Picture from http://victorian-extravaganza.co.uk/
Friday 30 April 2010
Victorian Extravaganza in Llandudno
As you know I am a sceptic when it comes to climate change and global warming, but with the Victorian Extravaganza in Llandudno this bank holiday weekend, does anyone know what sort of carbon footprint Llandudno will have by Monday evening?
Picture from http://victorian-extravaganza.co.uk/
Picture from http://victorian-extravaganza.co.uk/
Thursday 29 April 2010
Gordon Brown can't Spin his way out of this.
Yesterday was very interesting.
See the video below;
To be fair to Gordon Brown, I thought he did handle Gillian Duffy's questions very well, and if it ended there a lot of people would of been very pleased in the way he handled it, but for whatever reason Gordon Brown thought it ended badly.
Gillian Duffy raised concerns, among other subjects, about the amount of immigration into the country, and Gordon Brown was respectful when he was talking to her, but as soon as he was in the 'safety' of his car Gordon Brown had a temper tantrum and called Gillian Duffy, a 66 year old pensioner, a bigoted woman.
It is common knowledge that Gordon Brown isn't very good with the general public, that is why he has mainly been with the party faithful throughout the election so far.
Is Gordon Brown afraid of the general public?
Is he afraid of criticism, and if he is criticised does he always throw a tantrum?
Does he look down at the general public and think, oh no I have to mix with the great unwashed?
There has been talk of Gordon Brown's ability to be the Prime Minister, and if Gordon Brown can't take some criticism from a pensioner then it does question his ability to take the stress and criticism of being Prime Minister.
The rumours have been said that he has bullied his staff and thrown mobile phones and punched the front seat in his car, which if you listen carefully I think he actually does in the video.
This is the first time the public has seen, what might be, Gordon Brown's real personality, and you have to ask yourself do you want someone like this running the country.
There are a lot of subjects that worry the UK population, and immigration is one of them, and if Gordon Brown thinks that you are a bigot if you want to talk about immigration then he is not the person to run this country.
Gordon Brown and the Labour party cannot spin their way out of this.
An intersting article about what might of happened if it wasn't election time.
If it hadn't been election time, Mrs Duffy would have been interviewed by the thought police
See the video below;
To be fair to Gordon Brown, I thought he did handle Gillian Duffy's questions very well, and if it ended there a lot of people would of been very pleased in the way he handled it, but for whatever reason Gordon Brown thought it ended badly.
Gillian Duffy raised concerns, among other subjects, about the amount of immigration into the country, and Gordon Brown was respectful when he was talking to her, but as soon as he was in the 'safety' of his car Gordon Brown had a temper tantrum and called Gillian Duffy, a 66 year old pensioner, a bigoted woman.
It is common knowledge that Gordon Brown isn't very good with the general public, that is why he has mainly been with the party faithful throughout the election so far.
Is Gordon Brown afraid of the general public?
Is he afraid of criticism, and if he is criticised does he always throw a tantrum?
Does he look down at the general public and think, oh no I have to mix with the great unwashed?
There has been talk of Gordon Brown's ability to be the Prime Minister, and if Gordon Brown can't take some criticism from a pensioner then it does question his ability to take the stress and criticism of being Prime Minister.
The rumours have been said that he has bullied his staff and thrown mobile phones and punched the front seat in his car, which if you listen carefully I think he actually does in the video.
This is the first time the public has seen, what might be, Gordon Brown's real personality, and you have to ask yourself do you want someone like this running the country.
There are a lot of subjects that worry the UK population, and immigration is one of them, and if Gordon Brown thinks that you are a bigot if you want to talk about immigration then he is not the person to run this country.
Gordon Brown and the Labour party cannot spin their way out of this.
An intersting article about what might of happened if it wasn't election time.
If it hadn't been election time, Mrs Duffy would have been interviewed by the thought police
Wednesday 28 April 2010
Spot the difference
I have just read this blog.
This is the blog in question.
Going back to a post I made on the 8th of March 'Dropping a Blog', I have to agree somewhat; that despite the sick pervert Oscar is taking his camera into a public toilets and snapping photos in a cubicle that could be next to you, a reader sent in this photo yesterday to prove the situation has gotten no better. There is now additional graffiti on the same door, see caption top of photograph, this follows further on Oscars campaign to stamp out graffiti once and for all. Maybe, just maybe he, he, he, she, they have a point.
Below are the pictures one from March and one from April.
Spot the difference?
Picture from March 2010.
Picture from April 2010.
Apart from the extra name, the picture is exactly the same.
It has the same angle, exactly the same amount of graffiti on it, the top and bottom of the picture is the same.
How much of a coincidence could it be to take the exact same picture with the same angle and the same amount of graffiti on it.
All the person has done is use his computer to add the name.
Total fail.
The blogger from Blog LLandudno is a retired professional and should be ashamed of him self. That is if he is a retired professional?
I don't think a retired professional would drop this low to insult another person. He sounds like a juvenile.
Update:
I have a reply from the blogger in question.
'My thoughts' are a certain blogger should get their eyes tested, and visit the toilets concerned.
My answer;
It's been over 6 weeks between 'pictures'.
Why isn't there more graffiti on the door, other than the one that is high lighted?
Update:
Well I had to find out, so I went to the infamous toilets and took this picture. I took it on the 1st of May.
So Victor, tell me the picture from your blog isn't fake now.
This is the blog in question.
Going back to a post I made on the 8th of March 'Dropping a Blog', I have to agree somewhat; that despite the sick pervert Oscar is taking his camera into a public toilets and snapping photos in a cubicle that could be next to you, a reader sent in this photo yesterday to prove the situation has gotten no better. There is now additional graffiti on the same door, see caption top of photograph, this follows further on Oscars campaign to stamp out graffiti once and for all. Maybe, just maybe he, he, he, she, they have a point.
Below are the pictures one from March and one from April.
Spot the difference?
Picture from March 2010.
Picture from April 2010.
Apart from the extra name, the picture is exactly the same.
It has the same angle, exactly the same amount of graffiti on it, the top and bottom of the picture is the same.
How much of a coincidence could it be to take the exact same picture with the same angle and the same amount of graffiti on it.
All the person has done is use his computer to add the name.
Total fail.
The blogger from Blog LLandudno is a retired professional and should be ashamed of him self. That is if he is a retired professional?
I don't think a retired professional would drop this low to insult another person. He sounds like a juvenile.
Update:
I have a reply from the blogger in question.
'My thoughts' are a certain blogger should get their eyes tested, and visit the toilets concerned.
My answer;
It's been over 6 weeks between 'pictures'.
Why isn't there more graffiti on the door, other than the one that is high lighted?
Update:
Well I had to find out, so I went to the infamous toilets and took this picture. I took it on the 1st of May.
So Victor, tell me the picture from your blog isn't fake now.
I wasn't going to say anything more about this, but I have been getting so many insulting and quite frankly disgusting comments, in my blog, about me and my family that I am now going to publish this picture.
Tuesday 27 April 2010
The Military Covenant
The Military Covenant
The Military Covenant is the mutual obligation between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history.
Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.
In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history.
It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action.
The above is taken from http://www.army.mod.uk/join/terms/3111.aspx
The Royal British Legion has launched a campaign about the Military Covenant
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/campaigning/the-legion-manifesto/honour-the-covenant
THE MILITARY COVENANT MUST BE HONOURED
The Military Covenant is the mutual obligation between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history.
Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.
In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history.
It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action.
The above is taken from http://www.army.mod.uk/join/terms/3111.aspx
The Royal British Legion has launched a campaign about the Military Covenant
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/campaigning/the-legion-manifesto/honour-the-covenant
THE MILITARY COVENANT MUST BE HONOURED
The MOD. A Military organisation run by civilians.
Thanks to http://twitter.com/IanPJ and http://twitter.com/veterans_uk for this find.
The MOD: Unfit for Purpose from http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/standpoint
Here are some extracts from the article that was published in 2008;
I am often asked why the MOD makes so many strange decisions and seems to care so little about the welfare of its personnel. People are surprised to read about expensive computer systems that fail to pay service members their proper salaries — or pay them late. Some are shocked by the apparent dumping of severely wounded personnel from Afghanistan and Iraq into civilian hospital wards, remote from their regiments and families, or the massive contracts for systems that are delivered late and don’t work properly, or the strange failure to publicise genuine successes and minor victories achieved “against the odds” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
None of these scandals — or many others less well known — would surprise anyone who knows the MOD and what it has become.
Most people still believe that the MOD is essentially a military organisation. It is not. It is an organisation dominated numerically, culturally and structurally by civil servants and consultants, many of whom are unsympathetic to its underlying purpose or even hostile to the military and its ethos. You just have to spend a few days at the MOD before you realise that the culture there is not just non-military, but anti-military.
The MOD has slipped from being one of the top five ministries to one of second or even third rank. Moreover, even if our top generals wanted to oppose some aspect of defence policy, they would find the MOD’s structure is now rigged so that civil servants increasingly come between them and the government.
Now the ratio of civilians to service-members is closer to six to one — not including the ever-growing numbers of consultants and Spads (special advisers) or the parallel government structures in the cabinet office and the PM’s policy unit which may be driving the ratio towards 12 to one. Essentially the military has lost command of its own HQ.
Worse still, the civil servants who now dominate the MOD are a different breed from those who staffed it in the 1980s. In those days there were still many civil servants who had served in the Second World War or Korea, or who had at least done national service. They respected and understood the armed services; they believed an effective military was important and had usually learnt essential skills of leadership and management. They were loyal to the Queen (then the head of the Civil Service), to the Civil Service itself and to its code, and to the service arm they were working for. They have all gone.
The real point of most MOD contracts is industrial strategy. We buy planes or vehicles or systems not because they are the best we can afford for the task in hand but because they mean jobs in some part of the country. Or because they further European integration. This is why we buy helicopters like the Merlin that cost more than three times the price of the US Blackhawk. As a result we don’t have decent airlift capacity in Afghanistan, and our infantry in Basra were the first British troops to go into battle without dedicated “on-call” air cover since the First World War.
Because the services haven’t had the budget increases they need to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is running out of everything. We’re running out of trucks, for instance. And when things break they aren’t being replaced. Increasingly one gets the impression that the civil servants don’t care if the forces are broken — their careers will not be affected. But it may also be that some civil servants and a body of politicians, from both Left and Right, would actually be happy for the military to be broken in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they will have truly achieved the Europeanisation of Britain’s armed forces along the lines of a purely defensive “UK Defence Force”. War will somehow have been abolished — until, of course, it returns at a time of our enemies’ choosing.
This has to change, the Government is sending our troops into battle with substandard equipment, if they're lucky.
The Government is meant to look after our military, why isn't it?
