The Story Behind my Gall Bladder Removal
13 hours ago
Monday, 31 December 2007
An alternative view of Benazir Bhutto
I don't pretend to be an expert on Pakistani politics and so do not know how accurate this article is. An interesting read though.
Climate Change scientists
Junk Science has a selection of quotations from "leading climate change scientists" that I think are worthy of spreading so people can see what kind of people they are and what their real aims are.
"“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations."
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” — Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)"
It is no coincidence that many of the "green" campaigners in the 1990s and 2000s were supporters of communism in the 1970s and 1980s, this is just a new phase of an old ideological clash. They lost the last one but look as though aided by their fellow travellers in the MSM they may succeed this time.
"“If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.” — Amory Lovins, The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” — Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power”, May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report."
"“The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.” — John Shuttleworth, FoE manual writer."
I have often wondered what the MMCC evangelists would say if scientists did make the breakthrough on nuclear fusion technology or similar, now I know.
"“The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.” — Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary to the Smithsonian Institution."
The self-loathing is incredible.
Turning to the inconvenient trusth that MMCC does not exist we have this:
“We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.” — Jonathan Overpeck, a Professor at U of Arizona and IPCC Lead Author in an email to David Deming, a professor at U of Oklahoma."
and this:
No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec, 1998."
Man Made Climate Change is a confidence trick and our governments have bought it and are selling it on.
"“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations."
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” — Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)"
It is no coincidence that many of the "green" campaigners in the 1990s and 2000s were supporters of communism in the 1970s and 1980s, this is just a new phase of an old ideological clash. They lost the last one but look as though aided by their fellow travellers in the MSM they may succeed this time.
"“If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.” — Amory Lovins, The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” — Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power”, May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report."
"“The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.” — John Shuttleworth, FoE manual writer."
I have often wondered what the MMCC evangelists would say if scientists did make the breakthrough on nuclear fusion technology or similar, now I know.
"“The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.” — Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary to the Smithsonian Institution."
The self-loathing is incredible.
Turning to the inconvenient trusth that MMCC does not exist we have this:
“We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.” — Jonathan Overpeck, a Professor at U of Arizona and IPCC Lead Author in an email to David Deming, a professor at U of Oklahoma."
and this:
No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec, 1998."
Man Made Climate Change is a confidence trick and our governments have bought it and are selling it on.
So long as we don't change our way of life
I see from the BBC that "Traditional New year's Eve fireworks in the Belgian capital Brussels have been cancelled because of a security alert.
The Christmas market will close at 1800 instead of staying open all night, and even the ice rink will close early. "
How our Labour Government would love to do this and have us all cowering at home grateful to our all protecting Prime Minister - Gordon Brown.
The Christmas market will close at 1800 instead of staying open all night, and even the ice rink will close early. "
How our Labour Government would love to do this and have us all cowering at home grateful to our all protecting Prime Minister - Gordon Brown.
A great idea
From Sproggett on the Biased BBC blog comments board comes this idea:
"When the BBC plugs The Radio Times, it adds a small disclaimer which informs us that "other TV listings magazines are available". Perhaps it should offer similar advice - "other political parties are available", for instance - on its politics page?"
Genius, sheer genius.
"When the BBC plugs The Radio Times, it adds a small disclaimer which informs us that "other TV listings magazines are available". Perhaps it should offer similar advice - "other political parties are available", for instance - on its politics page?"
Genius, sheer genius.
Sunday, 30 December 2007
What has this country become?
From The Daily Mail comes news that "War hero's daughter facing arrest for tackling yobs who 'trashed war memorial'" Unfortunately, it is the type of story that we have all come to accept "When she spotted yobs vandalising a war memorial garden, Julie Lake sprang into action.
As the daughter of a Second World War RAF pilot – and granddaughter of one of the fallen in the 1914-18 war – she felt it was her duty to intervene. But, after giving the main culprit a talking- to and a 'cuff round the ear', she finds herself facing the prospect of being arrested for assault."
When we all realise that the yobs know their rights and that the Police would rather arrest one middle-aged, middle-class woman who will attend court on the allocated day, who will pay any fine and who will not involve social workers, rather that a number of yobs who will do the opposite. We are living in a fucked-up, topsy turvy land and I don't think there is any way back.
As the daughter of a Second World War RAF pilot – and granddaughter of one of the fallen in the 1914-18 war – she felt it was her duty to intervene. But, after giving the main culprit a talking- to and a 'cuff round the ear', she finds herself facing the prospect of being arrested for assault."
When we all realise that the yobs know their rights and that the Police would rather arrest one middle-aged, middle-class woman who will attend court on the allocated day, who will pay any fine and who will not involve social workers, rather that a number of yobs who will do the opposite. We are living in a fucked-up, topsy turvy land and I don't think there is any way back.
Saturday, 29 December 2007
Happy New Year Gordon
Take a read of Simon Heffer's column in today's Telegraph. The part on what Gordon Brown has to look forward to in 2008 should be read by all including our vile Prime Minister himself.
Here's an extract, but do read the rest:
"The year ahead, however, may turn out even worse for Mr Brown than 2007. Many were taken in by his stewardship of the economy, believing the blatant propaganda that Britain was an economic success story. The truth, we now see, is somewhat at odds with that.
House prices are in free-fall. Unemployment is rising. Growth is stalling. We are, most dangerously of all, awash with debt.
We have had, for most of its 10½ years in power, a Government committed to living beyond its means. It borrowed recklessly during years of plenty when it should have been reducing its debt.
Now we are entering years of famine in incredibly bad shape, with a people hooked on credit suddenly facing the bills coming in, and unable to pay.
As I have written here before, it was not least Mr Brown's obsession, when Chancellor, to bloat the supply of money that allowed the banks to have all this easy credit. Now they, and their customers, are facing stringencies unseen since the bleak days of the 1970s."
