Is he bluffing or is he ready for the fight?

My friend and I were talking about this article, from the mail, today and I am really wondering is he just wanting to make headlines or is he really in for the fight.

Well, in my opinion,

BRING IT ON, ED

Bring your 'solid evidence' to the public's attention.

I just hope you will allow a fair fight.

Ever Wondered what New Labour has Done for this Country?

I have just read this blog by The Anger of a Quiet Man.

It's title is 'The Utter Failure of New Labour'

This is the blog;

The utter failure of New Labour

♫ Things can only get better ♪ That was the song that heralded in the reign of New Labour, the Blairite dream team, the leftist militant tendency consigned to the ashes of history, a brand new day dawning and freedom from the corruption and sleaze of the Major government.

What we actually got was this.

Record peacetime debt.
Record peacetime deficit.
The first fascist MEP elected to the European Parliament.
UK drops from 7th to 24th in international maths and literacy rankings.
100 new taxes on the middle class.
Council taxes double for the middle classes.
Council tax revaluation if Labour are voted back in.
4,300 petty new laws.
Authoritarian police state oppressing legitimate protest, photography and law abiding citizens.
Doubled the length of tax law and created a mass of new regulations.
Sold the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of the market.
Ripped up a system of financial regulation proven over 300 years; 10 years later the UK has 5 Failed banks.
Destroyed the best private pension provision in europe, taking £100bn from prudent pensioners.
Destroyed more of the UK's manufacturing sector than Thatcher.
Politicisation of the police, the civil service, education.


Falling productivity in public sector despite 48% real-terms increase in spending.
Overseen the rise of the unaccountable, unsackable, feather-bedded bureaucrat, taking control over every aspect of people's lives.
New GP contract increased average pay to £100,000.
Most GPs refuse to provide care during evenings and weekends.
Arrest of an opposition MP for doing his job.
House prices unaffordable for workers on average salaries.
Soaring knife and violent crime in our cities.
Debasement of politics, endless re-announcements of the same policy, cash for peerages, lies, spin and deceit.
200+ service personal killed.
First non-jury Crown court trials.

Abolished century old practises of Parliament; House of Lords, Life Peers, Lord Chancellor's department, Lord Chancellor diminished

3 million immigrants invited into the UK to take 81% of all new jobs created.
1 million young people unemployed.
Jacqui Smith.
Foot and mouth crisis (twice)
Farm payments
Tax credits

Afghanistan war
Iraq war
Under funded ill-equipped Forces

Privatised large parts of defence establishment for short term gain
PFI
Home Office failures
Uncontrolled immigration (am I a racist for mentioning immigration, dear me)
NHS in tatters
School standards at the lowest ever
Thousands of knee jerk badly written laws
Rampant EU fraud
EU ignoring its own people
EU referendum promise reneged
Treaty/Constitution
Northern Rock

RBS
HMRC
Lost data – child benefit and dvlc
Donorgate

Climategate
Cash for Honours
Single families
Economy in complete tatters
First time buyers taken out of market
Rich and poor divide becoming bigger
Plenty of tax rises – both direct and indirect
Uncontrolled private sector
Crime out of control
Young deaths
Guns on our streets
NO ELECTION
Quangos controlling parliament
Populist Catholicism

H/T 13th Spitfire

We also got this.

Thanks to Labour, it is now illegal to swim in the wreck of the Titanic or to sell game birds killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day – eventualities overlooked by previous governments.

Labour has made 4,289 activities illegal since the 1997 election, at a rate of about one a day – twice the speed with which the previous Conservative government created crimes.

Gordon Brown was the worst offender, with his government inventing 33 new crimes a month. Tony Blair's administration made 27 new offences each month.

Some of the more inventive crimes dreamt up by Labour include "disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer" and reporting the door of a merchant ship to be closed and locked when it isn't.

Labour also introduced laws against activities which would already have been covered by previous legislation – such as "causing a nuclear explosion."

Liberal Democrat home office spokesman Chris Huhne, who brought the figures to light, will criticise the government's administrative binge in a speech tonight.

He will say Labour has spent 12 years "suffering from the most acute and prolonged bout of legislative diarrhoea", calling the rate of 69 new Home Affairs Bills in 12 years "staggering".

And now we have this.


The gap between rich and poor in the UK is wider now than 40 years ago, a government-commissioned report says.

"Deep-seated and systemic differences" remain between men and women and minority groups in pay and employment, the National Equality Panel found.

It said in areas such as neighbourhood renewal, taxes and education, policy action was needed to limit inequality.

The issues raised would need "sustained and focused action", Equalities Minister Harriet Harman said.

"But for the sake of the right of every individual to reach their full potential, for the sake of a strong and meritocratic economy and to achieve a peaceful and cohesive society, that is the challenge that must be met," she added.

Not just a fail, this is an epic fail, social mobility has ground to a halt because of Labours attempts to stifle any form of individuality or excellence. It's the classic socialist trap of doing away with first class travel only for everyone to have to travel second class. Never in UK history has so much damage to society been done in such a short space of time by so few to so many.
It will take decades to repair the mess they've left assuming we can do it at all, our kids and their kids will be paying off the interest on the national debt, even assuming we are coming out of a recession (hah!) it wont be enough, they've taxed us into penury, ruined our international credit rating and printed money to keep on paying out for their profligacy despite being warned of the dangers of runaway inflation.

Well ♫ Things can only get better ♪ because they are (hopefully) on their way out, though to believe some Tory blogs the fact that people like me who (may) vote UKIP might just let them back in again. To which my answer is if Ding offered the majority of the people in the UK something they wanted, they'd vote for him, as it is he's not, they're not and so might lose, tough really but that's they way popularity competitions (aka democracy) work, as it is they both look the same from a distance so people might just stick with the devil they know, or vote for someone different and independent offering them what they want.

Who can argue with that?

New Labour have ruined this country.

They need to be sent a clear message when the election comes.

Send them to political oblivion.

This is what upsets me about certain aspects of the Muslim faith.

I have read many articles like this from the Telegraph.

The Headline reads;

Rape victim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant

A 16-year-old girl who was raped in Bangladesh has been given 101 lashes for conceiving during the assault.

An extract from the article

The girl's father was also fined and warned the family would be branded outcasts from their village if he did not pay.

For crying out loud she was raped, she was the victim.

Another extract;

Her rape emerged after her pregnancy test and Muslim elders in the village issued a fatwa insisting that the girl be kept in isolation until her family agreed to corporal punishment.

If you thought that was bad enough, what do you think the rapist got?

Here is an extract from the article answering that question;

Her rapist was pardoned by the elders.