The MOD: Unfit for Purpose from http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/standpoint
Here are some extracts from the article that was published in 2008;
I am often asked why the MOD makes so many strange decisions and seems to care so little about the welfare of its personnel. People are surprised to read about expensive computer systems that fail to pay service members their proper salaries — or pay them late. Some are shocked by the apparent dumping of severely wounded personnel from Afghanistan and Iraq into civilian hospital wards, remote from their regiments and families, or the massive contracts for systems that are delivered late and don’t work properly, or the strange failure to publicise genuine successes and minor victories achieved “against the odds” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
None of these scandals — or many others less well known — would surprise anyone who knows the MOD and what it has become.
Most people still believe that the MOD is essentially a military organisation. It is not. It is an organisation dominated numerically, culturally and structurally by civil servants and consultants, many of whom are unsympathetic to its underlying purpose or even hostile to the military and its ethos. You just have to spend a few days at the MOD before you realise that the culture there is not just non-military, but anti-military.
The MOD has slipped from being one of the top five ministries to one of second or even third rank. Moreover, even if our top generals wanted to oppose some aspect of defence policy, they would find the MOD’s structure is now rigged so that civil servants increasingly come between them and the government.
Now the ratio of civilians to service-members is closer to six to one — not including the ever-growing numbers of consultants and Spads (special advisers) or the parallel government structures in the cabinet office and the PM’s policy unit which may be driving the ratio towards 12 to one. Essentially the military has lost command of its own HQ.
Worse still, the civil servants who now dominate the MOD are a different breed from those who staffed it in the 1980s. In those days there were still many civil servants who had served in the Second World War or Korea, or who had at least done national service. They respected and understood the armed services; they believed an effective military was important and had usually learnt essential skills of leadership and management. They were loyal to the Queen (then the head of the Civil Service), to the Civil Service itself and to its code, and to the service arm they were working for. They have all gone.
The real point of most MOD contracts is industrial strategy. We buy planes or vehicles or systems not because they are the best we can afford for the task in hand but because they mean jobs in some part of the country. Or because they further European integration. This is why we buy helicopters like the Merlin that cost more than three times the price of the US Blackhawk. As a result we don’t have decent airlift capacity in Afghanistan, and our infantry in Basra were the first British troops to go into battle without dedicated “on-call” air cover since the First World War.
Because the services haven’t had the budget increases they need to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is running out of everything. We’re running out of trucks, for instance. And when things break they aren’t being replaced. Increasingly one gets the impression that the civil servants don’t care if the forces are broken — their careers will not be affected. But it may also be that some civil servants and a body of politicians, from both Left and Right, would actually be happy for the military to be broken in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they will have truly achieved the Europeanisation of Britain’s armed forces along the lines of a purely defensive “UK Defence Force”. War will somehow have been abolished — until, of course, it returns at a time of our enemies’ choosing.
This has to change, the Government is sending our troops into battle with substandard equipment, if they're lucky.
The Government is meant to look after our military, why isn't it?
Monday 26 April 2010
Old Holborn For MP
I have received a few questions on why I have a link to another blogger who is standing to become an MP, in Cambridge, when I live in North Wales.Well one of Old Holborn's latest blogs should explain why.
I should say there are some swear words in the following;
++What you actually want - Exclusive+++
Whilst the usual career politicians are wandering around telling you what you want and what you're going to get whether you like it or not, I'd like to refer my readers back to the whole reason I'm standing for Parliament in Cambridge.
You never get asked. Well, twice a decade, 10 times in your entire life if you're lucky. I've never voted in referendum because I've never been asked to and I'm two thirds of the way through my tobacco and Bordeaux soaked existence, I reckon.
I've seen war, recession, poverty, membership of an unelected EU stealing my money, terrorism, corruption, half my earnings grabbed by the State, DNA databases, Biometric profiling, my emails are read by the State along with my phone calls and I'm watched on CCTV everywhere I go.
And nobody asked me if this was OK. Well, they sort of did 5 years ago and 78% of the people who could vote, said FUCK OFF. But alas, our corrupt first past the post system means the 22% who did want it can now impose all of the above of me and my family. Regardless.
Here's the results from the Jury Team/Gallop poll that actually asked people, real people , (not policy wonks or Party Special Advisers) what they wanted, rather than telling them what they were going to get.
•A referendum on the EU - 83% - IGNORED
•Limiting Govt borrowing to 10% of expenditure - 47% - IGNORED
•Stopping Casino banking by nationalised banks - 72% - IGNORED
•Limiting benefits to no children claimants to 80% of minimum wage - 63% - IGNORED
•Harsher punishment for violent offenders - 78% - IGNORED
•Reducing troops in Afghanistan to match other Nato countries - 67% - IGNORED
•Private medical insurance for non EU citizens - 68% - IGNORED
•10 years to qualify for a British passport - 81% - IGNORED
•An English Parliament - 58% - IGNORED
•Proportional Representation - 54% - IGNORED
•5% on demand referendums - 71% - IGNORED
So those are the policies I'm standing on. The policies most of the people of this country actually want and most of the policies denied to them by a mere 646 self serving, union serving, big business serving, lobbyist serving bastards. When they can be bothered to ask you. Twice a decade.
I don't agree with all of them, but I don't count. WE do. And it's time we did.
Prepare to be brutally governed by yet another minority government for yet another 5 years. And if you count the unelected and unaccountable European Commission, for ever. You count for nothing, except your hard earned money, of course. They just can't get enough of that.
I would love to see more free thinking MPs who would vote to look after their constituents even if it's goes against their own party.
People say he hasn't got a chance, but if the idea of what Old Holborn is doing gets through to enough people then that, in my opinion, is a good thing.
I have been blogging for about 8 months now and what I have found in the blogoshere has opened my eyes to what is going on in the UK and the world in general.
I want people to be better informed on what is happening in Parliament and what the MPs and the Government are doing to this country. Like who is really pulling the strings in government. We have all heard the stories about the Unite Union owning the Labour Party, and that Peter Mandelson is the real power in government.
I ask you to have a look at Old Holborn's site and check out what he wants to see in Parliament.
Council Bullies
I found this on Big Brother Watch.
Hauled into court over a cardboard box
The following tale is as classic a Big Brother Watch story as you are likely to find; as The Sun reports:
A grandmother was dragged to court - after carefully leaving a cardboard box next to a council recycling bin.
Lynne had taken the box which held her new washing machine to the recycling point at a Somerfield supermarket near her home in Wickford, Essex, in October.
It was too big to fit in the slot and the bin was nearly full. Lynne, 59, was filmed wedging it between two bins to stop it blowing away. Days later she got a card from Basildon Council asking her to call about "an incident".
An environmental officer later turned up at the fancy dress shop she runs and handed her a £300 fine. She threw it in a bin and ordered him out. On March 22 she received a letter charging her with "depositing controlled waste" and summoning her before JPs.
That's right people - just for putting a cardboard box in-between two bins which were too small to take the full box, Lynne Doyle was fined £300. Many would have been bullied by the council into paying up.
Luckily, Lynne did not...so she was ordered before a court. However on the advice of a lawyer she requested trial by jury. What do you think happened...?
She has now received a letter, without apology or explanation, saying the council was dropping the case.
So Lynne gets threatened with a fine and then trial; but when she pushes back the council retreats. It shouldn't end there - if you are outraged by this action by Basildon, the contact details for their refuse and recycling team are here. Why not ask them why they subjected a 59 year-old women to this ordeal?
By Dylan Sharpe
This is just another council thinking they could get some easy money out of someone.
Why don't they go after the real fly tippers?
The reason is because the councils would have to do some actual work.
Councils have enough workers to do the work, so what are all these workers doing? Not a lot.
Hauled into court over a cardboard box
The following tale is as classic a Big Brother Watch story as you are likely to find; as The Sun reports:
A grandmother was dragged to court - after carefully leaving a cardboard box next to a council recycling bin.
Lynne had taken the box which held her new washing machine to the recycling point at a Somerfield supermarket near her home in Wickford, Essex, in October.
It was too big to fit in the slot and the bin was nearly full. Lynne, 59, was filmed wedging it between two bins to stop it blowing away. Days later she got a card from Basildon Council asking her to call about "an incident".
An environmental officer later turned up at the fancy dress shop she runs and handed her a £300 fine. She threw it in a bin and ordered him out. On March 22 she received a letter charging her with "depositing controlled waste" and summoning her before JPs.
That's right people - just for putting a cardboard box in-between two bins which were too small to take the full box, Lynne Doyle was fined £300. Many would have been bullied by the council into paying up.
Luckily, Lynne did not...so she was ordered before a court. However on the advice of a lawyer she requested trial by jury. What do you think happened...?
She has now received a letter, without apology or explanation, saying the council was dropping the case.
So Lynne gets threatened with a fine and then trial; but when she pushes back the council retreats. It shouldn't end there - if you are outraged by this action by Basildon, the contact details for their refuse and recycling team are here. Why not ask them why they subjected a 59 year-old women to this ordeal?
By Dylan Sharpe
This is just another council thinking they could get some easy money out of someone.
Why don't they go after the real fly tippers?
The reason is because the councils would have to do some actual work.
Councils have enough workers to do the work, so what are all these workers doing? Not a lot.
Saturday 24 April 2010
Is Tony Blair in Trouble?
Just been reading this article, found at http://uknewsnetwork.blogspot.com/.
Tony Blair Stands Accused
Malaysia must not allow this mass murderer to be immune from justice.
by Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi
An extract;
It is distressing to note that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been invited to Malaysia as an honoured guest of an NGO when he stands accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by many learned and independent scholars of international law.
The case against him looks rock solid, especially after his confession to the BBC and the Chilcot Inquiry that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Indictments around the world:
> The international criminal court to which Britain is a signatory has received a record number of petitions against Blair.
> The World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul in 2005 heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, former US president George W Bush and others.
> The Brussels War Crimes Tribunal, the Blair War Crimes Foundation and the American international law jurist Richard Falk have amassed impressive evidence of Blair’s complicity in international war crimes.
Spain’s celebrated judge Baltasar Garzon (who indicted former Chilean dictator and president Augusto Pinochet) has called for Bush, Blair and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the illegal invasion of Iraq, which Garzon has condemned as “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history”.
Many UK jurists have described the invasion as a devastating attack on the rule of law that left the United Nations in tatters.
I will admit I was taken in by Blair's statements about Iraq and I supported the invasion, but after what I have read over the years either Blair was at best naive, or at worst incompetent and completely lying about weapons of mass destruction.
There are still too many unanswered questions about the Iraq invasion. There are still questions over the death of Dr David Kelly. Was it suicide or not, and why has his post mortem report being kept secret for 70 years?
I wonder what holiday destinations Tony Blair has crossed off his list?
The above article is an arguement for the arrest of Tony Blair.
If there is an article against the arrest of Tony Blair, I will post a blog about the reasons why Tony Blair shouldn't be arrested.
Tony Blair Stands Accused
Malaysia must not allow this mass murderer to be immune from justice.
by Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi
An extract;
It is distressing to note that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been invited to Malaysia as an honoured guest of an NGO when he stands accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by many learned and independent scholars of international law.
