Perth march numbers shown as wild lies on video

The nat march in Perth Sep 7 was 3160. The lyingly claimed 20K would have stretched a great distance through the Letham housing estate where they started. The 3160 stretched for hardly a block.

A blow for the more defensively aggressive + closed minded flavour of nats in that region, than in the big central cities, who were awaiting the little march's arrival at North Inch park.

Amazing Perth Video Reveals March Lies As the subscript explains, the march was spread out by big gaps in it. To that I can add: it strted in 2 separated clumps. One beside the sports field, the other 2 minutes down the street.

The National has run an up-itself headline complaining that BBC news did nof report it. There are many things BBC news does not report, while it often reports praising itself: any thinking person should realise it has its own selective worldview like all news media have, and should look at several sources. The same as you would not trust the National on its own. But in this case, there is a reasonable point about newsworthiness that is getting made on the National's Facebook page. It has long since ceased to be newsworthy that largely the same 3K folks bus around and hold repetitive marches in different towns every few weeks of the year's warmer half, then lie that they were many times bigger than they were.

to revoke article 50 is the least gamble

British govt is at crisis point of having its hands tied by parliament against the exact thing it most wants to do. But will there turn out to be any point to it? For yet another EU extension is refusable, a danger that the Benn law does not deal with, + France's President Macron is already talking of refusing it. It was he who made the present extension shorter than the rest of the EU intended to make it. IT WOULD BE LESS OF A GAMBLE TO REVOKE ARTICLE 50, AND WE HAVE REACHED A POINT WHERE IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY DEMOCRATIC TOO.

We have never yet had a 3-way referendum, + our first will inevitably be beset by claims not to understand the process, encouraged by those who don't think it will go their way. It would have to be by the AV system itself defeated in a now-forgotten ref in 2011, the Tories won't agree to that, or else it could fail to produce a majority, fatal if its purpose is to resolve a deadlock !

To have a 2-way ref, you need to have a Leave option to offer in it, that the Leavers agree represents them, is not a robbery of their true position, + is fit for them to enact if it wins. There is none !

The Leavers were robbed by their own side, the ambiguity it pulled to hold itself together. For some Leavers only leaving with a deal was acceptable and they promised so in their campaign. For others only leaving with no deal was acceptable, now the Brexit Party's position: they avoided that in the campaign but have taken the Leave win as grounds to change the goalposts to that harder position. Both those camps within the Brexit movement hoped + gambled that winning a vote just for the principle called Leave should then let their camp prevail as the true form of Leave supported by reason.

That has not happened, the 2 camps are strong enough on their view of true Leave to fight each other + show that there is are actually majority feelings, national and parliamentary, against each camp. The majority consists of: the other Leave camp's purists + the Remainers. No dtheorists + debaters of referendums ever guessed such a Gordian knot. That a ref would be won for the principle of a step, offered in a papered-over alliance of 2 versions mutually unacceptable to enough of each other's supporters to make majorities against enacting either of them !

Hence it is perfectly democratic to revoke A50 until the Leavers sort that out or holdability of a 3-way ref gets sorted out. It's also less of a gamble to do this than go for either a ref or an extension request which Macron is already talking of refusing. Remainers, handed the chance of a legitimate default victory by the Leavers' divided positions, could still blow it + lose by similar division on the rightness + electoral daringness of revoking A50.