I am not against Islam as a faith.

What i am against is the oppression of women and girls of the Muslim faith. This girl is the innocent party, but she is treated like she is guilty of being raped.

I have read many stories like this and it saddens me and makes me so angry that in the 21st century women, of the Muslim faith, are treated like they are nothing, like they are just things to be abused by Muslim men.

My wife thinks we should take some of these Muslim men, who treat women so badly, and give them a sex change operation and then send them back and see how they like to be on the receiving end of the abuse they give out.

I'm sure the victim from the above article would like to see that happen to her rapist.

I don't know what we can do to change things to help Muslim women, but we can't turn a blind eye to the treatment of women in the Muslim faith.

Someone told me once about how we should put more investment into hydrogen gas to fuel our cars.

My idea is that all the western countries should get together and invest in developing hydrogen gas for fuel, so we won't be so dependent on the middle east for our oil.

Then we have a big bargaining chip to get them to change their ways on how they treat women.

Something has to be done, it is the moral thing to do.

Crime and Punishment

This is the headline to this article from Sky News

Teen Child Rapist Who Struck Again Named

Here is an extract from the article;

A teenager who was jailed for sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl while already on bail after raping a 10-year-old girl has been named.

Why in god's name was he on bail for rape, of a 10 year old, in the first place?

What were they thinking letting a sex attacker, of young girls, out on the streets again.

Didn't they think he might attack someone else. Don't they think rape is a serious crime any more?

Another extract from the article;

On Monday, Heaton was ordered to serve a minimum of five years behind bars at Liverpool Crown Court for the "truly chilling" ordeal he subjected on his victims.

After two sex attacks, one of them a rape, they give him five, yes that's right 5 years.

He should be in jail for at the very least 15 - 20 years, before he is even up for parole.

What if he is still a danger to the public after the five years, will they still let him out?

They probably would because it will be against his (in) human rights.

This is a another extract from the article;

His identity has now been revealed after Judge David Harris QC ended a legal delay, which had been placed to ensure security could be installed to protect the boy from his prison inmates.

'Protect the boy from his prison inmates'.

The victims may not of got proper justice, but from what i have heard there is nothing like justice given out by fellow prisoners to sick twisted monsters like this scum.

Are they seriously thinking about this?

This is the headline to this article in the Times.

Cities face wrecking ball to meet carbon targets

Here is an extract from the article;

Huge expanses of British town and city centres built in the Sixties and Seventies may have to be torn down to meet carbon emission standards for buildings.

In an interview with The Times, the Government’s new chief construction adviser said that there may be no choice but to demolish buildings put up in those decades because it is impossible to refurbish them to a sufficiently high standard.

All this because the government wants to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

Where are all the people meant to go while their houses are being rebuilt?

Guess how much this is going to cost.

Here is an extract from the article;

The Policy Exchange, the public policy think-tank, has estimated that Britain would need to spend about £400 billion on new and refurbished infrastructure by 2020 to address historic underinvestment and to kick-start transition to a low-carbon economy.

Yes that is right £400 Billion.

Where are we going to get that sort of money from, we are up to our ears in debt.

Every article I see about people becoming carbon neutral, I see a someone or some company getting rich from it.

What happened to the 'Punishment should fit the Crime'

I have just been reading this article in the Telegraph, and I was wondering what happened to the saying the 'Punishment should fit the Crime'.

This is the headline to the article;

Thousands of criminals to serve less time in prison under Government plans

Tens of thousands of criminals will spend less time in prison under Government plans to limit the ability of judges to set jail sentences, an official document has disclosed.

Here is an extract from the article;

It suggests that officials are alarmed that judges are giving criminals longer sentences than proposed by ministers, which they refer to as “upward sentencing drift”. From April, a new Sentencing Council will effectively force judges to follow sentencing guidelines drawn up in Westminster.

An official assessment of the impact of the move concludes that if judges follow guidelines set down by the council it will avoid the need for more than 1,000 future prison places. This represents tens of thousands of criminals being spared jail time over the next few years.

'Officials are alarmed that criminals were getting longer sentences'.

What is wrong in giving a criminal a proper jail sentence. The judges hear the evidence against the criminal and give a sentence that he thought would fit the crime. Although there are some judges who need to see what it is like outside their comfortable lives and see what it is like for the rest of us out in the real world.

According to this article in the Mail there are some criminals like drug traffickers, burglers and even rapists who were given cautions. A CAUTION, for crying out loud you get given a slap on the wrist for a serious crime.

What about Munir Hussain who was jailed for attacking someone who broke into his home, held his family hostage and they jailed him. He should of been rewarded for what he did.

Another extract from the article;

The Sentencing Council will become the body providing sentencing guides for judges and magistrates when it replaces the Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel. It has greater powers because legislation says courts “must follow” guidelines and have a “duty” to impose sentences within an identified range. Under the previous bodies, courts needed only to “have regard” to any guidelines.

'Courts must follow the guidelines'. As long as those guidelines make sure the punishment fits the crime.

Guidelines are that, a guide for judges to impose a sentence.

All this is to keep the prison population down, and the government are trying to spin it.

'Punishment should fit the crime'

IPCC Scientist tells truth. I am in shock.

Thanks to Watts Up With That for this breaking news in this mornings Mail

This is the headline to the article;

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

Is this the beginning of the end for the IPCC and the global warming controversy?

How many more documents haven't been verified?

What about Dr Pachauri, will he step down as chairman of the IPCC?

What will Al Gore say about his rock solid science now?

Will Gordon Brown still throw our money away trying and stop something that isn't happening?

I can't wait for them to try and talk themselves out of this one.

Why so long?

Just read the headline to this article in the Mail.

David Kelly post mortem to be kept secret for 70 years as doctors accuse Lord Hutton of concealing vital information

Seventy years (70 years) for a 'suicide'.

What on earth could be in that post mortem report that in needs to be kept secret for 70 years?

Yet again the (In)Human Rights Act strikes again

I don't know how many times this has been asked, but why is a criminals human rights above that of the law abiding citizen of this country.

Here is a headline to an article in the Telegraph.

Killer can't be deported because he might kill again

An Iraqi immigrant who stabbed two doctors to death has won the right to stay in Britain after a judge ruled that he would pose a danger to the public in his homeland.

What about the danger to the public of this country?

A quote from the article;

An immigration tribunal decided that Laith Alani, a paranoid schizophrenic, should not be deported to Iraq because it would breach his human rights and put people there at risk.

Alani has spent the past 19 years in a secure hospital after he killed two NHS consultants in a frenzied attack because he believed he had received a "command from Allah".