Here's an extract, but do read the rest:
"The year ahead, however, may turn out even worse for Mr Brown than 2007. Many were taken in by his stewardship of the economy, believing the blatant propaganda that Britain was an economic success story. The truth, we now see, is somewhat at odds with that.
House prices are in free-fall. Unemployment is rising. Growth is stalling. We are, most dangerously of all, awash with debt.
We have had, for most of its 10½ years in power, a Government committed to living beyond its means. It borrowed recklessly during years of plenty when it should have been reducing its debt.
Now we are entering years of famine in incredibly bad shape, with a people hooked on credit suddenly facing the bills coming in, and unable to pay.
As I have written here before, it was not least Mr Brown's obsession, when Chancellor, to bloat the supply of money that allowed the banks to have all this easy credit. Now they, and their customers, are facing stringencies unseen since the bleak days of the 1970s."
Does this explain a lot about Gordon Brown
Not exactly news but I think worthy of repetition:
"Gordon Brown published a scrounger’s charter while at university, offering students tips on how to freeload and claim benefits. His 200-page survival guide, Alternative Edinburgh, openly encouraged students to “use and abuse” the Welfare State.
“If you’re British and can give an address, free money is available from social security, basic £5.80 per week,” he wrote.
Social and medical benefits are your right, not charity hand-outs, so never be reticent about claiming them.” Mr Brown, who wrote the guide when he was 22 and a student leader at Edinburgh University, also tells students how to obtain a free meal at a hotel: “Con your way to asking for a glass of water or sit beside drinkers and they will feed you for nothing.”"
The above comes from The Times in April 2007 and the comments that follow the article are also worth a read. I enjoyed Derek of Bembridge's "A shame the man never had a proper job and had a dose of being on the receiving end of his childish, misguided left wing idealism, but unfortunately for us he has been a Labour parasite all his life and remains firmly wedded to the principles he so proudly espoused in his university days - no matter how hard the Labour PR machine tries to pursuade otherwise"
and
Finbar Bryson of Nottingham's "What is interesting is that we can now be guaranteed that the asylum 'system' in this country will not be attended to by Mr.Brown as these people are just exactly the type of folk Mr.Brown can relate to and vote him in again and again.The reason for uncontrolled mass migration becmes clearer by the day-more votes for Labour to replace those like myself who have been betrayed.History will damn you and BLiar"
"Gordon Brown published a scrounger’s charter while at university, offering students tips on how to freeload and claim benefits. His 200-page survival guide, Alternative Edinburgh, openly encouraged students to “use and abuse” the Welfare State.
“If you’re British and can give an address, free money is available from social security, basic £5.80 per week,” he wrote.
Social and medical benefits are your right, not charity hand-outs, so never be reticent about claiming them.” Mr Brown, who wrote the guide when he was 22 and a student leader at Edinburgh University, also tells students how to obtain a free meal at a hotel: “Con your way to asking for a glass of water or sit beside drinkers and they will feed you for nothing.”"
The above comes from The Times in April 2007 and the comments that follow the article are also worth a read. I enjoyed Derek of Bembridge's "A shame the man never had a proper job and had a dose of being on the receiving end of his childish, misguided left wing idealism, but unfortunately for us he has been a Labour parasite all his life and remains firmly wedded to the principles he so proudly espoused in his university days - no matter how hard the Labour PR machine tries to pursuade otherwise"
and
Finbar Bryson of Nottingham's "What is interesting is that we can now be guaranteed that the asylum 'system' in this country will not be attended to by Mr.Brown as these people are just exactly the type of folk Mr.Brown can relate to and vote him in again and again.The reason for uncontrolled mass migration becmes clearer by the day-more votes for Labour to replace those like myself who have been betrayed.History will damn you and BLiar"
The war on drivers continues (part 2)
Now I read that this government's mania with controlling our every waking moment, raising taxes wherever they can and persecuting drivers rather than catching criminals is about to take another step "forward". "Digital speed cameras which capture drivers smoking or eating at the wheel are being introduced nationwide in a new move to hammer motorists.
Drivers will also face fines, bans and even jail for infringements such as driving without a seatbelt, using a hand-held mobile phone or overtaking across double white lines.
The hi-tech DVD cameras, which have instant playback, will also be used to provide photographic evidence against those eating sandwiches or rolling-up cigarettes at the wheel.
These are now considered serious offences under new guidelines drawn up for prosecutors.
The development will massively increase the number of fines and prosecutions against normally law-abiding drivers for relatively minor offences.
As well as being fined £60 and given three points on their licences, motorists now face two years in jail if their actions are considered to have been a factor in dangerous driving.
Virtually every police force in England, Wales and Scotland is now equipped with the new digital cameras. They were given Home Office approval in April but are quietly being rolled out nationwide.
More than 100 have been sold. The manufacturers have said their order book is full until next April...
Set up by a police officer on sites such as motorway bridges, they constantly scan the cars and can digitally record drivers behind the wheel committing a vast array of minor traffic offences.
Crucially the new technology, called Concept, allows officers to play back the footage to locate, view and capture the offence instantly."
Go and read the rest of the article and wonder at what this countryis becoming has become. We are no longer free men, we are the possessions of the Labour government's state.
Drivers will also face fines, bans and even jail for infringements such as driving without a seatbelt, using a hand-held mobile phone or overtaking across double white lines.
The hi-tech DVD cameras, which have instant playback, will also be used to provide photographic evidence against those eating sandwiches or rolling-up cigarettes at the wheel.
These are now considered serious offences under new guidelines drawn up for prosecutors.
The development will massively increase the number of fines and prosecutions against normally law-abiding drivers for relatively minor offences.