The case against him looks rock solid, especially after his confession to the BBC and the Chilcot Inquiry that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Indictments around the world:
> The international criminal court to which Britain is a signatory has received a record number of petitions against Blair.
> The World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul in 2005 heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, former US president George W Bush and others.
> The Brussels War Crimes Tribunal, the Blair War Crimes Foundation and the American international law jurist Richard Falk have amassed impressive evidence of Blair’s complicity in international war crimes.
Spain’s celebrated judge Baltasar Garzon (who indicted former Chilean dictator and president Augusto Pinochet) has called for Bush, Blair and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the illegal invasion of Iraq, which Garzon has condemned as “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history”.
Many UK jurists have described the invasion as a devastating attack on the rule of law that left the United Nations in tatters.
I will admit I was taken in by Blair's statements about Iraq and I supported the invasion, but after what I have read over the years either Blair was at best naive, or at worst incompetent and completely lying about weapons of mass destruction.
There are still too many unanswered questions about the Iraq invasion. There are still questions over the death of Dr David Kelly. Was it suicide or not, and why has his post mortem report being kept secret for 70 years?
I wonder what holiday destinations Tony Blair has crossed off his list?
The above article is an arguement for the arrest of Tony Blair.
If there is an article against the arrest of Tony Blair, I will post a blog about the reasons why Tony Blair shouldn't be arrested.
Friday 23 April 2010
The Promise to our Military
Thanks to Cold Steel Rain's Twitter for this find.
The Leaders last night made promises to our military.
Whoever is voted into power must make sure our military gets the best equipment, pay and care because if they break the promises they made, the public will never forgive them.
The Leaders last night made promises to our military.
Whoever is voted into power must make sure our military gets the best equipment, pay and care because if they break the promises they made, the public will never forgive them.
Tuesday 20 April 2010
'Environmental Discrimination'
Just read this article
The headline;
Worker wins £100,000 after 'environmental discrimination'
A worker has won almost £100,000 because his firm discriminated against his environmental views after a landmark legal ruling placed them on a par with religious beliefs.
An extract;
Tim Nicholson, 42, was made redundant in July 2008 from his £77,000-a-year post as head of sustainability with Grainger, the UK’s biggest residential landlord.
He was preparing to sue his former employer, alleging that his redundancy was a direct result of his green opinions about the dangers of climate change - which put him at odds with other senior executives within the firm.
At a preparatory hearing last year, a judge ruled that his belief in climate change was legally akin to a religious belief and should be protected from discrimination.
Well people have said that climate change has turned into a religion. Can it now becoming legal?
How the hell is belief in climate change the same as belief in a religion?
Who is their god, Al Gore?
Is this a late April fools joke?
I thought science and religion don't make good bed fellows.
The headline;
Worker wins £100,000 after 'environmental discrimination'
A worker has won almost £100,000 because his firm discriminated against his environmental views after a landmark legal ruling placed them on a par with religious beliefs.
An extract;
Tim Nicholson, 42, was made redundant in July 2008 from his £77,000-a-year post as head of sustainability with Grainger, the UK’s biggest residential landlord.
He was preparing to sue his former employer, alleging that his redundancy was a direct result of his green opinions about the dangers of climate change - which put him at odds with other senior executives within the firm.
At a preparatory hearing last year, a judge ruled that his belief in climate change was legally akin to a religious belief and should be protected from discrimination.
Well people have said that climate change has turned into a religion. Can it now becoming legal?
How the hell is belief in climate change the same as belief in a religion?
Who is their god, Al Gore?
Is this a late April fools joke?
I thought science and religion don't make good bed fellows.
Monday 19 April 2010
The (In)Human Rights Act and Justice
Here's another classic example of how the (In) human rights act is a cause for good, if you are a criminal.
The headline to the Daily Mail article, found through http://uknewsnetwork.blogspot.com/
Paedophile who abducted underage girls for sex wins deportation appeal to stay in UK
An extract;
A Pakistani paedophile who abducted and sexually abused two young girls cannot be deported back to his native country because it would breach his human rights, it emerged today.
Zulfar Hussain, 48, was due to be sent home when he is released from prison halfway through his sentence for plying two vulnerable girls with drugs and alcohol before having sex with them.
But there was fury today when it was revealed that he had won an appeal against his deportation on the grounds that he has a wife and child here, meaning it would breach his right to enjoy respect for his family life.
Can someone please tell me has there been any real good to come out of the human rights act, or is it a criminals rights act only.
How many more stories like this one can we take before the powers that be take notice and either scrap it or change it so the criminals can't take advantage of it.
The headline to the Daily Mail article, found through http://uknewsnetwork.blogspot.com/
Paedophile who abducted underage girls for sex wins deportation appeal to stay in UK
An extract;
A Pakistani paedophile who abducted and sexually abused two young girls cannot be deported back to his native country because it would breach his human rights, it emerged today.
Zulfar Hussain, 48, was due to be sent home when he is released from prison halfway through his sentence for plying two vulnerable girls with drugs and alcohol before having sex with them.
But there was fury today when it was revealed that he had won an appeal against his deportation on the grounds that he has a wife and child here, meaning it would breach his right to enjoy respect for his family life.
Can someone please tell me has there been any real good to come out of the human rights act, or is it a criminals rights act only.
How many more stories like this one can we take before the powers that be take notice and either scrap it or change it so the criminals can't take advantage of it.
The Ash Cloud and the Computer models
I have been reading that the Met Office have been using their computer models to predict where the ash cloud is going.
I have a question.
Are these the same computer models that predicted our BBQ summer and our mild winter last year?
Just asking.
I have a question.
Are these the same computer models that predicted our BBQ summer and our mild winter last year?
Just asking.
Every (Ash)Cloud has a silver lining
There is some good news for the population of the UK during the flight chaos.
Volcanic ash cloud: Tony Blair stranded in Israel
Tony Blair role in the election campaign looks likely to be affected by the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud.
Well at least the UK public won't have to endure listening to Tony Bliar for a few days more.
Volcanic ash cloud: Tony Blair stranded in Israel
Tony Blair role in the election campaign looks likely to be affected by the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud.
Well at least the UK public won't have to endure listening to Tony Bliar for a few days more.
Sunday 18 April 2010
Explain this one Gordon
At the Chilcot enquiry Gordon Brown said that the military got all the money they asked for, and that funding went up every year.
He did own up later that in some years it didn't go up, when he was found out of course.
Yesterday I read this article
An extract;
The Sunday Telegraph has been told that a £400,000 "contingency fund", financed by private donors, was used to purchase body armour for members of 21 SAS, one of the service's two territorial regiments, prior to their deployment to Helmand in 2008.
Cash from the fund was also used to pay for operational welfare equipment, personal kit and to pay-off the mortgages of two members of 23 SAS killed in southern Afghanistan in an earlier deployment.
The disclosure has been seized upon by opposition MPs and former Army commanders of proof that the Armed Forces have not been properly funded while Labour has been in power.
This is just one regiment of the whole British Army. If the government can't supply the SAS with proper equipment, then what are the other regiments supplies going to be like.
In the article, it says the fund was set up to help the families of soldiers killed or wounded.
An extract;
But after the regiment was mobilised in the spring of 2008, commanders feared the unit did not have access to enough equipment or body armour to properly prepare the SAS troops for their six month tour.
Gordon Brown has said in the past that the army is the best trained and best equipped. Please, Gordon tell us, if the army is the best trained and equipped why are they having to buy equipment through private donations?
The news of the army not being given the right equipment is not new, look at this article from December 15th 2006;
Soldier killed without body armour talked of 'disgraceful' lack of kit
An extract;
A British tank commander who died in Iraq because he had been ordered to give up his body armour described British military supplies as "disgraceful" and "a bit of a joke" in the days before his death, an inquest heard today.
When our troops go to war they know they may well pay the ultimate sacrifice, but they must be protected as much as possible, with the proper body armour, armoured vehicles and helicopters.
So I ask you Gordon Brown, Chancellor and now Prime Minister, if as you say the Army has been funded properly, why are we seeing stories about our troops buying their own equipment, AGAIN?
He did own up later that in some years it didn't go up, when he was found out of course.
Yesterday I read this article
An extract;
The Sunday Telegraph has been told that a £400,000 "contingency fund", financed by private donors, was used to purchase body armour for members of 21 SAS, one of the service's two territorial regiments, prior to their deployment to Helmand in 2008.
Cash from the fund was also used to pay for operational welfare equipment, personal kit and to pay-off the mortgages of two members of 23 SAS killed in southern Afghanistan in an earlier deployment.
The disclosure has been seized upon by opposition MPs and former Army commanders of proof that the Armed Forces have not been properly funded while Labour has been in power.
This is just one regiment of the whole British Army. If the government can't supply the SAS with proper equipment, then what are the other regiments supplies going to be like.
In the article, it says the fund was set up to help the families of soldiers killed or wounded.
An extract;
But after the regiment was mobilised in the spring of 2008, commanders feared the unit did not have access to enough equipment or body armour to properly prepare the SAS troops for their six month tour.
Gordon Brown has said in the past that the army is the best trained and best equipped. Please, Gordon tell us, if the army is the best trained and equipped why are they having to buy equipment through private donations?
The news of the army not being given the right equipment is not new, look at this article from December 15th 2006;
Soldier killed without body armour talked of 'disgraceful' lack of kit
An extract;
A British tank commander who died in Iraq because he had been ordered to give up his body armour described British military supplies as "disgraceful" and "a bit of a joke" in the days before his death, an inquest heard today.
When our troops go to war they know they may well pay the ultimate sacrifice, but they must be protected as much as possible, with the proper body armour, armoured vehicles and helicopters.
So I ask you Gordon Brown, Chancellor and now Prime Minister, if as you say the Army has been funded properly, why are we seeing stories about our troops buying their own equipment, AGAIN?
Saturday 17 April 2010
There are thieves and then there's this scum
His name is Darren Pease.The following is taken from this article
An extract
A disgraced banker who stole £315,000 from his disabled niece's charity fund has been ordered to pay back just £1.
Well-wishers donated hundreds of thousands of pounds into a trust for Ellie May Challis, 5, who had all her limbs amputated during a battle with meningitis in 2005.
Her uncle, banker Darren Pease, 33, was made a trustee of the account because of his financial knowledge but was jailed in November last year after admitted siphoning off £315,000 to splash out on jewellery, holidays and computer gadgets.
Pease was taken back to court yesterday after police went through his finances to check if he could repay any of Ellie May's money.
But it was revealed during the proceeds of crime hearing at Basildon Crown Court in Essex that he had spent the lot and was ordered to repay a nominal £1.
A pound, a single solitary £1.
This scum, who is in prison for 4 years, will be housed, fed and get paid to work in prison. I wonder when he will be up for parole? Not long with the way the prison system works.
When someone comes out of prison, they say, they have paid their debt to society, but what about the debt he owes this little girl?
If he ever gains employment, at least a third of his pay should be sent to the Ellie May Challis trust fund, the one he stole from.