The Home Office wanted to deport him on his release to protect the British public, but he appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) where a panel led by Lance Waumsley, a senior immigration judge, ruled that he could remain in the UK.

Another quote;

The case comes after The Sunday Telegraph revealed how the AIT regularly overturns attempts by the Home Office to deport foreign criminals at the end of their sentences.

Last year this newspaper disclosed how dangerous offenders from overseas, including killers and paedophiles, had used the Human Rights Act to avoid deportation despite a pledge by Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, to remove any foreigner who breaks the law.

Mr Brown said in 2007 that foreigners must "play by the rules or face the consequences", adding: "If you commit a crime you will be deported from our country."

Is the UK becoming the dumping ground for the criminals of foreign countries?

Do they come here with a clean slate to commit crimes and when they are caught and they face deportation they come out with the (in) human rights act, saying they will in danger if they are sent back.

Just how many immigrants, who have committed crimes in the UK, aren't deported due to the (in)human rights act. We have enough trouble with the criminals we already have let alone other countries criminals.

Rant now over.

I thought I would try out Twittering.

My dearest wife has said to me, "why don't you try Twitter as well as the blog''.

Well, she has talked me into it, and I am giving it a go for about a month to see how it goes.

It is quite informative, especially the Sky News Twitter site.

I have checked out some people's twitters and some of them write down everything that they are doing. I don't know if I will be doing that, but i will update now and again.

I have a link to my Twitter site on the right.

Happy Twittering everyone.

Social Workers

Here are two stories dealing with social workers and how far they go.

Story 1.

Edlington: report into failures says council treated sadistic brothers as 'naughty boys'

What those two did to those poor boys is horrific, it is beyond anyone's imagination that two children could do that without any sort of remorse.

We see again social workers again failing to do what is right.

A quote from the article;

Education staff at the council failed to take appropriate action when the brothers were excluded from school, which meant that they did not receive any education.

The review concluded that the boys’ behaviour had become so extreme by late 2008 that professionals were “overwhelmed” and lacked the confidence to do anything at all.

How many more times will we see stories like this or like the story of baby Peter.

I don't know the answer to all this is, but it has to change before we lose more children to this evil path of hate and destruction similar to what these two boys did.

Story 2.

Mother 'not clever enough to raise child' has baby snatched by social workers after running away to Ireland to give birth.

This story is about a girl with mild learning difficulties, who was pregnant and went on the run to Ireland to avoid the social services taking her baby away.

Now, if this girl was on her own i could understand the council's position, but she was with the child's father and was in a loving relationship so there was some stability there.

Fife council was alerted and they went to Ireland and took the baby away.

My problem with this is, if they were worried about the baby why didn't they keep a check on the baby and the parents to see if she was being cared for properly. If the baby was being neglected in any way then yes take the baby into care.

You could say social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't, but there has to be a middle ground where the welfare of the child, and in the case of the Edlington boys, the welfare of others in the area must be the priority.

Past decade warmest on record, say Nasa scientists

Here is the headline to the article in the Telegraph.

The past decade was the warmest on record, proving that global warming has continued “unabated”, according to Nasa scientists.

A quote from the article;

Average global temperatures have increased warmed by about 1.5F (0.8C) since 1880, when records began, research showed.

An analysis of global surface temperatures, by Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, found that last year was only a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record.

Now before you start to believe what GISS is saying, can I point you to James Delingpole's Blog in the Telegraph, where he gives his point of view to the above article.

Also in his blog you will find a blog HERE, about vanishing weather stations.

In the blog there is a link to US weatherman John Coleman’s magisterial demolition of the Great AGW Scam.

Take a look and see what you think about the latest article from the GISS.

My view over the years has been for the politicians and scientists to tell the people the truth about climate change, be it good or bad.

Since I have been researching the subject the more sceptical I have become, because everywhere I went where I suggested that the science wasn't proved, and there should be more work done on the subject, all i got was abuse saying I am a flat earther, a non believer, just a couple of the names i have been called.

I am a sceptic I admit it, but I am open minded enough for my mind to be changed as long as any data produced is checked by a number of scientists from both sides of the argument. At the moment that isn't being done.

At the moment all the data produced by the climate change scientist have been, for the most part, taken apart by other scientists, eg, the hockey stick graph.

Those scientist, in my opinion are more believable than the climate change scientists, that is why I am a sceptic.

All I want to know is the truth, and I am sure the rest of the world wants the truth as well, because the governments of the world want to tax us even more and give away even more of our money with this Carbon Trading.

The public should be told the truth, be it AGW is real or it isn't real. Even if they say that climate change needs to be looked at some more. Just tell us the truth.

Quangos

What are quangos and why do we need so many?

In my opinion a quango is just a talking shop that the government uses to make their policy for the day.

Here is a quote, from this article in the Mail today.

Definitions of what a Quango is vary a bit. But using a rather tight definition the Economic Research Council estimates a total spending of £88.9 billion for 1997/98 and £174.7 billion for 2005/06, the latest figures available. The Taxpayers Alliance estimate that UK quangos now employ an army of almost 700,000 bureaucrats.

Now I am in total shock at the amount of money that has been spent on these quangos. How on earth can the government justify the amount of money being spent.

£86,000,000,000 (£86 BILLION) and that's only up until 2005/06.

How much more has been spent in the last 4 years?

£86 BILLION extra spent on quangos, that's about half of the UK debt.

What else could the £86 BILLION of tax payers money been spent on?
More hospitals, more nurses, more equipment for our troops, there are a million and one things that the money could of been better spent on.

700,000 employed by these quangos. Is this how the government has been keeping the jobless figures down all these years?

Are the quangos good value for money?

Do the quangos offer the country good value for money?

Who ever wins the next general election, must cut the amount of money spent on the quangos.

Are the United States damned if the do and damned if they don't?

What can the United States do than what they have already done to help the Haitians. When the US arrived in Haiti there was a logistical and security nightmare to sort out, but they quickly got the airport up and running, as smooth as they could, so aid and personnel could get into Haiti.

Yes more can be done, but why should the US take it all on their shoulders.

No matter what the US does they are in the wrong according to some other countries.

The most I, or any member of the public, can do is donate to a charity to help Haiti, but what about other countries governments.

If you go here, there are pictures of the personnel from a number of countries helping in the relief effort in Haiti.

Where is the help from the more wealthy nations of the world, like Saudi Arabia.

Here is a quote to an article in the Telegraph today, to answer that question.