As well as being fined £60 and given three points on their licences, motorists now face two years in jail if their actions are considered to have been a factor in dangerous driving.
Virtually every police force in England, Wales and Scotland is now equipped with the new digital cameras. They were given Home Office approval in April but are quietly being rolled out nationwide.
More than 100 have been sold. The manufacturers have said their order book is full until next April...
Set up by a police officer on sites such as motorway bridges, they constantly scan the cars and can digitally record drivers behind the wheel committing a vast array of minor traffic offences.
Crucially the new technology, called Concept, allows officers to play back the footage to locate, view and capture the offence instantly."
Go and read the rest of the article and wonder at what this country
The war on drivers continues (part 1)
This government and its army of tax collectors have been at it again. Today I read that "A motorist has been fined £30 for defrosting his car outside his home because he left it unattended with the engine running. Ken Hardman, 45, was prosecuted for the offence of "quitting" after the vehicle was spotted by a police officer...
A police spokesman said: "The officer tried to offer words of advice but the male refused to accept them. So the officer was left with no option but to issue a fixed penalty notice of £30. Every year we appeal to the public not to leave their cars running unattended on frosty mornings as they are easy pickings for thieves.
However, Mr Hardman, of Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire, said that thieves had no way of stealing his Mercedes saloon because its windows and doors could be locked while the engine was running."
So a man had secured his vehicle and left it to defrost, when a policeman decided that he was in danger of attracting thieves. The man points out that his car is secure and maybe refuses to show due respect to PC Plod, so the policeman has no alternative... What a crock of shit, the police have given up trying to catch criminals and are now involved mainly in raising tax revenue for this government and artificially inflating the crime detection statistics.
A police spokesman said: "The officer tried to offer words of advice but the male refused to accept them. So the officer was left with no option but to issue a fixed penalty notice of £30. Every year we appeal to the public not to leave their cars running unattended on frosty mornings as they are easy pickings for thieves.
However, Mr Hardman, of Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire, said that thieves had no way of stealing his Mercedes saloon because its windows and doors could be locked while the engine was running."
So a man had secured his vehicle and left it to defrost, when a policeman decided that he was in danger of attracting thieves. The man points out that his car is secure and maybe refuses to show due respect to PC Plod, so the policeman has no alternative... What a crock of shit, the police have given up trying to catch criminals and are now involved mainly in raising tax revenue for this government and artificially inflating the crime detection statistics.
Totalitarianism
From Devils Kitchen comes a great piece that you should read in its entirety - here is an extract.
"Alas, the culture of this country has become such that most of the morons who live here have accepted the state's shilling and are now little more than sheep, fed on a diet of celebritards and "reality" wank-shows, who barely comprehend—and are even less interested in—the loss of their freedoms.
As I have pointed out so many times, we are all in hock to the state and must dance to its tune. And the state is not your friend, friend."
"Alas, the culture of this country has become such that most of the morons who live here have accepted the state's shilling and are now little more than sheep, fed on a diet of celebritards and "reality" wank-shows, who barely comprehend—and are even less interested in—the loss of their freedoms.
As I have pointed out so many times, we are all in hock to the state and must dance to its tune. And the state is not your friend, friend."
Do the Iranian regime "get" satire?
Take a look at this delightful piece from The Peoples Cube. Satire to fact and back again regarding Iran's use of faked photos.
"British jobs for British workers"?
It appears that Gordon's proud boasts on record employment are a little exaggerated.
"The House of Commons Library compiled the data from the Government's Labour Force Survey for James Clappison, a Tory member of the Commons Home Affairs Committee...
In 2003, there were 24,473,000 British-born UK residents in recognised employment. In 2004, Britain granted unlimited access to workers from 10 new European Union states.
Employment registration data show that more than 600,000 new Europeans have found work here since.
During 2007, the number of British-born people in work was 23,948,000 - down 525,000."
Oh Gordon, today this is a story on an inside page of the Daily Telegraph - what if the News of the World were to go big on it tomorrow?
"The House of Commons Library compiled the data from the Government's Labour Force Survey for James Clappison, a Tory member of the Commons Home Affairs Committee...
In 2003, there were 24,473,000 British-born UK residents in recognised employment. In 2004, Britain granted unlimited access to workers from 10 new European Union states.
Employment registration data show that more than 600,000 new Europeans have found work here since.
During 2007, the number of British-born people in work was 23,948,000 - down 525,000."
Oh Gordon, today this is a story on an inside page of the Daily Telegraph - what if the News of the World were to go big on it tomorrow?
Friday, 28 December 2007
Happy Birthday "Just a Minute"
I am sorry I missed the 40th anniversary of the great Radio 4 comedy panel game on the 22nd December but here you go - Happy Birthday "Just a Minute"
Gordon Brown wishes you a Merry Christmas
Well actually he doesn't... See Archbishop Cranmer for details.
The sense of an ending
From The Spectator comes this rather nicely crafted sentence.
"The literary critic Frank Kermode identified what he called the ‘sense of an ending’. In everything that the governing party does now, one sees ideological twilight, mutual recrimination and a collective preparation for eventual disaster. Backbenchers run for cover. Ministers speak semi-openly about a change of leadership before the next election. Panic and paralysis are everywhere. The nerves of this government are shot to pieces. It flails and rages, to no great effect, provoking pity amongst its dwindling supporters and contempt in everyone else."
Do read the rest of the article.
"The literary critic Frank Kermode identified what he called the ‘sense of an ending’. In everything that the governing party does now, one sees ideological twilight, mutual recrimination and a collective preparation for eventual disaster. Backbenchers run for cover. Ministers speak semi-openly about a change of leadership before the next election. Panic and paralysis are everywhere. The nerves of this government are shot to pieces. It flails and rages, to no great effect, provoking pity amongst its dwindling supporters and contempt in everyone else."