I can't describe the anger I feel when I read articles like this.
You have a young girl who tragically loses her limbs, and people join together to donate money to pay for the care of Ellie.
Then you get scum like Darren Pease, who is actually related to Ellie, who was trusted to look after the money, but just stole it and spent all but £239 of the £315,000.
I wish he could spend just one day living the life of Ellie, with no limbs, and then see how he feels about what he has done.
Friday 16 April 2010
The (IN) Human Rights Act and Justice
Can the European Convention on Human Rights and the justice system ever run to the same tune.
I have blogged about the human rights act here, here and here.
Now we have another example.
Illegal immigrant rapist could stay in UK
An illegal immigrant who raped a woman but was not caught for 18 years could avoid deportation because of his human rights to a family life.
An extract;
Sukdarshan Singh, an Indian, arrived in Britain unlawfully in 1984 and raped a 59-year-old woman four years later.
He was only linked to the attack in 2006 after being arrested for drink driving and was jailed for four and a half years.
An immigration tribunal ruled he should be deported but the Court of Appeal yesterday overturned the decision because it had failed to take in to account his rights to family life as he now has a British wife and two teenage children.
If this guy entered the country illegally, how was he able to legally get married?
According to the appeal court, if you enter the country illegally, commit a serious crime, get away with it for 20 years, get jailed for a very short time, you can stay in the country.
An extract
Yesterday, he was appealing against the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) finding which upheld the decision of the Home Secretary to return him to India.
But Lord Justice Aikens said the "overall question" in the case was whether deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Aikens says, 'deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life under the human rights act.'
Once again I say, what about the human rights of the victim. She was raped by this scum, but as usual the rights of the victim is second to the rights of the scum who raped her.
An extract;
He said the AIT should have balanced the threat of family breakdown, the effect on the children and feasibility of a move to India with the aim of deportation in protecting the public.
The effect on the children and feasibility of moving to India. What about the effect on the children finding out their father is a rapist.
Send the father back to India and let the kids stay in the UK.
Everyone has a human right to live and feel safe in their community and their home. If someone commits a crime they should lose certain rights.
If an illegal immigrant commits a crime then that person should be sent back to the country he came from, even if he has a family here.
People are not getting justice due to the (In) Human Rights Act.
I have blogged about the human rights act here, here and here.
Now we have another example.
Illegal immigrant rapist could stay in UK
An illegal immigrant who raped a woman but was not caught for 18 years could avoid deportation because of his human rights to a family life.
An extract;
Sukdarshan Singh, an Indian, arrived in Britain unlawfully in 1984 and raped a 59-year-old woman four years later.
He was only linked to the attack in 2006 after being arrested for drink driving and was jailed for four and a half years.
An immigration tribunal ruled he should be deported but the Court of Appeal yesterday overturned the decision because it had failed to take in to account his rights to family life as he now has a British wife and two teenage children.
If this guy entered the country illegally, how was he able to legally get married?
According to the appeal court, if you enter the country illegally, commit a serious crime, get away with it for 20 years, get jailed for a very short time, you can stay in the country.
An extract
Yesterday, he was appealing against the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) finding which upheld the decision of the Home Secretary to return him to India.
But Lord Justice Aikens said the "overall question" in the case was whether deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Aikens says, 'deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life under the human rights act.'
Once again I say, what about the human rights of the victim. She was raped by this scum, but as usual the rights of the victim is second to the rights of the scum who raped her.
An extract;
He said the AIT should have balanced the threat of family breakdown, the effect on the children and feasibility of a move to India with the aim of deportation in protecting the public.
The effect on the children and feasibility of moving to India. What about the effect on the children finding out their father is a rapist.
Send the father back to India and let the kids stay in the UK.
Everyone has a human right to live and feel safe in their community and their home. If someone commits a crime they should lose certain rights.
If an illegal immigrant commits a crime then that person should be sent back to the country he came from, even if he has a family here.
People are not getting justice due to the (In) Human Rights Act.
Thursday 15 April 2010
The Leaders Debate
Not bad for the first debate.
I think the debate should be longer, maybe 2 even 3 hours to get more questions in, and more time for the leaders to debate each others answers. I believe they were cut off to early by the moderator.
Just on how the leaders came over tonight. I think Cameron was better than Clegg in some ways, but I think Clegg was better than Cameron in others, but Gordon Brown, in my opinion, was well behind.
For me Gordon Brown blew it when he went on about giving the military all the money they asked for. That was an utter lie.
I hope the next debate is better. With more debate between the leaders.
I think the debate should be longer, maybe 2 even 3 hours to get more questions in, and more time for the leaders to debate each others answers. I believe they were cut off to early by the moderator.
Just on how the leaders came over tonight. I think Cameron was better than Clegg in some ways, but I think Clegg was better than Cameron in others, but Gordon Brown, in my opinion, was well behind.
For me Gordon Brown blew it when he went on about giving the military all the money they asked for. That was an utter lie.
I hope the next debate is better. With more debate between the leaders.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
Health and Safety Madness
I found this article through Ambush Predator on Twitter.
This is the headline to this article.
Bungling handyman puts ladder against branch he is sawing off... then sues bosses after breaking his foot
An extract
A handyman fell from a tree in a 'Laurel and Hardy moment' after he sawed off a branch that he had leaned his ladder against - and is now suing his bosses for his mistake.
Peter Aspinall, 64, a part-time handyman at a hotel, had climbed up a ladder to prune a sycamore tree.
But as he had leaned it against the branch he was sawing off instead of the tree trunk, he tumbled to the ground when the branch broke.
Didn't the guy realise where he was putting the ladder and what might happen?
An extract;
Lawyers claimed it had been a 'Laurel and Hardy moment' but the 14ft fall broke Mr Aspinall's heel. He damaged his ligaments and spent 10 days in hospital.
Health and safety officials began investigating and discovered that bosses at the 200-year old Egerton House Hotel near Bolton, Greater Manchester had failed to carry out at a risk assessment.
They said hotel bosses should have given training to workers on where to place the ladder.
'They should of given training on where to place the ladder.' I have two words, COMMON SENSE. Where was this guy's common sense.
An extract;
The 29-bedroom hotel, where rooms cost £69 a night, was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 council costs and a £15 victim surcharge by magistrates in Bolton.
It pleaded guilty to breaching health and safety regulations by failing to undertake risk assessments for employees working in the hotel gardens.
I understand having risk assessments for certain companies, eg chemical plants and engineering firms, but training to put a ladder against a tree, oh come on.
No one can be that thick to put a ladder against a branch that you are actually going to cut off. Well this Peter Aspinall guy was.
Health and safety is needed in certain areas, but how long is it till we have to do risk assessments before we do everyday things, like breathing.
Sometimes I feel like if a health and safety officer started talking to me about risk assessments, I will ask him the risk assessment of him being floored by me if he continued to talk rubbish health and safety regulations that is just common sense to the ordinary person.
This is the micro management stupidity that has come in over the last 13 years. Labour has stopped us from being a free thinking people.
I'd hate to think what Britain would be like after 5 more years under Labour.
This is the headline to this article.
Bungling handyman puts ladder against branch he is sawing off... then sues bosses after breaking his foot
An extract
A handyman fell from a tree in a 'Laurel and Hardy moment' after he sawed off a branch that he had leaned his ladder against - and is now suing his bosses for his mistake.
Peter Aspinall, 64, a part-time handyman at a hotel, had climbed up a ladder to prune a sycamore tree.
But as he had leaned it against the branch he was sawing off instead of the tree trunk, he tumbled to the ground when the branch broke.
Didn't the guy realise where he was putting the ladder and what might happen?
An extract;
Lawyers claimed it had been a 'Laurel and Hardy moment' but the 14ft fall broke Mr Aspinall's heel. He damaged his ligaments and spent 10 days in hospital.
Health and safety officials began investigating and discovered that bosses at the 200-year old Egerton House Hotel near Bolton, Greater Manchester had failed to carry out at a risk assessment.
They said hotel bosses should have given training to workers on where to place the ladder.
'They should of given training on where to place the ladder.' I have two words, COMMON SENSE. Where was this guy's common sense.
An extract;
The 29-bedroom hotel, where rooms cost £69 a night, was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 council costs and a £15 victim surcharge by magistrates in Bolton.
It pleaded guilty to breaching health and safety regulations by failing to undertake risk assessments for employees working in the hotel gardens.
I understand having risk assessments for certain companies, eg chemical plants and engineering firms, but training to put a ladder against a tree, oh come on.
No one can be that thick to put a ladder against a branch that you are actually going to cut off. Well this Peter Aspinall guy was.
Health and safety is needed in certain areas, but how long is it till we have to do risk assessments before we do everyday things, like breathing.
Sometimes I feel like if a health and safety officer started talking to me about risk assessments, I will ask him the risk assessment of him being floored by me if he continued to talk rubbish health and safety regulations that is just common sense to the ordinary person.
This is the micro management stupidity that has come in over the last 13 years. Labour has stopped us from being a free thinking people.
I'd hate to think what Britain would be like after 5 more years under Labour.
Courage
The following comes from http://coldsteelrain.blogspot.com/
The blog entry http://coldsteelrain.blogspot.com/2010/04/courage.html is copied below.
Lydia Cross is nine years old. She lost both her legs aged 2 after contracting meningitis.
She could have sat back and thought, as so many do in todays society - This isn't fair. Why me?
Instead though Lydia has decided to raise money for troops who have lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This courageous little girl can be seen here
I honestly don't know what breaks my heart more. Lydia's selfless determination to help wounded troops. Or the fact there are so many of them she feels she has to help.
Well done Lydia. You are quite simply a little gem.
Lydia is an inspiration to us all.
I hope her dreams come true, she deserves it.
The blog entry http://coldsteelrain.blogspot.com/2010/04/courage.html is copied below.
Lydia Cross is nine years old. She lost both her legs aged 2 after contracting meningitis.
She could have sat back and thought, as so many do in todays society - This isn't fair. Why me?
Instead though Lydia has decided to raise money for troops who have lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This courageous little girl can be seen here
I honestly don't know what breaks my heart more. Lydia's selfless determination to help wounded troops. Or the fact there are so many of them she feels she has to help.
Well done Lydia. You are quite simply a little gem.
Lydia is an inspiration to us all.
I hope her dreams come true, she deserves it.
Tuesday 13 April 2010
£815 per Week
I would love to get paid £815 per week.
I have 2 jobs. I work my arse off to keep a roof over my family's head to keep them fed and warm, but I barely take home £1150 per month, and today I read this;
Why work when I can get £42,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes?
An extract
The Davey family's £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.
Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.
Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.
With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Apart from about 4 months in the early 90s I have always been employed, hell I even had a paper round when I was a kid.
I work hard to try and get a good wage, but when I read an article like the above I get angry and depressed because my family and I could earn a lot more on benefits than in employment, but my father gave me a strong work ethic and I have always believed in paying my own way in life.