Compare this with the response to the disaster in the Arab states, where the US is so routinely reviled. Some of the poorest among them, such as Jordan and Lebanon, have sent assistance, as have the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. But Saudi Arabia, one of the world's wealthiest nations, has managed to send just a letter of condolence. As for Syria, which never misses an opportunity to denounce the iniquities of the Great Satan, it appears to have sent nothing at all.

The US doesn't get it right all the time, what country does, but what other country has ships, aircraft, personnel to mount this sort of operation with so many assets at their disposal.

The fault line in Haiti runs straight to France

This is the headline to an article in the Times.

After reading this article in the Telegraph the other day and the above article today the French have a lot explaining to do on their treatment of the Haitians.

Here are a few quotes from the article;

In the 18th century, Haiti was France’s imperial jewel, the Pearl of the Caribbean, the largest sugar exporter in the world. Even by colonial standards, the treatment of slaves working the Haitian plantations was truly vile. They died so fast that, at times, France was importing 50,000 slaves a year to keep up the numbers and the profits.

Inspired by the principles of the French Revolution, in 1791 the slaves rebelled under the leadership of the self-educated slave Toussaint L’Ouverture. After a vicious war, Napoleon’s forces were defeated. Haiti declared independence in 1804.

Also;

France did not forgive the impertinence and loss of earnings: 800 destroyed sugar plantations, 3,000 lost coffee estates. A brutal trade blockade was imposed. Former plantation owners demanded that Haiti be invaded, its population enslaved once more. Instead, the French State opted to bleed the new black republic white.

In 1825, in return for recognising Haitian independence, France demanded indemnity on a staggering scale: 150 million gold francs, five times the country’s annual export revenue. The Royal Ordinance was backed up by 12 French warships with 150 cannon.

The terms were non-negotiable. The fledgeling nation acceded, since it had little choice. Haiti must pay for its freedom, and pay it did, through the nose, for the next 122 years.

The French, even in the recent past have refused to repay any of the money they forced the Haitians to pay for their freedom.

Haiti could of been a prosperous nation, and a far cry from what it is today.

In my opinion the French have a lot to answer for when it comes to the Haiti.

Have a read of the article and see what you think.

I just had to share this one with you.

I have just been reading a blog by Daniel Hannan called
'What would happen if a state left the Euro'

It is an interesting blog entry, but i was reading the comments to Daniel's blog and i came across this comment by 'fabiansolutions'; the comment is made on Jan 18th 10:31am if you want to have a look.

@Rastus C. Tastey

Firstly – stop repeating the lie that the EU Constitution is the same as the Lisbon Treaty.

Secondly – the EU is a democratic institution.

But a representative democracy isn’t the same as mob rule.

We elect politicians to make the tough decisions for us – so we don’t have to read all that boring documentation and can get on with our lives.

Would you rather spend your time ploughing through the jargon and fine print, or down the pub watching footie or the X-factor with your mates?

I know what I’d prefer!

An overwhelming majority of economic experts agree that the EU is good for British jobs and business.

The EU is unquestionably a good thing.

Of course you’re free to disagree – just as you are to disagree about the law of gravity.

But we don’t hold referendums to decide on the validity of the laws of physics, do we?

We let the experts decide.

Can anyone else find one or two arguments to this comment?

I'm pretty sure there are other people, apart from me, who might think that fabiansolutions has either a screw loose or has been tied up in a room and brainwashed by the EU.

Has the Met Office messed up once to often?

Will they or won't they?

Met Office could be dropped by BBC after weather blunders

The Met Office and its presenters could be dropped by the BBC after string of weather blunders.

Read the Telegraph article for full details.

What is this guy still up to?

A new article in the Telegraph today about Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC. This is connected to a previous blog that you can read here.

The Headline reads;

Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief

Millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money is being paid to an organisation in India run by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the UN climate change panel, despite growing concern over its accounts.

A quote from the article;

The decision by DfID to fund Dr Pachauri's institute, based in Delhi, will add to growing concern over allegations of conflict of interest with critics accusing Dr Pachauri and TERI of gaining financially from policies which are formulated as a result of the work he carries out as IPCC chairman – a suggestion he strongly denies.

Not only has Dr Pachauri and TERI taken jobs from the UK (Teeside) we, the taxpayer, are even paying him. Maybe it is to find more ways to brainwash the country.

He has interests in so many businesses and countries right now, how can he deny that there isn't a conflict of interest.

Another quote asks the same question;

But Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor who now chairs the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank which challenges the prevailing scientific view on climate change, said: "It is now a wholly legitimate concern to ask questions about possible conflicts of interests. The IPCC is a very influential body and he is obviously very involved in its leadership."

There is definitely something going on here.

I believe Dr Pachauri, and TERI, are building themselves up to be a huge player in this carbon trading scam. Look at Al Gore, he has his hands in carbon trading companies and is trying his hardest to help get the carbon trading bill passed the the USA.

There is an additional article here that is worth reading.

The headline reads;

The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income

When Douglas Alexander travelled to New Delhi last September to announce Britain was presenting £10 million to the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), standing alongside him was an imposing, bearded figure.

It definitely makes me very curious about what their end game is.

Health Scares

I have just read a very interesting Blog, and article in the Guardian, by Dick Puddlecote called
Staunch Belief In Abject Failure

It basically goes on about the health scares over last 10 - 15 years.

Have a read it is very interesting, it does make you think.

The problem is, I keep thinking about the story of 'The boy who cried wolf. '

If, god forbid, we ever get a proper pandemic will the public believe the scientists.

I know one thing that can be cut from the budget without to much trouble.

Have a read of this article and see if the government can cut this out of their spending and save a bit of our money.

Taxpayers' £600,000 a year bill to support Tony Blair's Middle East role

Taxpayers are spending more than £600,000 a year on civil servants and office support for Tony Blair’s role as a Middle East peace envoy.

I don't think many people would object to this being cut from the budget.

What Planet is this Guy on?

This is the headline to this article in the telegraph.

Met Office boss says winter forecasts have been 'very good indeed'

The head of the Met Office yesterday insisted that its recent forecasts had been "very good indeed", and blamed the public for not heeding snow warnings.

Here are a couple of my blogs on this subject, here and here.

What can i say, He must be laughing all the way to the bank with his £200,000 salary.

Labour Promises

Did you listen to the speech Gordon Brown gave to the Fabian society today.

He was promising this and that, telling us what he plans for the UK in the future, and it made me think of all the promises Labour made in 1997 when they came to power.

The two everyone remembers is;

‘Education, Education, Education’

The other;

‘Tough on crime. Tough on the Causes of Crime’

We all know how well they came out.

It made me think what else they promised over the years, and what rights that have been given us and what rights that have been taken away.