Do read the rest of the article.
The party's over
A quick prediction for 2008 that will not warm the cockles of Gordon Brown's heart.
The economy is screwed...
OK, a bit more detail; the economy is well and truly screwed... The pound is about to go into free-fall and so Gordon will want to support it by raising interest rates but that will hit the hard-pressed home buyers who have believed Gordon Brown's "end to boom and bust" rhetoric. Also Gordon has tasked the Bank of England to suppress inflation and even his "preferred" (for which you can read artificially reduced) measure will be going up as inflation enters the economy so the BofE will want to reduce interest rates, but that will suck in more imports and so increase inflation. At earlier points in the economic cycle, Gordon has raised taxes (albeit stealthily) but whilst that was possible in good times without too much protest from the tame media, the media are now less tame and (apart from the ever loyal BBC)increasingly willing to criticise Gordon's government.
It really doesn't look rosy for Gordon, stagflation is on its way and we are in for a very unpleasant four or five years; it could make 1929 look like a mild downturn. Sorry to be the voice of doom but I think it best we face up to reality.
The economy is screwed...
OK, a bit more detail; the economy is well and truly screwed... The pound is about to go into free-fall and so Gordon will want to support it by raising interest rates but that will hit the hard-pressed home buyers who have believed Gordon Brown's "end to boom and bust" rhetoric. Also Gordon has tasked the Bank of England to suppress inflation and even his "preferred" (for which you can read artificially reduced) measure will be going up as inflation enters the economy so the BofE will want to reduce interest rates, but that will suck in more imports and so increase inflation. At earlier points in the economic cycle, Gordon has raised taxes (albeit stealthily) but whilst that was possible in good times without too much protest from the tame media, the media are now less tame and (apart from the ever loyal BBC)increasingly willing to criticise Gordon's government.
It really doesn't look rosy for Gordon, stagflation is on its way and we are in for a very unpleasant four or five years; it could make 1929 look like a mild downturn. Sorry to be the voice of doom but I think it best we face up to reality.
Still delusional
I see that Gordon Brown is still living a fantasy existence. According to the Mail (and others) Number 10 has issued a review of Gordon Brown's time as PM in 2007. "The "Look Back At The PM's Year 2007" gives a month-by-month review of Mr Brown's premiership since he took over from Tony Blair.
However, it omits, glosses over or gives a limited version of key events which have caused Mr Brown's popularity in the polls to plummet.
The general election that never was, the Labour funding scandal which could lead to the party's former general secretary, Peter Watt, facing criminal charges, the "Magpie Budget" which sparked claims that Labour was stealing Tory policies, and the massive breach of data security with the loss of Revenue and Customs discs containing personal details of 25 million people do not get a mention.
Not a single word is devoted to the furore over thousands of illegal immigrants being cleared to work as security guards, or the opposition Mr Brown is facing to give police longer than 28 days to detain suspected terrorists without charge.
The Northern Rock crisis which led to the first run on a British bank for 140 years gets a brief mention - but only in terms of how the Prime Minister has acted to protect nearly £30billion of taxpayer's cash being used to prop up the stricken lender.
Similarly, Mr Brown's signing of the EU Treaty merits a brief note but not the farcical scenes over his decision not to turn up for the official signing ceremony. "
The problem is that this is probably how Gordon Brown sees the world; in his mind he is still perfect, master of all he surveys, which reminds me to watch Downfall this weekend.
However, it omits, glosses over or gives a limited version of key events which have caused Mr Brown's popularity in the polls to plummet.
The general election that never was, the Labour funding scandal which could lead to the party's former general secretary, Peter Watt, facing criminal charges, the "Magpie Budget" which sparked claims that Labour was stealing Tory policies, and the massive breach of data security with the loss of Revenue and Customs discs containing personal details of 25 million people do not get a mention.
Not a single word is devoted to the furore over thousands of illegal immigrants being cleared to work as security guards, or the opposition Mr Brown is facing to give police longer than 28 days to detain suspected terrorists without charge.
The Northern Rock crisis which led to the first run on a British bank for 140 years gets a brief mention - but only in terms of how the Prime Minister has acted to protect nearly £30billion of taxpayer's cash being used to prop up the stricken lender.
Similarly, Mr Brown's signing of the EU Treaty merits a brief note but not the farcical scenes over his decision not to turn up for the official signing ceremony. "
The problem is that this is probably how Gordon Brown sees the world; in his mind he is still perfect, master of all he surveys, which reminds me to watch Downfall this weekend.
Thursday, 27 December 2007
Here's an interesting read
From The Guardian comes news that "At least a dozen British towns and cities will have no single ethnic group in a majority within the next 30 years. Leicester will become the first 'super-diverse' city in 2020, then Birmingham in 2024, followed by Slough and Luton, according to a new study of population trends in the UK.
The report reveals that Leicester has seen the proportion of its white population fall from 70.1 per cent in 1991 to 59.5 per cent today. By 2016 the white population will make up 52.2 per cent of the population, falling to 44.5 per cent by 2026. 'Britain is becoming ever more plural; our diversity ever more diverse,' said Danny Dorling, professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield, whose predictions are based on the most comprehensive study into the country's population trends. 'This increased diversity is most evident in its cities, with plurality becoming commonplace.'"
The report reveals that Leicester has seen the proportion of its white population fall from 70.1 per cent in 1991 to 59.5 per cent today. By 2016 the white population will make up 52.2 per cent of the population, falling to 44.5 per cent by 2026. 'Britain is becoming ever more plural; our diversity ever more diverse,' said Danny Dorling, professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield, whose predictions are based on the most comprehensive study into the country's population trends. 'This increased diversity is most evident in its cities, with plurality becoming commonplace.'"