To all the hard working people out there who are struggling in the current financial climate, If you read the following you may explode with anger;
'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey, 29, who is seven months pregnant. 'We can't afford holidays and I don't want my kids living on a council estate and struggling like I have.
'The price of living is going up but benefits are going down. My carer's allowance is only going up by 80p this year and petrol is so expensive now, I'm worried how we'll cope.
'We're still waiting for somewhere bigger.'
Mrs Davey has never had a full-time job while her 35-year-old husband gave up his post in administration nine years ago after realising they would be better off living off the state.
I have an idea for the wife, stop having babies.
I have another idea, if someone gives up his job just to go on benefits then that person shouldn't get any benefits.
How many people in this country are doing the same thing as the Davey family?
How much money are these people, in my opinion fraudulently, getting money from the working taxpayer?
Is there any wonder why this country is in so much debt when the taxpayer is paying for people like the Davey family
I have 2 jobs. I work my arse off to keep a roof over my family's head to keep them fed and warm, but I barely take home £1150 per month, and today I read this;
Why work when I can get £42,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes?
An extract
The Davey family's £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.
Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.
Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.
With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Apart from about 4 months in the early 90s I have always been employed, hell I even had a paper round when I was a kid.
I work hard to try and get a good wage, but when I read an article like the above I get angry and depressed because my family and I could earn a lot more on benefits than in employment, but my father gave me a strong work ethic and I have always believed in paying my own way in life.
To all the hard working people out there who are struggling in the current financial climate, If you read the following you may explode with anger;
'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey, 29, who is seven months pregnant. 'We can't afford holidays and I don't want my kids living on a council estate and struggling like I have.
'The price of living is going up but benefits are going down. My carer's allowance is only going up by 80p this year and petrol is so expensive now, I'm worried how we'll cope.
'We're still waiting for somewhere bigger.'
Mrs Davey has never had a full-time job while her 35-year-old husband gave up his post in administration nine years ago after realising they would be better off living off the state.
I have an idea for the wife, stop having babies.
I have another idea, if someone gives up his job just to go on benefits then that person shouldn't get any benefits.
How many people in this country are doing the same thing as the Davey family?
How much money are these people, in my opinion fraudulently, getting money from the working taxpayer?
Is there any wonder why this country is in so much debt when the taxpayer is paying for people like the Davey family
MPs using Legal Aid
Now there is, quite rightly, utter outrage at the three MPs using legal aid to pay for their defense against the expenses charges.
If they do get to rip off the taxpayers, yet again, by using legal aid, might I suggest a tar and feathering party with 3 special guests;
David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine
If they do get to rip off the taxpayers, yet again, by using legal aid, might I suggest a tar and feathering party with 3 special guests;
David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine
Sunday 11 April 2010
ALL UK Legislation Passed Since 2000 Is Null And Void
I found this blog entry through http://uknewsnetwork.blogspot.com/.
That is the headline from http://captainranty.blogspot.com/
You can read more about this here.
According to this.
Hang on to your hats. This could be very interesting for a variety of reasons.
Our government passed the House of Lords Act in 1999. This is known as General Legislation. The Act removed (hereditary) Peers of the Realm from the HoL. They were denied access to their seats. This is a no-no. A very big no-no.
So it transpires that:
"Removal of a Peer of the Realm from his seat in the House of Lords cannot be procured by General Legislation, such as the Blair Government’s House of Lords Act 1999.
This piece of General Legislation did NOT empower Her Majesty’s Government to impede a single Hereditary Peer who had taken his or her seat in the House of Lords after having sworn the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, from continuing to carry out their solemn duties in the House of Lords as Councillors to the Crown, in accordance with the British Constitution."
Now, because they unlawfully interfered with the way the HoL operates, any and all legislation enacted since 2000 is null and void. Including, I am delighted to add, the vile and childish smoking ban, plus every single statute vomited on us from the EU. Naturally, the Lisbon Treaty is also null & void. Cool. We just left the European Union!
As previously stated, I am no legal expert. Perhaps some of my more astute readers (that would be all of you) could offer their opinions in the comments section?
The ramifications, of course, would be enormous.
Do read the whole article as it has a lot more nuggets than I placed here for your delectation. The author backs up his/her assertions with letters from members of the House of Lords and text from Hansard.
EDIT: some background info on the author.
CR.
Could this be true, could all legislation in the last decade be null and void?
That is the headline from http://captainranty.blogspot.com/
You can read more about this here.
According to this.
Hang on to your hats. This could be very interesting for a variety of reasons.
Our government passed the House of Lords Act in 1999. This is known as General Legislation. The Act removed (hereditary) Peers of the Realm from the HoL. They were denied access to their seats. This is a no-no. A very big no-no.
So it transpires that:
"Removal of a Peer of the Realm from his seat in the House of Lords cannot be procured by General Legislation, such as the Blair Government’s House of Lords Act 1999.
This piece of General Legislation did NOT empower Her Majesty’s Government to impede a single Hereditary Peer who had taken his or her seat in the House of Lords after having sworn the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, from continuing to carry out their solemn duties in the House of Lords as Councillors to the Crown, in accordance with the British Constitution."
Now, because they unlawfully interfered with the way the HoL operates, any and all legislation enacted since 2000 is null and void. Including, I am delighted to add, the vile and childish smoking ban, plus every single statute vomited on us from the EU. Naturally, the Lisbon Treaty is also null & void. Cool. We just left the European Union!
As previously stated, I am no legal expert. Perhaps some of my more astute readers (that would be all of you) could offer their opinions in the comments section?
The ramifications, of course, would be enormous.
Do read the whole article as it has a lot more nuggets than I placed here for your delectation. The author backs up his/her assertions with letters from members of the House of Lords and text from Hansard.
EDIT: some background info on the author.
CR.
Could this be true, could all legislation in the last decade be null and void?
Saturday 10 April 2010
What Immigration has done to a community
If you want to know what happens when immigration runs out of control read this article and find out what happened in Cambridgeshire city of Peterborough
Read this article as well.
The headline.
Migrant city's cry for help: Anguished letter to Brown and Cameron reveals devastating toll of immigration on schools, housing and hospitals
An extract
The impact of uncontrolled mass immigration on the fabric of British life was driven home to the party leaders yesterday.
A letter to Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg reveals in graphic detail the struggle of one community to cope.
It says public services - from schooling to housing, health care to police protection - are overstretched because councils have not been given the support they need.
An extract;
Their letter - which they also sent to constituents - was passed to the Daily Mail by a local resident concerned that its urgent message was being ignored.
The councillors say: 'At our local primary school, Fulbridge, which has a roll of 675 pupils, 27 different languages are spoken with only 200 of the pupils having English as a first language.
'The first-year reception class has 90 pupils, of which only 17 are white British. Every day new arrivals are turned away.
'Registration at the local doctors' surgery has rocketed with more than 90 per cent of the new arrivals being from the EU. There has been a substantial increase in women who are pregnant.
'The Health Service and Primary Care Trust in the city has overspent by millions in the past year.'
A key issue is the Government's failure to support councils.
But Mr Swift and Mr Sharp make clear that the local authority cannot track all new arrivals - crucial information in assessing what they need.
They say there were only four EU citizens on the local electoral roll in 2004. Now there are 537 and 'we know there are substantially more here'.
The councillors also voiced the local fears that immigration is fuelling a rise in crime.
They write: 'We had four police houses in the ward years ago. Everyone knew and respected the local constable. Now we have muggings, robberies, burglaries and neighbour disputes. We have prostitutes, drug dealers and an ever-increasing number of people who drive without road tax or insurance.'
Read the whole article and find out how the town has been changed.
This is just one town, this is going on throughout the country.
I have never been opposed to immigration, but we are only a small island, compared to France or Germany.
This country cannot keep on taking in the amount of immigrants it is taking in now.
Labour's great plan on immigration has failed.
Labour must take the blame for causing untold damage to communities like Peterborough.
What will the party leaders say, and do, about immigration during the election campaign?
Read this article as well.
The headline.
Migrant city's cry for help: Anguished letter to Brown and Cameron reveals devastating toll of immigration on schools, housing and hospitals
An extract
The impact of uncontrolled mass immigration on the fabric of British life was driven home to the party leaders yesterday.
A letter to Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg reveals in graphic detail the struggle of one community to cope.
It says public services - from schooling to housing, health care to police protection - are overstretched because councils have not been given the support they need.
An extract;
Their letter - which they also sent to constituents - was passed to the Daily Mail by a local resident concerned that its urgent message was being ignored.
The councillors say: 'At our local primary school, Fulbridge, which has a roll of 675 pupils, 27 different languages are spoken with only 200 of the pupils having English as a first language.
'The first-year reception class has 90 pupils, of which only 17 are white British. Every day new arrivals are turned away.
'Registration at the local doctors' surgery has rocketed with more than 90 per cent of the new arrivals being from the EU. There has been a substantial increase in women who are pregnant.
'The Health Service and Primary Care Trust in the city has overspent by millions in the past year.'
A key issue is the Government's failure to support councils.
But Mr Swift and Mr Sharp make clear that the local authority cannot track all new arrivals - crucial information in assessing what they need.
They say there were only four EU citizens on the local electoral roll in 2004. Now there are 537 and 'we know there are substantially more here'.
The councillors also voiced the local fears that immigration is fuelling a rise in crime.
They write: 'We had four police houses in the ward years ago. Everyone knew and respected the local constable. Now we have muggings, robberies, burglaries and neighbour disputes. We have prostitutes, drug dealers and an ever-increasing number of people who drive without road tax or insurance.'
Read the whole article and find out how the town has been changed.
This is just one town, this is going on throughout the country.
I have never been opposed to immigration, but we are only a small island, compared to France or Germany.
This country cannot keep on taking in the amount of immigrants it is taking in now.
Labour's great plan on immigration has failed.
Labour must take the blame for causing untold damage to communities like Peterborough.
What will the party leaders say, and do, about immigration during the election campaign?
Friday 9 April 2010
Guy News Video Re - Stuart MacLennan
Just a quick one.
Who, in the Labour party, knew what Stuart Maclennan was saying on Twitter.
Check out the Guy News Video (at 1.15) to see who in the Labour party was following him.
You have to ask yourself, why was nothing done to stop Stuart Maclennan tweeting all those offensive words for so long and nothing was said by anyone from the Labour party?
Senior members of the Labour party were following him and must of read what he was saying, so why didn't they do something about it?
It only became a problem when the the blogosphere and press started to make an issue of it.
Who, in the Labour party, knew what Stuart Maclennan was saying on Twitter.
Check out the Guy News Video (at 1.15) to see who in the Labour party was following him.
You have to ask yourself, why was nothing done to stop Stuart Maclennan tweeting all those offensive words for so long and nothing was said by anyone from the Labour party?
Senior members of the Labour party were following him and must of read what he was saying, so why didn't they do something about it?
It only became a problem when the the blogosphere and press started to make an issue of it.