Here are some quotes from Labour’s 1997 manifesto taken from the Labour party Website;

' This is our contract with the people'

I believe in Britain. It is a great country with a great history. The British people are a great people. But I believe Britain can and must be better: better schools, better hospitals, better ways of tackling crime, of building a modern welfare state, of equipping ourselves for a new world economy.

Yes Great Britain was a great country until Labour got hold of it. We are losing our identity, our patriotism, our community spirit. Was that what they wanted in the first place.

I want a Britain that is one nation, with shared values and purpose, where merit comes before privilege, run for the many not the few, strong and sure of itself at home and abroad.

One nation. Why then did you give devolution to Scotland and Wales then. Was it to break up the UNITED Kingdom.

'Run for the many not the few'. Is the many, the many MPs troughing the expenses system, or run for the many people on benefits who have no intention on ever finding a job.

'Shared Values'. Are these the values where young teenagers get themselves seriously drunk every week.

The shared values where people get beaten up and sometimes killed just by trying to protect their property and family.

The same shared values where people get more compensation for stubbing their toe than for our troops who come home hurt and maimed.

The same shared values where a criminal has more human rights than the law abiding citizens of this country.

In education

We reject both the idea of a return to the 11-plus and the monolithic comprehensive schools that take no account of children's differing abilities. Instead we favour all-in schooling which identifies the distinct abilities of individual pupils and organises them in classes to maximise their progress in individual subjects. In this way we modernise the comprehensive principle, learning from the experience of its 30 years of application.

Education where a significant proportion of school leavers can't read, write or add up correctly, if they can at all.

Education, where the system has been changed so many times that the teachers don't know what to teach the pupils.

Education, where you teach young pupils, of 5 or 6 about what homosexuality is, and about domestic violence. What ever happened to letting children be children. Let their minds have their innocence for a couple of years at least.

On crime

We believe in personal responsibility and in punishing crime, but also tackling its underlying causes - so, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, different from the Labour approach of the past and the Tory policy of today.

On crime, where you let out of prison dangerous criminal, including murders and rapists, who go out and re offend with in days, if not hours of getting out.

On crime, where a house owner gets arrested for protecting his family and property from the criminal, but if the criminal breaking into the home attacks that same homeowner he gets a ridiculously soft sentence, usually a couple of months in prison but more likely a community order.

On Crime, where you beat, starve and torture a baby and you get sentenced to 5 years.

On Crime, where life in prison could mean the criminal gets sentenced to 15 years, but only serves half that sentence.

On crime, where free speech can be a criminal offence.

Over-centralisation of government and lack of accountability was a problem in governments of both left and right. Labour is committed to the democratic renewal of our country through decentralisation and the elimination of excessive government secrecy.

Secrecy, is this the secrecy that politicians tried to keep their expenses from the public eye.

De-centralisation, where everything we do is micro managed.

Democratic renewal, were you promised a referendum on the constitution, which later became the Lisbon treaty, But you signed it any way.

In addition, we will face up to the new issues that confront us. We will be the party of welfare reform. In consultation and partnership with the people, we will design a modern welfare state based on rights and duties going together, fit for the modern world.

A welfare state, where people are better off on welfare than in a job.

A welfare state, that a woman, or young teen, gets pregnant and gets given a house, and then gets more money the more children she has.

A welfare state, where people earn more money on welfare than the people who work for a living, where, certain people on welfare, have luxuries that some of the people who work can only dream of.

A welfare state, where extremists can live on welfare while praising terrorists who attack this country and our troops. Extremists who talk hate, but aren't arrested for it.

A welfare state, where immigrants can just enter this country illegally and get jobs with the government, the solicitor general for example. A welfare state where immigrants can get paid for children that aren't even living in this country.

We will stand up for Britain's interests in Europe after the shambles of the last six years, but, more than that, we will lead a campaign for reform in Europe. Europe isn't working in the way this country and Europe need. But to lead means to be involved, to be constructive, to be capable of getting our own way.

Where do i start with this one.

Labour have caved in at every turn when it comes to Europe.

Stand up for Britain's interests, that would be a laugh if it wasn't so serious.

A broken promise on a referendum.

Giving back a hard fought rebate, where the Eu 'promised' to reform the 'Common Agriculture policy' but didn't do a thing.

I could go on forever with Europe, but i would be here till next week writing it up

What about our Freedoms and liberties.

The Following examples come from;

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/2008/03/06/loss-of-liberty-and-rights-since-1997

Loss of Liberty and Rights since 1997

Protest and assembly
- Protests are banned within one kilometre of Parliament Square without police permission (penalty: 51 weeks in jail and/or a £2,500 fine).

- Groups may be dispersed under antisocial-behaviour laws.

- Groups may be dispersed within designated areas under the terror laws.

- The new offence under SOCPA of trespass within a designated site (no justification for designation is required).

Communications
- Under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act, government agencies may intercept email, internet connections and standard mail without seeking a court's permission (the latest figure is 500,000 secret interceptions a year).

- Since summer 2007, the government and some 700 agencies have had access to all landline and mobile-phone records. There was no primary legislation and no debate in parliament.

Databases
- Without primary legislation, police introduced a national network of all ANPR cameras. The travel data may be stored for two years.

- The National Identity Register will store details of every verification made by an ID-card holder and give access to government agencies without the knowledge or consent of the private citizen.

- ID-card enrolment requires every citizen to offer up 49 piece of personal information to the national database, with heavy and repeated fines for non-compliance.

- All children details are to be stored on a central database, with access granted to a wide range of public bodies.

- The Children's Common Assessment Framework database stores all details of children with problems, indefinitely.

- The Home Office has announced that it wishes to take 19 pieces of information, including mobile-phone and credit-card numbers, from everyone travelling abroad.

Free Expression
- Public-order laws have been used to curtail free expression. A man wearing the slogan "Bollocks to Blair" on his T-shirt was told to remove it by police.

- The Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) bans incitement of hatred on religious grounds.

- Justice Minister Jack Straw proposes new laws which would ban the incitement of hatred towards the disabled and on the grounds of a person's sexual orientation

- Terror laws are used to ban freedom of expression in designated areas. Walter Wolfgang was removed from the Labour party conference for heckling Jack Straw. People have been searched simply for wearing slogans on their T-shirts or for carrying banners. A man was detained while collecting signatures against the ID card

- The Protection from Harassment Act (1997) bans the repetition of an act. People prosecuted for repeated protest by email.

- Terror laws ban the glorification of terrorism, which has resulted in the prosecution of a young woman for writing poetry.

The Courts
- ASBO legislation introduces hearsay evidence, which may result in a person being sent to jail.

