them.

Those affected are borrowers who took out the now-infamous Northern Rock Together mortgage. This allowed buyers to purchase a house without a deposit, take loans up to 25 per cent more than the value of their property and borrow up to six times their income.



The lies behind this transatlantic trade deal

George Monbiot: Plans to create an EU-US single market will allow corporations to sue governments using secretive panels, bypassing courts and parliaments.

The European Commission insists that its Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership should include a toxic mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement. Where this has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big corporations to sue governments before secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass domestic courts and override the will of parliaments.

This mechanism could threaten almost any means by which governments might seek to defend their citizens or protect the natural world. Already it is being used by mining companies to sue governments trying to keep them out of protected areas; by banks fighting financial regulation; by a nuclear company contesting Germany's decision to switch off atomic power. After a big political fight we've now been promised plain packaging for cigarettes. But it could be nixed by an offshore arbitration panel. The tobacco company Philip Morris is currently suing Australia through the same mechanism in another treaty.



Tony Abbott adviser calls for Bureau of Meteorology 'warming' inquiry

Maurice Newman, the Australina prime minister’s business adviser, has called for a government-funded review of the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to “dispel suspicions of a warming bias” in its temperature record-keeping. Newman, who has repeatedly questioned the findings of mainstream climate science, wrote in an opinion piece for the Australian that the bureau needed to be investigated over allegations of “temperature manipulation.”

The Australian has run a series of articles questioning data “homogenisation” techniques used by the bureau when collating temperature records. The bureau measures temperatures at nearly 800 sites across Australia.

The newspaper has published the views of Jennifer Marohasy, a climate science sceptic, who has claimed the BoM has “corrupted the official temperature records” by adjusting data and moving the location of temperature monitors to make it appear that Australia is warming.

Climate scientists say that the standardisation of raw temperature data is important to remove rogue readings and has, in most cases, actually resulted in a reduction of the warming trend in Australia. But Newman said questions over the bureau’s methods meant that “nothing short of a thorough government-funded review and audit, conducted by independent professionals, will do”.



Proposed EU climate chief under pressure ahead of grilling by MEPs

Street protests, petitions and a row over undeclared financial interests heralded the start of parliamentary hearings into the suitability of former oil mogul Miguel Arias Cañete to be the EU’s next climate and energy commissioner.

Hundreds of protestors – some dressed in Cañete face masks – gathered outside the European parliament, while the online activist group Avaaz, which has collected 300,000 signatures against Cañete’s candidacy, claimed that thousands of angry constituents had been phoning in complaints to their MEPs.

Cañete changed his members’ declaration of interests on Tuesday to include payments for acting as chairman of the election committee of Spain’s ruling Parti Popular. A PP spokesman told El Pais that he had “possibly forgotten” to declare these earlier.

Jordi Sebastien, a Spanish Green MEP, linked the revelation to a financial scandal that has hit the PP over an alleged slush fund used for funnelling payments from big business to politicians. “He has changed his members’ declaration of interests twice in recent weeks,” Sebastien told the Guardian. “It means that he has a ‘dark’ interest that public opinion now knows about.”


Render time: 0.11 seconds
502,093 unique visits