A Warning from America
I found this article at http://uknewsnetwork.blogspot.com/
This article is about the 'Cap and Trade' bill going through the system at the moment in the USA.
An extract;
A License Required for your house
Thinking about selling your house - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!
Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
An extract;
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:
A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included.
This is worrying, if America is doing this now, will it happen in the UK in the future?
With the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all going on about global warming, will they produce something like what the Americans are doing right now.
We have the HIPs at the moment, what more could they do to the poor taxpayers of this country?
I'm pretty sure the EU has something up it's sleeve, similar to what the US up to.
They said they want to have an EU wide tax system.
Will they want to have an EU 'carbon neutral' home efficiency scheme in the pipeline?
This article is about the 'Cap and Trade' bill going through the system at the moment in the USA.
An extract;
A License Required for your house
Thinking about selling your house - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!
Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
An extract;
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:
A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included.
This is worrying, if America is doing this now, will it happen in the UK in the future?
With the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all going on about global warming, will they produce something like what the Americans are doing right now.
We have the HIPs at the moment, what more could they do to the poor taxpayers of this country?
I'm pretty sure the EU has something up it's sleeve, similar to what the US up to.
They said they want to have an EU wide tax system.
Will they want to have an EU 'carbon neutral' home efficiency scheme in the pipeline?
Thursday 8 April 2010
Who would you think should get a heavier fine?
A robber or a motorist who parked illegally?
Have a look at this article;
Robbers receive soft penalties than illegal parkers
Robbers are escaping with softer punishments than motorists who park illegally, it has emerged.
An extract;
Magistrates are handing out fines as little as £47 to convicted robbers, a drop of a third under Labour.
In contrast motorists who park unlawfully face fines of up to £70 outside London and up to £120 within the capital.
Your going to love this extract;
Magistrates admitted the fines are low because offenders cannot afford higher penalties and get discounts for guilty pleas.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow Justice Secretary, said: "Ministers have tried to bully magistrates to give fewer jail and community sentences, but it is no wonder that magistrates have little confidence in fines when Ministers haven't bothered to uprate fine levels in all the time they've been in power.
"As a result, fines for serious offences like robbery and criminal damage are cheaper than some parking tickets. No wonder public confidence in the justice system has been undermined."
Can you believe that?
Fine them £1000+, and if they can't pay the fine, jail them. It's simple.
Don't give them soft fines because the poor little mite can't afford to pay the fine.
Broken record time.
Is this what Labour meant when they said 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.'
Punishment should fit the crime.
Have a look at this article;
Robbers receive soft penalties than illegal parkers
Robbers are escaping with softer punishments than motorists who park illegally, it has emerged.
An extract;
Magistrates are handing out fines as little as £47 to convicted robbers, a drop of a third under Labour.
In contrast motorists who park unlawfully face fines of up to £70 outside London and up to £120 within the capital.
Your going to love this extract;
Magistrates admitted the fines are low because offenders cannot afford higher penalties and get discounts for guilty pleas.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow Justice Secretary, said: "Ministers have tried to bully magistrates to give fewer jail and community sentences, but it is no wonder that magistrates have little confidence in fines when Ministers haven't bothered to uprate fine levels in all the time they've been in power.
"As a result, fines for serious offences like robbery and criminal damage are cheaper than some parking tickets. No wonder public confidence in the justice system has been undermined."
Can you believe that?
Fine them £1000+, and if they can't pay the fine, jail them. It's simple.
Don't give them soft fines because the poor little mite can't afford to pay the fine.
Broken record time.
Is this what Labour meant when they said 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.'
Punishment should fit the crime.
Why has this been allowed to happen?
I cannot believe this has been allowed to happen.
The following comes from this article
Eleven rapists and hundreds of other sex offenders 'let off with cautions'
Eleven rapists and hundreds of other self-confessed sex offenders have been let off with cautions over the past five years in one police force area alone, figures show.
An extract;
More than 600 cautions were issued for crimes that include rape and child abuse in Avon and Somerset since 2004, police admitted.
Cautions are handed out when guilt is admitted and mean offenders do not appear in court, do not have their names made public and they do not risk going to prison.
You have people committing some of the most serious crimes against a person and they get a caution. No wonder the reporting of rapes is at an all time low.
An extract;
The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, showed cautions as punishment for sexual offences increased over the five years within the force area.
A total of 611 sex offenders were issued with cautions by the constabulary after the criminals admitted guilt, officers said.
Were they thinking that once the criminals were given the caution, they would be good and not do it again, yeah right
These included 11 rapists who confessed their crimes. Four of those had admitted the rape of a child under the age of 13.
How the **** can you not jail these scum, they admitted the crime. Why aren't they in jail now?
What about the safety to the public?
What is stopping them from committing the same crime again?
The figures also revealed 74 sexual assaults on women, seven on men and 28 on children were dealt with by caution rather being taken through the courts.
Four cautions were given for incest or familial sexual offences, two for abuse of children through prostitution or pornography and two for sexual grooming.
Who ever agreed to these cautions, for these serious crimes, should be put in jail themselves for endangering the public.
The country is a joke.
You get jailed for letting a few people smoke in your pub.
You have people going to jail for not paying the council tax.
But if you rape a child you get a caution
What a wonderful country we live in. NOT
The following comes from this article
Eleven rapists and hundreds of other sex offenders 'let off with cautions'
Eleven rapists and hundreds of other self-confessed sex offenders have been let off with cautions over the past five years in one police force area alone, figures show.
An extract;
More than 600 cautions were issued for crimes that include rape and child abuse in Avon and Somerset since 2004, police admitted.
Cautions are handed out when guilt is admitted and mean offenders do not appear in court, do not have their names made public and they do not risk going to prison.
You have people committing some of the most serious crimes against a person and they get a caution. No wonder the reporting of rapes is at an all time low.
An extract;
The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, showed cautions as punishment for sexual offences increased over the five years within the force area.
A total of 611 sex offenders were issued with cautions by the constabulary after the criminals admitted guilt, officers said.
Were they thinking that once the criminals were given the caution, they would be good and not do it again, yeah right
These included 11 rapists who confessed their crimes. Four of those had admitted the rape of a child under the age of 13.
How the **** can you not jail these scum, they admitted the crime. Why aren't they in jail now?
What about the safety to the public?
What is stopping them from committing the same crime again?
The figures also revealed 74 sexual assaults on women, seven on men and 28 on children were dealt with by caution rather being taken through the courts.
Four cautions were given for incest or familial sexual offences, two for abuse of children through prostitution or pornography and two for sexual grooming.
Who ever agreed to these cautions, for these serious crimes, should be put in jail themselves for endangering the public.
The country is a joke.
You get jailed for letting a few people smoke in your pub.
You have people going to jail for not paying the council tax.
But if you rape a child you get a caution
What a wonderful country we live in. NOT
Gordon Brown said British Jobs for British Workers
Have a read of this article.
The headline:
Labour's betrayal of British workers: Nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner
An extract;
Immigration was at the centre of the election campaign last night as it emerged that virtually every extra job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker.
Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.
The Tories seized on the revelation as evidence that the Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.
If this is true then Gordon Brown must tell the whole country how and why this has happened.
Yes there are times when foreign workers need to be employed in the UK, and, for example, the Polish workers I have seen put some of the British workers to shame at how hard they work.
According to official figures there are 2.45 million people out of work in the UK. Don't you think Gordon that at least some of them could of used one of those 1.67 million jobs?
There may be a reason why so many foreign workers are getting the jobs in the country.
There are some people in this country that just sit on the arses all day and get money thrown at them by the benefits office, there are a lot of them earning more money than people who work for a living. So it is time for those lazy arsed workshy people to get a job and earn some money for a change.
If they do then that means more taxpayers money goes to the government so then, maybe, the country's debt can be lowered more quickly.
Who knows?
The headline:
Labour's betrayal of British workers: Nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner
An extract;
Immigration was at the centre of the election campaign last night as it emerged that virtually every extra job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker.
Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.
The Tories seized on the revelation as evidence that the Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.
If this is true then Gordon Brown must tell the whole country how and why this has happened.
Yes there are times when foreign workers need to be employed in the UK, and, for example, the Polish workers I have seen put some of the British workers to shame at how hard they work.
According to official figures there are 2.45 million people out of work in the UK. Don't you think Gordon that at least some of them could of used one of those 1.67 million jobs?
There may be a reason why so many foreign workers are getting the jobs in the country.
There are some people in this country that just sit on the arses all day and get money thrown at them by the benefits office, there are a lot of them earning more money than people who work for a living. So it is time for those lazy arsed workshy people to get a job and earn some money for a change.
If they do then that means more taxpayers money goes to the government so then, maybe, the country's debt can be lowered more quickly.
Who knows?
Tuesday 6 April 2010
Where did Gordon Brown come from?
Interesting Article from http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/
The latest blog questions Gordon Brown's background
"I come from an ordinary family in an ordinary town..." - part of Gordon Brown's speech this morning when he finally announced the date of the General Election.
Gordon Brown was the son of John Ebenezer Brown, a Church of Scotland minister and Elizabeth Souter, a timber merchant's daughter.
According to some biographers he was encouraged to help local families made unemployed by local factory closures. Inspired by one of their father's sermons, along with his older brother John, he set up a tuck shop in the family's garage and started a newspaper, The Gazette, to raise money for refugees in Africa.
Now I have no problem with the 'good works' of the junior Gordon Brown, but I do have a problem with his statement of being from an ordinary family because it's untrue.
I too came from an ordinary family in the east of Scotland but did we have a garage? In fact the only garage I can remember was the place 'rich' folks took their cars for petrol or repair. We didn't live in a house, we lived in a flat, along with at least 75% of the population of Dundee in these days. It wasn't until the 60s my father managed to buy a family home. Gordon Brown is of my generation and yet he talks about being from an 'ordinary' family.
Gordon Brown is desperate to play down his elite roots. Any Scot will admit the 'children of the manse' were to be slightly above the rest. They were part of always part of the 'elite' of Scottish society along with judges, councillors, what where considered as high profiled business people.
For Gordon Brown to profess he came from an 'ordinary' Scottish family in the 50s is a lie. One he wishes to pedal to those who don't know know about Scotland in the 50s and who believe his word. They can search on google and read the real history of Scotland in the 50s and find the Minister was certainly revered as part of the power in the community.
Time he stopped trying to claim he came from a working class background. He did not. To profess he did is appalling and an insult to those who did - and made good.
Now if Gordon Brown has lied about his background, then does it question his ability, and right, to govern?
The latest blog questions Gordon Brown's background
"I come from an ordinary family in an ordinary town..." - part of Gordon Brown's speech this morning when he finally announced the date of the General Election.
Gordon Brown was the son of John Ebenezer Brown, a Church of Scotland minister and Elizabeth Souter, a timber merchant's daughter.
According to some biographers he was encouraged to help local families made unemployed by local factory closures. Inspired by one of their father's sermons, along with his older brother John, he set up a tuck shop in the family's garage and started a newspaper, The Gazette, to raise money for refugees in Africa.