- The Criminal Justice Act (2003) allows the prosecution to make an application to be heard without a jury where there is a danger of jury tampering. This will include fraud trials.

- The admissibility of evidence concerning a person's bad character, previous convictions and acquittals.

- The Proceeds of Crime Act (2002) gives the state powers to confiscate assets in circumstances where it does not have enough evidence for prosecution.

-Special Immigration Appeals Court hearings are held in secret. Those terror suspects whose cases come before the court are not allowed to know the evidence against them or to be represented by a lawyer of their own choice.

- The Courts and Tribunals Enforcement Act abandons the tradition of an Englishman's home being his castle, which since 1604 has made breaking into a home by bailiffs illegal.
Terror Laws

- Terror laws have been used to stop and search ordinary citizens. The current rate is 50,000 per annum.

- A maximum of 28 days without charge is allowed under terror legislation. The government has announced plans to increase this to 42 days.

- Control orders, effectively indefinite house arrest, were introduced after the Belmarsh decision.

I'm sorry for this being so long, but Gordon Brown really got to me today with his speech, i just had to let go a bit.

Reporting Both Sides of the Climate Debate

Not A Sheep has an interesting blog about the reporting of Global Warming in the USA

In the blog it says that only 20% of airtime, in the main steam media of the United States, is given to the alternate view of man made global warming.

The last paragraph Not A Sheep's blog says;

An interesting article and I wonder how the BBC would fare if their output was similarly analysed?

It does make you wonder how much airtime, in the UK, is given to the pro global warming debate.

What is the percentage of airtime, for both sides of the climate debate, is there in this country?

I bet it will be in favour of the pro climate change side of the debate by a huge margin.

If you want an alternate view on the climate change debate go to;

Watts Up With That or Climate Audit which is actually run by Steve McIntyre, the guy who ripped the 'hockey stick ' graph to shreds.

People should be told both sides of the debate so they can make a decision on what they think, but it looks like certain people and organisations don't want you to know the other side of the argument.

It makes you think, what are they trying to hide.

Selling the Near Impossible

This is the headline to the article.

Downing Street staff attacked by former minister Kim Howells

Downing Street staff were denounced as "incompetent" today by a former minister who accused them of failing to sell Gordon Brown's strengths to the public.

Here is a quote from the article;

Kim Howells, the former Foreign Office minister, said the Prime Minister is ''a much more solid individual than is portrayed publicly'' and should have been made much more accessible to voters.

Key aides within Downing Street failed to capitalise on Mr Brown's strong response to the banking crisis a year ago, Dr Howells said.

I am sure Gordon Brown has strengths, but from everything I have seen and read he has more weaknesses than strengths.

I would like Kim Howells to tell us what his strengths actually are, because I'm sure there will be people out there telling us he has more weaknesses.

I believe Gordon Brown thinks for the moment and not long term. He can't make a choice without consulting his public relations people, because he doesn't want to upset a certain group of people.

For example;



He goes through Chinese, Indian, French food etc. Why didn't he say i like a nice curry, i like frogs legs, bacon and eggs, pasta, fish and chips. Only when he was pushed did he give a straight answer.

Gordon Brown needs to be straight with people, that is why people have stopped believing what he says a long time ago.

That goes for all politicians, local and national, be straight with the people. If you screwed up, tell us.

Being a politician I know how hard it is being honest, but try it. I have been told it is good for the soul.

Is this Two Year Old a Terrorist?

That's what I would be asking if the two year old's name appeared on a terrorist watch list.

This is what happened to Michael Hicks when he first tried to board an airline.

This is from the sky news article.

An eight-year-old boy from the US is apparently suspected of being a terrorist when he goes on holiday because of a name mix-up.

Cub scout Michael Hicks, from New Jersey, is believed to share his name with a suspicious person - and he gets stopped and searched at nearly every airport.

Problems began six years ago when the family tried to fly to Florida from Newark Liberty International Airport.

Airline staff said Michael's name was "on the list" and the boy was 'patted down' - he was just two years old.

Since then, he has found it hard to get on a flight without any problems.



If I had the same name as someone on the watch list and I had the same description, I would understand if i was stopped and checked.

What were the airport security people thinking, didn't they have a description of this guy. Surely they must of known a two year old isn't the same person. Is it the fact that their common sense is surgically removed when they take the job?

Where was their common sense?

Is this part of the reason why it takes three or more hours to board a flight?

Have a Listen to this Guy.

Have a listen and see what you think.



Thank you to Tory Totty online for this.

New Posters from the Labour Party

These new posters are the Labour Party's answer to the Tory Posters.

They thought to give them a fighting chance the Labour party would make a few alteration to make the posters more appealing.

A big Thank You To G. O. T. for his great blog, and where these posters come from.

Is Britain a Sovereign State?

A few months ago i wrote this blog about how Britain is being ruled by Europe.

Well i have just read this article in the Times.

A quote from the article;

A key element of the Government’s anti-terror laws was declared illegal today because it breaches human rights.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that sweeping powers allowing police to stop and search people without having grounds of suspecting their involvement in terrorism are illegal.

This ruling is more proof that the UK isn't allowed to do anything without the ok from the EU and the human rights court.

Does anyone remember V for Vendetta.

Another Nail in the Coffin for Justice

A few days ago i wrote this blog about the seven muslim protesters disrupting a home coming parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment, and how they refused to stand up in court to show respect to the judge and the court.

Now the seven muslim men were found guilty.

Their punishment, a £500 fine. Which they admit we, the tax payer, will have to pay because all of them are on benefits.

You can read newspaper articles here, here and here

Here is an article of the damage they have caused to the community.

Judge Carolyn Mellanby has basically given the far right parties more ammunition and more followers to their cause.

It's not just this case, but many other criminal cases where people are found guilty of a crime and the sentence is just a joke.

Justice in this country is becoming a joke, if it isn't already.

The Health and Safety Idiots are at it again.

Read this article and ask yourself if these health and safety idiots are actually living in the same reality we live in.

Here is a quote from the article;

Heavy snow, low temperatures and a lack of gritting mean pavements throughout the country are too slippery to walk on safely. Hospitals have been struggling to cope with rising numbers of patients who have broken bones after falling on icy paths.

Yet the professional body that represents health and safety experts has issued a warning to businesses not to grit public paths – despite the fact that Britain is in the grip of its coldest winter for nearly half a century.

Under current legislation, householders and companies open themselves up to legal action if they try to clear a public pavement outside their property. If they leave the path in a treacherous condition, they cannot be sued.