Donorgate comes back into focus
The Telegraph is reporting that:
"The scandal over the Labour Party's £670,000 illegal donations will return to haunt Gordon Brown in the New Year as criminal charges may be imminent, according to an authoritative Whitehall source.
The Daily Telegraph can disclose that those leading the investigation into the so-called "donorgate" affair will complete their inquiries as early as the end of next month.
The source has said that Peter Watt, who resigned as Labour's general secretary, may be facing criminal charges over his role in the worst fundraising controversy since Labour took power in 1997."
I will be amazed if any charges are brought as this Labour government has got away with murder over the last 10 years without any legal sanction.
"the source added that failings in the drafting of electoral laws would make a prosecution problematic despite the matter being described as "illegal" by the Prime Minister.
It is understood that only the person directly responsible for signing off the Labour Party's donations with the Electoral Commission can be held legally accountable for any misleading statements.
The prosecuting authorities are very unsure as to whether someone who was, or claims to be, unaware that what they were doing was illegal can be successfully prosecuted.
"The CPS will have to be able to establish there is a strong public interest in pushing ahead with a prosecution," said the source.
However, Mr Watt is still expected to be charged for his role in the scandal."
Since the Labour party are "the political wing of the British people" how could any prosecution of a Labour figure be in the public interest? These people really make me feel sick.
"The scandal over the Labour Party's £670,000 illegal donations will return to haunt Gordon Brown in the New Year as criminal charges may be imminent, according to an authoritative Whitehall source.
The Daily Telegraph can disclose that those leading the investigation into the so-called "donorgate" affair will complete their inquiries as early as the end of next month.
The source has said that Peter Watt, who resigned as Labour's general secretary, may be facing criminal charges over his role in the worst fundraising controversy since Labour took power in 1997."
I will be amazed if any charges are brought as this Labour government has got away with murder over the last 10 years without any legal sanction.
"the source added that failings in the drafting of electoral laws would make a prosecution problematic despite the matter being described as "illegal" by the Prime Minister.
It is understood that only the person directly responsible for signing off the Labour Party's donations with the Electoral Commission can be held legally accountable for any misleading statements.
The prosecuting authorities are very unsure as to whether someone who was, or claims to be, unaware that what they were doing was illegal can be successfully prosecuted.
"The CPS will have to be able to establish there is a strong public interest in pushing ahead with a prosecution," said the source.
However, Mr Watt is still expected to be charged for his role in the scandal."
Since the Labour party are "the political wing of the British people" how could any prosecution of a Labour figure be in the public interest? These people really make me feel sick.
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
Why so coy BBC?
The BBC have a small news report which tells us that (my emphasis):
"Man dies in Christmas M-way crash
A 28-year-old man has been killed after getting out of his car on the M1 motorway in South Yorkshire.
The man, from Leigh, Greater Manchester, left his red Audi A4 in the third lane after it struck the central reservation on Christmas Day evening.
He went to the hard shoulder but was hit by a gold Jaguar car as he tried to get back to his vehicle, near junction 35 of the southbound carriageway.
Police have urged witnesses to the crash to come forward.
The driver of the Jaguar, a 50-year-old man from Rotherham, suffered minor cuts and bruising.
The carriageway was closed for several hours after the crash."
A 50-year-old man from Rotherham, is that all the BBC know? It seems unlikely as the Daily Mail reports the story in a touch more detail:
"Labour peer Lord Ahmed in horror M1 smash that leaves motorist dead
Labour peer Lord Ahmed has been involved in a six-car Christmas Day horror smash that claimed the life of a Slovakian driver.
The 49-year-old Muslim peer was at the wheel of his gold coloured X Type Jaguar when it ploughed into an Audi A4 that had broken down in the fast lane of the M1 near Rotherham..."
If the driver of the Jaguar had been a Conservative MP or a Conservative councillor or even a Conservative supporter then the BBC would have made that information available but since it is a Labour peer, not a word. The BBC proud to protect the Labour party from any scandal they can.
"Man dies in Christmas M-way crash
A 28-year-old man has been killed after getting out of his car on the M1 motorway in South Yorkshire.
The man, from Leigh, Greater Manchester, left his red Audi A4 in the third lane after it struck the central reservation on Christmas Day evening.
He went to the hard shoulder but was hit by a gold Jaguar car as he tried to get back to his vehicle, near junction 35 of the southbound carriageway.
Police have urged witnesses to the crash to come forward.
The driver of the Jaguar, a 50-year-old man from Rotherham, suffered minor cuts and bruising.
The carriageway was closed for several hours after the crash."
A 50-year-old man from Rotherham, is that all the BBC know? It seems unlikely as the Daily Mail reports the story in a touch more detail:
"Labour peer Lord Ahmed in horror M1 smash that leaves motorist dead
Labour peer Lord Ahmed has been involved in a six-car Christmas Day horror smash that claimed the life of a Slovakian driver.
The 49-year-old Muslim peer was at the wheel of his gold coloured X Type Jaguar when it ploughed into an Audi A4 that had broken down in the fast lane of the M1 near Rotherham..."
If the driver of the Jaguar had been a Conservative MP or a Conservative councillor or even a Conservative supporter then the BBC would have made that information available but since it is a Labour peer, not a word. The BBC proud to protect the Labour party from any scandal they can.
Foreign Exchange
From the comments at Guido Fawkes today, not sure if true but thought it was worth passing on:
"The pound is being hammered against cable and the euro in those money markets that are open today. I suspect the Bank of England is intervening by buying sterling as the rate is fluctuating in a fairly bizarre way but the underlying direction for the pound is strongly down. and now stands at 1.36 against the euro.