Now I have no problem with the 'good works' of the junior Gordon Brown, but I do have a problem with his statement of being from an ordinary family because it's untrue.
I too came from an ordinary family in the east of Scotland but did we have a garage? In fact the only garage I can remember was the place 'rich' folks took their cars for petrol or repair. We didn't live in a house, we lived in a flat, along with at least 75% of the population of Dundee in these days. It wasn't until the 60s my father managed to buy a family home. Gordon Brown is of my generation and yet he talks about being from an 'ordinary' family.
Gordon Brown is desperate to play down his elite roots. Any Scot will admit the 'children of the manse' were to be slightly above the rest. They were part of always part of the 'elite' of Scottish society along with judges, councillors, what where considered as high profiled business people.
For Gordon Brown to profess he came from an 'ordinary' Scottish family in the 50s is a lie. One he wishes to pedal to those who don't know know about Scotland in the 50s and who believe his word. They can search on google and read the real history of Scotland in the 50s and find the Minister was certainly revered as part of the power in the community.
Time he stopped trying to claim he came from a working class background. He did not. To profess he did is appalling and an insult to those who did - and made good.
Now if Gordon Brown has lied about his background, then does it question his ability, and right, to govern?
First day of campaigning and Labour try a trick.
Gordon Brown goes out on the campaign trail and gets applauded by the 'public.'
Well all is not as it seems.
The following is taken from Guido Fawkes' blog at http://order-order.com/
Twitter Blows Spin : Labour Fakes Up Gordon Support
The first Twitter based new media gaffe of the campaign is a revelation. PPCs and activists of all colours have been out in force today, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats invited them to speeches by their leaders and press released the whole thing as just that – speeches to the party faithful.
It was only Gordon that felt the need to attempt to create a “spontaneous” Potemkin Village of support. The news channels are reporting Gordon being “cheered off” by the public who were shouting “good luck Gordon” as he departed St. Pancras station. Funny then that there is a remarkable similarity between the crowd below and the one leafleting for Labour at tube stations earlier this morning. It seems no one has bothered to check that this “crowd” was in fact a group of Young Labour hacks and Labour Students.
In what will, Guido suspects, be a recurring theme this election, Twitter lets slip what really happened. Notice how the party activists, (including PPC Emily Benn, the President of the National Union of Students Wes Streeting, the chairman of Young Labour Sam Tarry and über-spinning totty Ellie Gellard) aren’t wearing their Labour T-shirts in order to appear like a random gathering of ordinary voters. As if genuine members of the public would cheer Gordon…
The picture below is taken from Dizzy Thinks blog
Well all is not as it seems.
The following is taken from Guido Fawkes' blog at http://order-order.com/
Twitter Blows Spin : Labour Fakes Up Gordon Support
The first Twitter based new media gaffe of the campaign is a revelation. PPCs and activists of all colours have been out in force today, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats invited them to speeches by their leaders and press released the whole thing as just that – speeches to the party faithful.
It was only Gordon that felt the need to attempt to create a “spontaneous” Potemkin Village of support. The news channels are reporting Gordon being “cheered off” by the public who were shouting “good luck Gordon” as he departed St. Pancras station. Funny then that there is a remarkable similarity between the crowd below and the one leafleting for Labour at tube stations earlier this morning. It seems no one has bothered to check that this “crowd” was in fact a group of Young Labour hacks and Labour Students.
In what will, Guido suspects, be a recurring theme this election, Twitter lets slip what really happened. Notice how the party activists, (including PPC Emily Benn, the President of the National Union of Students Wes Streeting, the chairman of Young Labour Sam Tarry and über-spinning totty Ellie Gellard) aren’t wearing their Labour T-shirts in order to appear like a random gathering of ordinary voters. As if genuine members of the public would cheer Gordon…
The picture below is taken from Dizzy Thinks blog
Gordon Brown Finally Announces the Election.
Well, my opinion for the election is for Gordon Brown and the Labour party to be sent to the political equivalent of the stone age.
I want the Labour Party, especially Gordon Brown, to be humiliated. they have caused untold harm to the country.
Law and order is a joke.
Not giving our service men and women the right equipment.
The economy is on a cliff edge.
The country is so in debt it will take decades to pay off.
Labour, mainly Gordon Brown, have taxed us to death, mainly by stealth.
The NHS falling apart, not enough qualified nurses on the wards.
Our freedoms being taken away.
Selling the country out to the EU
Letting criminals out of jail early to commit more crimes.
That is just a small amount of what Labour has done to this country. We cannot let them do any more to us.
Send Labour to the stone age.
I want the Labour Party, especially Gordon Brown, to be humiliated. they have caused untold harm to the country.
Law and order is a joke.
Not giving our service men and women the right equipment.
The economy is on a cliff edge.
The country is so in debt it will take decades to pay off.
Labour, mainly Gordon Brown, have taxed us to death, mainly by stealth.
The NHS falling apart, not enough qualified nurses on the wards.
Our freedoms being taken away.
Selling the country out to the EU
Letting criminals out of jail early to commit more crimes.
That is just a small amount of what Labour has done to this country. We cannot let them do any more to us.
Send Labour to the stone age.
Monday 5 April 2010
Gordon Brown's Podcast
This is from Constantly Furious' Blog, about Gordon Brown's Podcast.
Soon-to-be-former-Prime Minister Gordon Brown has some advice for us all. As with all of his 'advice', it's really just a reminder of how wonderful he is, what great job he's done and how utterly terrible the evil Tories would be.
And, so that as many people as possible can understand him, he - well, one of his army of spin doctors - has cleverly phrased it in the form of an analogy. Oh yes.
Drawing a parallel between the battered economy and the injured millionaire ball-kicker Wayne Rooney, the PM said:
Oooooh. See what he did there? Well, thanks for patronising advice, Gordo'.
But let CF extend and enhance your little analogy.
Imagine that in a football match, the captain of the other team, a big Scottish, one-eyed thug, kicked you as hard as he could, right in the balls.
Then, as you crumpled to the ground gasping, kneed you in the face, breaking your nose.
Then deliberately stamped on your head, raking his studs across your face.
Then, before the referee got there, whipped open his shorts and pissed all over your recumbent form.
Would you then like him to follow you to the hospital, offering the doctors advice on your treatment, and helping out with the stitching of your wounds?
Probably not, eh?
I agree with Constantly Furious, Gordon Brown has fouled us, kicked us and bled us dry.
Soon-to-be-former-Prime Minister Gordon Brown has some advice for us all. As with all of his 'advice', it's really just a reminder of how wonderful he is, what great job he's done and how utterly terrible the evil Tories would be.
And, so that as many people as possible can understand him, he - well, one of his army of spin doctors - has cleverly phrased it in the form of an analogy. Oh yes.
Drawing a parallel between the battered economy and the injured millionaire ball-kicker Wayne Rooney, the PM said:
"..after an injury you need support to recover, you need support to get back to
match fitness, you need support to get back your full strength and then go on to
lift the World Cup.
"So with the economy - we're not back to full
fitness, we need to maintain support,"
"If we try and jump off the
treatment table as if nothing had happened we'll do more damage to the economy -
and frankly that means we risk a double-dip recession.
"I think that's a
risk we can't afford to take"
Oooooh. See what he did there? Well, thanks for patronising advice, Gordo'.
But let CF extend and enhance your little analogy.
Imagine that in a football match, the captain of the other team, a big Scottish, one-eyed thug, kicked you as hard as he could, right in the balls.
Then, as you crumpled to the ground gasping, kneed you in the face, breaking your nose.
Then deliberately stamped on your head, raking his studs across your face.
Then, before the referee got there, whipped open his shorts and pissed all over your recumbent form.
Would you then like him to follow you to the hospital, offering the doctors advice on your treatment, and helping out with the stitching of your wounds?
Probably not, eh?
I agree with Constantly Furious, Gordon Brown has fouled us, kicked us and bled us dry.
How Labour has Taxed us all.
Thanks to Tory Totty for this find;
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/henry.tsmith/garbgate/item2/stealth.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/henry.tsmith/garbgate/item2/stealth.htm
When you see how much Gordon Brown and Labour have taken from our pockets you will be as shocked as I was.
Read what it says in the link for every tax and stealth tax Labour have taken from us all. Then you think of all the money they have taken from us and how they wasted it.
Have a look at the link and see if you are as shocked as i was.
Sunday 4 April 2010
Is it wrong to have personal opinions now?
I have been reading about Chris Grayling's opinions on the story about the gay couple being refused to stay at a bed and breakfast.
Is it wrong in today's society to have personal opinions, even if it goes against what the mainstream say.
The people who owned the B&B are a very christian couple and, rightly or wrongly, refused to let the couple stay because they felt uncomfortable about letting a gay couple stay in their home.
Everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs, and no one should force them to change how they feel.
Chris Grayling said in his interview;
The recording of the meeting on Wednesday shows Mr Grayling said: "I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences.
"I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.
What he said was his own personal opinions on the subject.
Yes it upset some people with his remarks, and the political parties went into overdrive to say all of the Torys are homophobic.
Everyone is, or should be, allowed to have their own opinions and no one should be forced to change them
I will always support someone who expresses their own opinions, even if it goes against what i believe.
It is every one's Human right to have an opinion of their own, and no person, government or group should be allowed to force their opinions onto someone else.
Is it wrong in today's society to have personal opinions, even if it goes against what the mainstream say.
The people who owned the B&B are a very christian couple and, rightly or wrongly, refused to let the couple stay because they felt uncomfortable about letting a gay couple stay in their home.
Everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs, and no one should force them to change how they feel.
Chris Grayling said in his interview;
The recording of the meeting on Wednesday shows Mr Grayling said: "I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences.
"I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.
What he said was his own personal opinions on the subject.
Yes it upset some people with his remarks, and the political parties went into overdrive to say all of the Torys are homophobic.
Everyone is, or should be, allowed to have their own opinions and no one should be forced to change them
I will always support someone who expresses their own opinions, even if it goes against what i believe.
It is every one's Human right to have an opinion of their own, and no person, government or group should be allowed to force their opinions onto someone else.
Back to the Eighties
This is taken from Dick Puddlecote Blog, I have fond memories of the 80's and Dick Puddlecote's blog really brought back some fond memories.
Yes. Eighties. Please?
There have been many clever mock ups of Labour's new election poster. The one which they no doubt believed would be Dreadnought class. The nuclear option, capable of blasting a crater the size of Prescott's gut in Conservative support.
But less is more, so His Eminence has come up with the most succinct, and therefore my fave.
Indeed. Mrs P and I have, for the past few years, spent many a late hour over the Chenin Blanc wistfully discussing the future possibility of time travel, debating whether it would be best to transport ourselves back to the 70s or the 80s, and bemoaning the fact that it just ain't gonna happen.