Councils, who have a responsibility for public highways, say they have no legal obligation to clear pavements.

What can i say to that.

They say you cannot be sued if you leave the path in a treacherous condition, i doubt that very much. I am pretty sure you will be sued either way.

If you have a spillage on the floor where you work and don't mop it up and someone slips and falls hurting themselves, you can get sued.

If there is ice on a public pathway where you work and you don't clear it, and someone slips and falls and hurt themselves, you won't be sued

I know they are two different circumstances, but how can you be sued for one and not the other. You have two situations where someone might slip and fall, but you can only be sued in one of those situations.

What about shopkeepers who try and clear a path, in front of their shops. It is just common decency to try and look after their customers. Now they might be sued if they try and clear a path.

When will all this health and safety stupidity stop?

You have to do certain things to stop getting sued, but you also have to not do certain things to stop getting sued.

HELP!

Update;
Have a read of the Telegraph View on this article.

Aren't we even Allowed to Protect Ourselves in OUR OWN Homes?

I ask this question after reading the Telegraph article about Myleen Klass' incident i blogged about yesterday.

What are we allowed to do to protect ourselves, if an intruder breaks into our homes?

Here is a quote from the article;

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon" – even in her own home – was illegal.

The police arrived at her house and informed her that carrying a knife is illegal. So are the police saying we must get rid of every implement that might be used as an offensive weapon.

I hope the police gave her reassurance and helped calm Myleen's nerves, before they told her she acted illegally in her own home.

Aren't we allowed to protect our family and home any more?

What are the rights for the law abiding citizens of this country who work hard, pay income tax, council tax, who just want to keep their family safe and secure.

It is our human right to feel safe and secure in our own home, and if someone tries to break in to our home then that person does so with the knowledge that the owner of the home he is breaking into, has the right to protect themselves, their family and their home by any and all means at his disposal.

I don't like violence, but when it comes to protecting my family and home i will do anything necessary to protect them.

The police might say that you should call them straight away and hide, but how long will they take to get to you. I am a great believer in the police, but my belief has taken a few knocks over the last few years.

I know it isn't all their fault, they have been drowning in red tape for years, had more laws to enforce then ever before, 3000 new laws at the last count, and the human (criminals) rights act has certainly held them back.

Check out PC Bloggs (Blog) for what the police have to get through. It certainly is an eye opener.

We have to take back our streets from the scum of the earth that inhabits it at the moment.

The police must be allowed to do their job without the human (criminals) rights act getting in the way. Also get rid of all the red tape, health and safety rubbish that they have to right up before they even step out of the door.

When will this happen?

I don't know, but something has to be done soon before we lose the battle altogether.

A lesson for Anjem Choudary

This article in the Daily Mail should show the British public what real British muslims are like. Completely opposite from the other muslims my previous blog.



The majority of British muslims are law abiding people who hate what Choudary is doing.

This is a quote from the article;

That is why the sight of Mr and Mrs Latif solemnly standing shoulder to shoulder with everyone else in Wootton Bassett should be drawn to everyone's attention. For their story is the story of real British Muslims, not the cataclysmic fantasy of an egomaniac like Choudary.

There is a lot of anti muslim feeling in this country, but the extremists are in the minority of the real muslim people.

There are extremists in all religions not just muslims. I just hope the law abiding muslims of this country rise up and stop the extremists like Choudary from turning young muslims against this country.

Why weren't they charged with Contempt of Court?

If you are in a court of law and the judge walks in everyone must stand up to show respect to the court and the court officials.

If you don't you can be charged with contempt of court.

This article in the Telegraph has me wondering, how far will the judge give leeway to the accused.

Here is a quote from the article;

The accused are seven muslim men who are accused of disrupting the homecoming parade of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment last March. As the soldiers paraded through the town, the men were allegedly heard to shout: “British soldiers go to hell” and “They are killing babies”. They were also allegedly seen to display placards with slogans such as “Butchers of Basra” and “Cowards, Killers, Extremists”, and so face charges under the Public Order Act.

These men live in this country and they should abide by the laws of this country. They were arrested for breaking the laws of this country and are now on trial.

Here is the quote from the article that makes you wonder what will happen in this trial;

When the case opened, the accused refused to stand for Miss Mellanby. Their religion, they argued, forbids them to stand for anybody except Allah, and they were therefore unable to show their respect for the court’s officers in the customary manner.

What do you think the judge did next;

Did she charge them with contempt of court, or change hundreds of years of common law.

What she did was arrange it so the accused men would enter the court after the judge.

Now i ask you, WHY?

The last paragraph of the article says;

It’s up to District Judge Mellanby to decide whether these men are guilty of “threatening abusive or insulting behaviour”, and we, of course, expect that she will do so in a fair and proper manner. But we should keep an eye on the case, to see if she brings in any other radical legal innovations, overturning centuries of common law, in the process.

This case does make me uneasy. If she gives in on them not standing when she enters the court what else will she do?

I can't believe this news story.

Knife hero Myleene ticked off by police.

That is the headline to this article in the Sun today.

This is a quote from the article;

TELLY beauty Myleene Klass was told off by cops for waving a knife through her WINDOW to scare off yobs skulking in her garden at night.

Forgetting for the moment that she is a celebrity.

You have a woman alone in her house with a baby, when she sees two teenagers lurking about in her garden and looking in through the window.

She becomes scared for herself and her baby not knowing what these two are going to do. She looks for something to protect herself with, and it is a knife.

Now she waves it at the two teenagers and shouts that she is calling the police. Luckily they ran off.

Here is a quote from the article;

Desperate to protect her daughter and her home, brave Myleene, 31 - whose fiance Graham Quinn was away on business - grabbed a kitchen knife and waved it, shouting: "I'm calling the police."

But when cops arrived they told her she could have got into trouble with the law - even though she was in her own HOME and the yobs were outside.

This is what i cannot believe, she was in her own home, she was scared and wanted to protect herself and her daughter. She didn't know if they were going break in to rob her house or rape her, and the police said that she could of got into trouble. like it says in the article, she was acting on instinct to protect herself and her baby.

When a woman on her own with a baby can't protect herself, inside her own home, then the law has become an ass.

It has been said before by many people that the criminal has more rights now than the victim. That is such a travesty.

You have yobs, teenagers and adults, out there that have been arrested ten, twenty, thirty times, sometimes more, yet they never get sent to prison. WHY?

There are yobs on our streets that have no fear of the law, because they know that they would most probably get probation or at worst a year or two in jail. Even then the sentence would be halved to make more room in the jail.

It is time for every law abiding person in this country to get together and say enough is enough. We must put pressure, somehow, on our politicians to make sure our streets are safer, that the punishment fits the crime.