A big sterling crisis looks imminent which may force the Bank into an emergency interest rate rise of at least 2 to 3% if they want to avoid it falling to $1.75 and €1.25
Gordon Brown must be crapping himself this afternoon."
"The pound is being hammered against cable and the euro in those money markets that are open today. I suspect the Bank of England is intervening by buying sterling as the rate is fluctuating in a fairly bizarre way but the underlying direction for the pound is strongly down. and now stands at 1.36 against the euro.
A big sterling crisis looks imminent which may force the Bank into an emergency interest rate rise of at least 2 to 3% if they want to avoid it falling to $1.75 and €1.25
Gordon Brown must be crapping himself this afternoon."
More illegal acts
This Labour government has done it again, read this on this. "Gordon Brown was put on the spot last week over a truly extraordinary act of serial illegality committed by his Government. In Brussels he was personally accused by senior members of the European Parliament of acting in flagrant defiance of both British and European courts - in a futile bid to appease a murderous tyranny that has recently stepped up its campaign of terror against its own people, and is also supplying arms used to kill British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Do read the rest and wonder why the Main Stream Media have been ignoring this story.
Do read the rest and wonder why the Main Stream Media have been ignoring this story.
The best final line of a film
Just watched "Some Like it Hot" with the best last line of any film...."Well nobody's perfect", and if you don't get that, then you must watch this film...
Did Gordon Brown lie to Parliament?
Read this and wonder whether Gordon Brown has been caught lieing.
"An intelligence source said: "The SIS officers were understood to have sought peace directly with the Taliban with them coming across as some sort of armed militia. The British would also provide 'mentoring' for the Taliban."
The disclosure comes only a fortnight after the Prime Minister told the House of Commons: "We will not enter into any negotiations with these people."
Opposition leaders said that Mr Brown had "some explaining to do".
The Government was apparently prepared to admit that the talks had taken place but Mr Brown was thought to have "bottled out" just before Prime Minister's Questions on Dec 12, when he made his denial instead.
It is thought that the Americans were extremely unhappy with the news becoming public that an ally was negotiating with terrorists who supported the September 11 attackers...
"These meetings were with up to a dozen Taliban or with Taliban who had only recently laid down their arms," an intelligence source said. "The impression was that these were important motivating figures inside the Taliban."
The Prime Minister had denied reports of talks with the Taliban under questioning from David Cameron, the Tory leader, in Parliament.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary said: "If this turns out to be untrue the Prime Minister will have some explaining to do to the British public.""
On 12 May, Gordon Brown said in his opening remarks "Our objective is to defeat the insurgency by isolating and eliminating its leadership. I make it clear that we will not enter into any negotiations with these people." David Cameron asked Gordon Brown "may I ask the Prime Minister about the reports in today’s newspapers? Press headlines say clearly that the Government plan to talk to the Taliban, but the Prime Minister said in his statement that “we will not” talk to “these people”. Does that not demonstrate once again the error of briefing the press in advance of making statements in this House? But is it not more serious than that? These appear to be completely conflicting messages, and they really could undermine our forces in what they are doing. In his reply, can the Prime Minister clear this up and tell us what he will do to investigate how this took place?"
Gordon Brown replied "Let me repeat what I said in my statement—that our aim is to isolate and eradicate the Taliban insurgency and to isolate the leadership. We are not negotiating with the leadership and we do not propose to do so."
Was he telling the truth?
"An intelligence source said: "The SIS officers were understood to have sought peace directly with the Taliban with them coming across as some sort of armed militia. The British would also provide 'mentoring' for the Taliban."
The disclosure comes only a fortnight after the Prime Minister told the House of Commons: "We will not enter into any negotiations with these people."
Opposition leaders said that Mr Brown had "some explaining to do".
The Government was apparently prepared to admit that the talks had taken place but Mr Brown was thought to have "bottled out" just before Prime Minister's Questions on Dec 12, when he made his denial instead.
It is thought that the Americans were extremely unhappy with the news becoming public that an ally was negotiating with terrorists who supported the September 11 attackers...
"These meetings were with up to a dozen Taliban or with Taliban who had only recently laid down their arms," an intelligence source said. "The impression was that these were important motivating figures inside the Taliban."
The Prime Minister had denied reports of talks with the Taliban under questioning from David Cameron, the Tory leader, in Parliament.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary said: "If this turns out to be untrue the Prime Minister will have some explaining to do to the British public.""
On 12 May, Gordon Brown said in his opening remarks "Our objective is to defeat the insurgency by isolating and eliminating its leadership. I make it clear that we will not enter into any negotiations with these people." David Cameron asked Gordon Brown "may I ask the Prime Minister about the reports in today’s newspapers? Press headlines say clearly that the Government plan to talk to the Taliban, but the Prime Minister said in his statement that “we will not” talk to “these people”. Does that not demonstrate once again the error of briefing the press in advance of making statements in this House? But is it not more serious than that? These appear to be completely conflicting messages, and they really could undermine our forces in what they are doing. In his reply, can the Prime Minister clear this up and tell us what he will do to investigate how this took place?"
Gordon Brown replied "Let me repeat what I said in my statement—that our aim is to isolate and eradicate the Taliban insurgency and to isolate the leadership. We are not negotiating with the leadership and we do not propose to do so."
Was he telling the truth?
Gordon still popular in India
I see that "Delhi University will honour British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a doctorate degree in recognition of his achievements in the field of academics and public services.
Brown will be honoured at a special convocation in January next year when he comes to India on a state visit.
"The degree will be offered in recognition of his academic achievement and public service. The university has taken a decision in this regard and informed the Union government," its Pro-Vice-Chancellor Prof S K Tandon said."
"academics"! "public services"!!
Brown will be honoured at a special convocation in January next year when he comes to India on a state visit.