So we're stuck here, like some poor passengers who put our trust in a ship's Captain only to be dumped unwillingly on a barren, joyless island, run by the Amish, and patrolled by a bullying troop of knuckle-dragging airheads parroting "it's more than my job's worth, guv".
Leggy has highlighted some truths about why the eighties were a golden age compared with now.
In the eighties, nobody was arrested, fined, tagged and curfewed for selling a goldfish to anyone.
In the eighties, you could sit in the park on a sunny day with one bottle of beer and nobody minded. Heck, you could sit there and drink until your eyes melted and as long as you did it without bothering anyone else, nobody minded.
In the eighties, you could sit in a pub and smoke and nobody minded.
In the eighties, nobody was fined for having a baked bean tin in the paper bin nor for putting out their bin ten seconds too early, half an inch too far from the kerb or with the lid not quite hermetically sealed.
In the eighties, parents were not fined when their children threw bread to ducks.
Yes, there are many many more examples, but I feel compelled to add some of my own.
In the eighties, charities were charities, not hectoring multi-million pound businesses.
In the eighties, you could say you were a Toyah fan and no-one replied "Who?".
In the eighties, you could drive down any road without having to leap-frog over a steeplechase of road humps.
In the eighties, a jacket but no socks was more than acceptable attire.
In the eighties, you could leave a 9 year old at home while you went to the shops ... and no-one called social services.
In the eighties, today's lefty attitudes were overwhelmingly classed as 'loony'.
In the eighties, kids watched TV for two hours a day max. They could watch more but generally didn't once the news came on.
In the eighties, there was Bezique.
In the eighties, you could take your kids into Downing Street on a day trip to London. You could even take a picture of number 10.
In the eighties, no-one knew who would occupy the top four places in football's top division till the season finished.
In the eighties, Bristow smoked and drank his way to five world darts titles.
In the eighties, Jim Davidson had a career, and was sometimes funny.
In the eighties, people had front gardens, not drives, as you could park on the road.
In the eighties, we fried bacon in oil.
In the eighties, we drank Black Tower ... and liked it.
In the eighties, you could enjoy a cigar after an expensive meal.
In the eighties, you'd see teachers in the pub and it was considered normal behaviour.
In the eighties, nurses always came across (just me?).
In the eighties, you didn't get in a nightclub without a suit.
In the eighties, you could afford the cab home.
Brass tacks? In the eighties, we had fun (with or without money), were free, and sucked the marrow out of life without interference.
And this is a bad thing, how?
Perhaps the poster is an ironic piece of reverse psychology from Labour, in that they know very well that Cameron has shown no sign whatsoever of returning us to such a life.
Maybe that's the point. A Brer Rabbit type dare, confident in the knowledge that the Tories have no intention, nor the wherewithal, to do any such thing. Labour don't intend to try either but are aware that there are those who harbour optimistic hopes which will be cruelly dashed post May 6th.
Yes. Eighties. Please?
There have been many clever mock ups of Labour's new election poster. The one which they no doubt believed would be Dreadnought class. The nuclear option, capable of blasting a crater the size of Prescott's gut in Conservative support.
But less is more, so His Eminence has come up with the most succinct, and therefore my fave.
Indeed. Mrs P and I have, for the past few years, spent many a late hour over the Chenin Blanc wistfully discussing the future possibility of time travel, debating whether it would be best to transport ourselves back to the 70s or the 80s, and bemoaning the fact that it just ain't gonna happen.
So we're stuck here, like some poor passengers who put our trust in a ship's Captain only to be dumped unwillingly on a barren, joyless island, run by the Amish, and patrolled by a bullying troop of knuckle-dragging airheads parroting "it's more than my job's worth, guv".
Leggy has highlighted some truths about why the eighties were a golden age compared with now.
In the eighties, nobody was arrested, fined, tagged and curfewed for selling a goldfish to anyone.
In the eighties, you could sit in the park on a sunny day with one bottle of beer and nobody minded. Heck, you could sit there and drink until your eyes melted and as long as you did it without bothering anyone else, nobody minded.
In the eighties, you could sit in a pub and smoke and nobody minded.
In the eighties, nobody was fined for having a baked bean tin in the paper bin nor for putting out their bin ten seconds too early, half an inch too far from the kerb or with the lid not quite hermetically sealed.
In the eighties, parents were not fined when their children threw bread to ducks.
Yes, there are many many more examples, but I feel compelled to add some of my own.
In the eighties, charities were charities, not hectoring multi-million pound businesses.
In the eighties, you could say you were a Toyah fan and no-one replied "Who?".
In the eighties, you could drive down any road without having to leap-frog over a steeplechase of road humps.
In the eighties, a jacket but no socks was more than acceptable attire.
In the eighties, you could leave a 9 year old at home while you went to the shops ... and no-one called social services.
In the eighties, today's lefty attitudes were overwhelmingly classed as 'loony'.
In the eighties, kids watched TV for two hours a day max. They could watch more but generally didn't once the news came on.
In the eighties, there was Bezique.
In the eighties, you could take your kids into Downing Street on a day trip to London. You could even take a picture of number 10.
In the eighties, no-one knew who would occupy the top four places in football's top division till the season finished.
In the eighties, Bristow smoked and drank his way to five world darts titles.
In the eighties, Jim Davidson had a career, and was sometimes funny.
In the eighties, people had front gardens, not drives, as you could park on the road.
In the eighties, we fried bacon in oil.
In the eighties, we drank Black Tower ... and liked it.
In the eighties, you could enjoy a cigar after an expensive meal.
In the eighties, you'd see teachers in the pub and it was considered normal behaviour.
In the eighties, nurses always came across (just me?).
In the eighties, you didn't get in a nightclub without a suit.
In the eighties, you could afford the cab home.
Brass tacks? In the eighties, we had fun (with or without money), were free, and sucked the marrow out of life without interference.
And this is a bad thing, how?
Perhaps the poster is an ironic piece of reverse psychology from Labour, in that they know very well that Cameron has shown no sign whatsoever of returning us to such a life.
Maybe that's the point. A Brer Rabbit type dare, confident in the knowledge that the Tories have no intention, nor the wherewithal, to do any such thing. Labour don't intend to try either but are aware that there are those who harbour optimistic hopes which will be cruelly dashed post May 6th.
Who ever signed this off must be insane.
Check this one out.
This is the shortest cycle lane in Britain
What were Cardiff council thinking when they signed off on this £2000 'cycle lane'.
Once again this is a prime example of how a lack of common sense is required if you work in the councils of the UK.
Whoever signed off on this, and the person who thought of the idea of an 8 foot cycle lane, should be paraded throughout Cardiff and tell all the council taxpayers why it was even thought of.
This is the shortest cycle lane in Britain
What were Cardiff council thinking when they signed off on this £2000 'cycle lane'.
Once again this is a prime example of how a lack of common sense is required if you work in the councils of the UK.
Whoever signed off on this, and the person who thought of the idea of an 8 foot cycle lane, should be paraded throughout Cardiff and tell all the council taxpayers why it was even thought of.
Friday 2 April 2010
How to make a kid cry.
Cute video of 3 kids singing along to Beyonce's Single Ladies, when the father says the wrong thing.
Oops
Oops
Thursday 1 April 2010
Dept of Government Waste
Thanks to Plato Says for this find
Dept of Government Waste launched
It does say at the end of the video that all the examples of waste are real.
Dept of Government Waste launched
It does say at the end of the video that all the examples of waste are real.
'Tough On Crime, Tough On The Causes Of Crime'
In 1997 Labour said they will be 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'.
Is this article what they were on about being tough on crime?
When I first read about this I thought it was an April Fools joke, but it isn't.
The headline to the article.
Great-grandmother given an electronic tag and curfew for selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old
A great-grandmother has been ordered to wear an electronic tag for breaching new animal welfare laws by selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old boy.
An extract;
Joan Higgins, a pet shop owner, was caught selling the fish to the teenager in a 'sting' operation by council officials. She was then prosecuted in an eight month court process estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £20,000.
Under new animal welfare laws, passed in 2006, it is it illegal to sell goldfish to under 16s. Offenders can be punished with up to 12 months in prison.
I can understand 'sting' operations where shop keepers sell cigarettes and knives, but goldfish. When I was a kid we went to fun fairs and we won goldfish and we took them home.
An extract;
Mrs Higgins, 66, who thought the boy was much older than 14, escaped jail but was instead ordered to wear an electronic tag and given a night time curfew. She was also fined £1,000 by Trafford Magistrates Court.
Her son Mark Higgins, who was also prosecuted in connection with the case, described the treatment of his mother as a "farce" and "legal lunacy". He said the punishment she had received would prevent her from attending her weekly bingo sessions as well babysitting her one month-old great grandchild.
Why are they prosecuting a grandmother for selling a goldfish when we have real criminals being let off on community service orders. or at the most a couple of months in jail.
Labour have brought in so many new laws, the law abiding people of this country don't know if they are breaking the law or not now.
What should of happened in this case is the council should of given Mrs Higgins a warning, and to inform her if she knew about the law about not selling animals to children. Not take her to court costing the taxpayer £20,000.
It's common sense, but councils have lost most of their common sense over the years.
Has anyone escaped from a lunatic asylum and got a job at this council, because I'm sure who ever made the decision to prosecute her must be mad.
Is this article what they were on about being tough on crime?
When I first read about this I thought it was an April Fools joke, but it isn't.
The headline to the article.
Great-grandmother given an electronic tag and curfew for selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old
A great-grandmother has been ordered to wear an electronic tag for breaching new animal welfare laws by selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old boy.
An extract;
Joan Higgins, a pet shop owner, was caught selling the fish to the teenager in a 'sting' operation by council officials. She was then prosecuted in an eight month court process estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £20,000.
Under new animal welfare laws, passed in 2006, it is it illegal to sell goldfish to under 16s. Offenders can be punished with up to 12 months in prison.
I can understand 'sting' operations where shop keepers sell cigarettes and knives, but goldfish. When I was a kid we went to fun fairs and we won goldfish and we took them home.
An extract;
Mrs Higgins, 66, who thought the boy was much older than 14, escaped jail but was instead ordered to wear an electronic tag and given a night time curfew. She was also fined £1,000 by Trafford Magistrates Court.
Her son Mark Higgins, who was also prosecuted in connection with the case, described the treatment of his mother as a "farce" and "legal lunacy". He said the punishment she had received would prevent her from attending her weekly bingo sessions as well babysitting her one month-old great grandchild.
Why are they prosecuting a grandmother for selling a goldfish when we have real criminals being let off on community service orders. or at the most a couple of months in jail.
Labour have brought in so many new laws, the law abiding people of this country don't know if they are breaking the law or not now.
What should of happened in this case is the council should of given Mrs Higgins a warning, and to inform her if she knew about the law about not selling animals to children. Not take her to court costing the taxpayer £20,000.
It's common sense, but councils have lost most of their common sense over the years.
Has anyone escaped from a lunatic asylum and got a job at this council, because I'm sure who ever made the decision to prosecute her must be mad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)