'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'.

Remember that quote, did he ever mean it or was it just spin?

Barbeque Summers & Mild Winters

These are the two predictions for the summer and winter in the last year by the ONCE respected Met Office.

What more can be said.

Well, i have just read that for getting the weather completely wrong the chief executive John Hirst is receiving a 25% pay rise.

Here is a quote from the telegraph article

According to a copy of the organisation’s latest annual report and accounts, John Hirst, the organisation’s chief executive, received between £195,000 and £200,000 in pay and bonuses in 2008/9.

The figure is a 25 per cent increase on the £155,000 to £160,000 "pay equivalent" for Mr Hirst in 2007/8. Mr Hirst had joined midway through the previous financial year in September 2007.

Here is the best quote from the article, it did make me laugh;

A Met Office spokesman said Mr Hirst’s total pay had jumped because a “performance related bonus” from 2007/8 was paid in 2008/9. There was no underlying increase in salary, she said.

She said: "John Hirst’s salary reflected the need to bring in, and appropriately reward, skills to meet the significant opportunities and challenges in our weather and climate business.

Performance related bonus, so he was brought in to get the weather completely wrong then, or have i got the wrong end of the stick.

I know predicting the weather can be difficult, but to get it completely wrong over the last 2 - 3 years doesn't give me much confidence in John Hirst's abilities.

There are arguments that this is due to people in the met Office being part of the climate change conspiracy, where there computers are being manipulated to show or predict climbing temperatures to show global warming.

What ever the reason the people at the met office are getting the forecasts very wrong. In my opinion new blood should be brought in, and they must be allowed to do the job without being pressured by any side of the climate change argument.

I have just looked at the met office's website and i found the following;

"The Met Office provides a service which is second to none in helping the UK understand and make the most of the weather in this country and overseas."
Derek Twigg, Under Secretary of State for Defence

'A service second to none'. Not lately they haven't.

Another quote;

The Met Office’s Public Weather Service (PWS) provides the weather forecasts that the UK depends upon. It funds and is responsible for gathering observations of the current weather, developing and operating the computer model that predicts future weather, and the analysis of observations and model output to create our weather forecasts.

Yes we depend on the forecasts being right, or as near as possible, but you haven't been doing that well lately have you.

You fund and gather weather observations for computer model output to create weather forecasts, well i don't think the computers are working correctly, because i think your computers are adding 1 + 1 and coming out with an answer 4,573,458,215.3.

You can read for yourself the ' How valuable is the met office' web page here. Have a look and see what you think.

In a previous blog entry the met office predicted that 2010 will be 'more likely than not' the world's warmest year on record.

Well let us see what happens this year.

'Outrage over controversial Islamic group's plan to march through Wootton Bassett'

That is the headline from this article in the telegraph

Now i will try and stay calm while writing this.

Wootton Basset is a town whose people are doing what everyone in the country would do, by paying our respects to our honoured dead.

I'm sure everyone would agree that they would be doing exactly what the people of Wootton Basset are doing, by lining the streets and pay their respects to our fallen, if they came through their town.

If this islamic group do march through Wootton Basset they would, in my opinion, be at the very least disrespecting our honoured dead, and the thought of that makes me, and probably the whole country, very upset.

It shouldn't matter if you are for or against the war, those lads and lasses are our brothers, sisters, fathers, sons and daughters. It doesn't matter if you aren't related to anyone out there, they are still our brothers and sisters fighting for their country.

This march cannot be allowed to go ahead, not just because of all the hurt it may cause, but because the far right would most probably turn up as well, and then you will have what will become a dangerous situation. I would not want that to happen in Wootton Basset

The community of Wootton Basset has shown great patriotism that the whole country feels for our lads and lasses, and i would hate for anything to happen there if this group do march there.

The march by this islamic group must not be allowed to go ahead.

Is This a Major Shock? 3

Update to my previous Blogs. Is This a Major Shock? & Is This a Major Shock? 2

Public sector pay races ahead in recession

That is the headline to this article in the Times today.

So public sector worker pay races ahead of the private sector, shock, horror.

Now if the pay rises were for nurses, the police or any front line service i wouldn't be that bothered, but i bet it isn't.

Here is a quote from the article

Since Labour came to power in 1997, the number of public sector workers has increased by 914,000 to more than 6m, just over a fifth of the workforce.

What i would like to know is, of the 914,000 public sector jobs how many were front line workers like nurses and police?

Not many i would think, most of them would be the quangos and non jobs. If the 914,000 jobs were the police, nurses and other front line jobs i wouldn't of minded.

Another quote from the article;

This has come despite a decline in productivity. According to the ONS, public sector productivity fell by 3.4% in the 10 years from 1997 — compared with a rise of 28% in the private sector over the same period.

“It is ridiculous that pay and perks have risen when public sector productivity has fallen. This gravy train now has to come to an end,” said Graeme Leach, chief economist and director of policy at the Institute of Directors.

This is a great example of why government, local and national, should be under the same rules as private business. How can they get away with having 914,000 more workers and have productivity fall. If that happened in a private business the owners would have to make staff redundant, but not if you work for the public sector.

Another quote from the article;

One of the starkest gaps between the public and private sector is in pension provision.

Most civil servants receive employer pension contributions worth 19.4% of their salary paid into their final salary pension scheme each year. This is more than three times the average of 6% paid by private sector firms into their employees’ less generous defined-contribution schemes last year.

Why is it so different to the private sector, they get paid more by the tax payer, they get better perks than the tax payer, they get better pensions than the tax payer.

Who pays for all of their pay, perks and pension, yes us the tax payer, but what gets me is, they can retire earlier than the rest of us. Some of them can retire at 56 while the rest of us tax payers have to work till we are 65 and in some cases beyond that.

How in the hell is all this going to be paid for. The country doesn't have any more money. The country is so much in debt that each person in this country owes in the region of £25,000 each.

The whole system has to change.

Is This a Major Shock? 2

Update on the previous blog

One in three mandarins has a £1m pension... and retires years earlier than private sector staff

This is the headline to this article.

I am working my arse off to keep a roof over my families head and to put food on the table, and trying to save as much as i can for my family's future.

I am saving pennies for my family's future, but i am paying, as well as all the other taxpayers, for certain people to lavish in luxury.

The article only covers a fraction a what the taxpayers have to cover. All government employees, local and national, will be paid a pension funded by the you and me.

I can only wish for a pension of 1 or 2% of what some of these people are on.

If the next government, whoever it might be, must change this, and many others, if they want to start gaining the public trust ever again.