"The degree will be offered in recognition of his academic achievement and public service. The university has taken a decision in this regard and informed the Union government," its Pro-Vice-Chancellor Prof S K Tandon said."
"academics"! "public services"!!
Tuesday, 25 December 2007
Merry Christmas
Tiffany JoAllen - I'm Gonna Lasso Santa Claus
Pogues and Kirsty McColl - Fairytale of New York
Tom Jones & Cerys Matthews - Baby It's Cold Outside (Live)
Carving the turkey
I read that "A 200-year-old book has recently been discovered detailing the traumas faced by the head of the table when preparing and carving the bird, and giving crucial advice on how to get it right and impress your guests. It says manners and etiquette are vital, and the ability to carve with "ease and grace" gains great respect among fellow diners. On no account must the carver stand up while doing the deed, but must always have a chair high enough to do the job commandingly. Any attempt to hack at the turkey will end in guests being "bespattered" and so should be avoided."
Thankfully myself and Mrs NotaSheep will be sitting down to a nice goose later today; much tastier than turkey and more traditionally English.
"Choice cuts should always be handed out evenly around the table, unless people of a "superior rank" are present."
Mrs NotaSheep is far superior to me and so she can have whatever choice cut she desires"
"But it also reveals that turkey was not the most popular choice for Christmas dinner. It fell some way behind the favourites: a boiled cod's head or half a calf's head."
Hmm, I think we will still stick with goose, maybe St John's could add calf's head to their pig's head starter.
"The 18th Century book, The Art of Carving, written in 1791 by Rev John Trusler, was found during a house clearance and sold by auctioneer Charles Hanson."
Thankfully myself and Mrs NotaSheep will be sitting down to a nice goose later today; much tastier than turkey and more traditionally English.
"Choice cuts should always be handed out evenly around the table, unless people of a "superior rank" are present."
Mrs NotaSheep is far superior to me and so she can have whatever choice cut she desires"
"But it also reveals that turkey was not the most popular choice for Christmas dinner. It fell some way behind the favourites: a boiled cod's head or half a calf's head."
Hmm, I think we will still stick with goose, maybe St John's could add calf's head to their pig's head starter.
"The 18th Century book, The Art of Carving, written in 1791 by Rev John Trusler, was found during a house clearance and sold by auctioneer Charles Hanson."
Monday, 24 December 2007
Unreal
The West Lothian question has been garnering more importance as the UK becomes ever more fragmented following devolution and at the same time more and more Scots fill the Labour cabinet. So a debate hosted by the Hansard Society entitled "Is the West Lothian Question unanswerable?" seems timely. The event will be held next February but the speakers are oddly chosen :
Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP - born in Edinburgh and educated at George Watson's College and Edinburgh University
Lord Falconer of Thoroton - Educated at the Edinburgh Academy, Trinity College, Glenalmond, and Queens' College, Cambridge
In the Chair - Sheena McDonald - born in Dunfermline, Fife; graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 1976
Could an English speaker not have been found? Just as in Westminster the question is put and answered by Scots.
Thanks Waking Hereward for the tip.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP - born in Edinburgh and educated at George Watson's College and Edinburgh University
Lord Falconer of Thoroton - Educated at the Edinburgh Academy, Trinity College, Glenalmond, and Queens' College, Cambridge
In the Chair - Sheena McDonald - born in Dunfermline, Fife; graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 1976
Could an English speaker not have been found? Just as in Westminster the question is put and answered by Scots.
Thanks Waking Hereward for the tip.
Merry Christmas
Apparently Omar Bakri "who is barred from Britain, is calling on Brits to boycott Christmas. Using the internet to post a rant against the festive season, Bakri claims Christmas should be "completely forbidden". In another chilling post the radical cleric said Christmas Day would be the perfect day to launch a terror attack on the UK. He said: "To have Christmas tree, visit so-called Christmas Father - that is completely forbidden. "Make sure you do not watch TV. Do not let them hear jingle bells. Do not send your children on Christmas trip.""
What a lovely chap.
What a lovely chap.
A fine expose of the missing data disk debacle
Read the Ministry of Truth with a great explanation of some of the techie background to this story. MOT is right and I wish I had written this article.
Illiberal scum
Read this from the Times concerning our Labour government's descent into illiberalism. "GORDON BROWN has set himself on a collision course with the legal establishment over plans to give civil servants and government agencies the power to remove people’s passports without going through the courts."
I have blogged before that this government has quite vile totalitarian tendencies and is bordering on the fascist. Do read my previous articles and those by Devils Kitchen and others on the same topic. You may also want to read Devils Kitchen take on this story.
In the meantime here are some quotations that may be of interest:
From 1984 - "The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class...
As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition."
Also from 1984 - "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."
From V for Vendetta - "And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."
Benjamin Franklin - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This Labour government believes like all socialist/fascists that the state is all and that the population is subservient to the state. The process of eroding and ending our ancient freedoms has begun and unless this Labour government is kicked out soon we will all be slaves.
As The Holloways sing so well:
"So this is great britain and welcome aboard
A sinking ship thats full of shit and someone nicked the oars
A failing false economy
an anti-punk automony
Our once unique Identity's
Been washed from our shores
...
In a land of hope and glory
do we really rule the waves?
The truth is a different story
We're all just a bunch of slaves"
Do read my previous post Living in Gordon Brown's New Labour Police State, now and in the future.
I have blogged before that this government has quite vile totalitarian tendencies and is bordering on the fascist. Do read my previous articles and those by Devils Kitchen and others on the same topic. You may also want to read Devils Kitchen take on this story.
In the meantime here are some quotations that may be of interest:
From 1984 - "The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class...
As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition."
Also from 1984 - "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."
From V for Vendetta - "And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."
Benjamin Franklin - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This Labour government believes like all socialist/fascists that the state is all and that the population is subservient to the state. The process of eroding and ending our ancient freedoms has begun and unless this Labour government is kicked out soon we will all be slaves.
As The Holloways sing so well:
"So this is great britain and welcome aboard
A sinking ship thats full of shit and someone nicked the oars
A failing false economy
an anti-punk automony
Our once unique Identity's
Been washed from our shores
...
In a land of hope and glory
do we really rule the waves?
The truth is a different story
We're all just a bunch of slaves"
Do read my previous post Living in Gordon Brown's New Labour Police State, now and in the future.
Read this article
Go read this article at Devils Kitchen. A warning to us in this increasingly illiberal country.
The influence of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on Grease
Just watching Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and the scene where Grandpa Potts and his "captive helpers" try and build a Chitty replica in Baron Bomburst's castle looks as though it may have been the inspiration for the Greased Lightning. Very similar indeed.
This film also has one the finest creations in film, the Child Catcher - "There are children here, I can smell them."
This film also has one the finest creations in film, the Child Catcher - "There are children here, I can smell them."
Time for a change
Back in October I wrote that "I think a "time for a change" mood is building" and elsewhere I reported this mood amongst people I speak to. Today I see in The Independent an article headed "Poll shock for Brown as voters say it's time for change" by Andrew Grice. It concerns a ComRes opinion poll which was conducted two weekends ago, I do not know why The Independent have been sitting on it for so long. Ignoring the normal share of the voting intentions questions, the more interesting finding is "that 48 per cent of the public agree with the statement that "it's time for change and the next government should be a Conservative one", while only 36 per cent would prefer a Labour administration to a Tory one."
It would appear that the "time for a change" mood is increasing and once that builds there will be nothing that Gordon Brown and his team of lightweights and no-hopers will be able to do.
Andrew Grice writes that "The poll suggests that the Tories are seen as a government-in-waiting and that the Prime Minister may struggle to portray himself as a "change" after more than 10 years of Labour rule.". When the economy's collapse becomes more noticeable in 2008 then the clamour against this most inept Labour government will increase. Did you listen to Any Questions on Friday? Rarely have I heard an audience turn on a Labour minister as quickly and overwhelmingly as that one did. This Labour government are all but finished, it is a shame that in the last 10 years they have so comprehensively ruined the country they have ruled.
It would appear that the "time for a change" mood is increasing and once that builds there will be nothing that Gordon Brown and his team of lightweights and no-hopers will be able to do.
Andrew Grice writes that "The poll suggests that the Tories are seen as a government-in-waiting and that the Prime Minister may struggle to portray himself as a "change" after more than 10 years of Labour rule.". When the economy's collapse becomes more noticeable in 2008 then the clamour against this most inept Labour government will increase. Did you listen to Any Questions on Friday? Rarely have I heard an audience turn on a Labour minister as quickly and overwhelmingly as that one did. This Labour government are all but finished, it is a shame that in the last 10 years they have so comprehensively ruined the country they have ruled.
Sunday, 23 December 2007
Just tell them to mind their own business
It would appear that "Every town hall has been ordered to send out surveys demanding local residents' personal information and opinions. The forms will ask householders to give details of their children, mortgage, ethnic background, religion and sexual orientation." Whose idea is this? Why our delightful control-freak Labour government, in this case imposed by Hazel Blears "Ministers have even given instructions that local councils must try to disguise their involvement in the survey to avoid attracting criticism. And they have ruled that the questioning must be paid for out of council tax and carried out every two years. The New Place Survey - which is expected to be launched next autumn after trials in the spring - is likely to cost at least £15million by 2012."
I hate this government.
I hate this government.
Stanislav speaks
From Lady Jane's blog comes a vitriolic assualt on Gordon Brown, inclusing this "It is the towering, impudent falseness of the man which so rankles and which is quite clearly tearing him apart. His whole existence is a confection; HE defeated the would-be car bombers, HE defeated the floods, HE defeated the foot and mouth outbreak although none of these events were anything to do with him; on the other hand, as chancellor for ten years HE is not responsible for any financial catastrophe which flows from his decisions, HE didn't know, HE wasn't told. As chancellor and effectively domestic prime minister, HE, imprudently, did not give a thought to where millions of pounds of Labour money was coming from, as though his mad father sent it down from Heaven. Brown, at an age when most are grandfathers, suddenly decides, as the premiership looms, to wed and become a normal young parent. This aberrant, contradictory behaviour is deeply offensive to an observer; God knows the impact it has on Jihad-busting, floods-beating, cattle plague-curing, all around Superman Brown, sitting behind his curtains, gnashing at his fingernails."
Saturday, 22 December 2007
Mixed Sex Wards and Labour's broken promises
Do you remember Tony Blair saying, whilst leader of the opposition, regarding mixed sex wards in hospitals ""Is it beyond the collective wit of the Government to deal with that problem?". Maybe you remember the Labour party's promises, made at the 1997 election and repeated in 2001, to bring an end to male and female patients sharing facilities in NHS hospitals.
You will be staggered to read here and here that the "Department of Health disclosed that eliminating mixed-sex wards is no longer an aim. A DoH spokesman said: "We have to get away from this idea of single-sex wards. That is not what it is all about. "Now we are in a situation where we are moving away from a set target on single-sex accommodation and moving towards the NHS locally taking privacy and dignity much more seriously. "It is possible to envisage patient privacy and dignity with patients of different sexes on the same wards but with proper segregation. "There are different ways of ensuring that. It's not about targets. Now it's much more about what the patient feels." The spokesman said a mixed ward divided into bays by fixed partitions - not necessarily fixed to the ceiling, but high enough that patients perceive they are in a separate room - counted as single-sex accommodation."
This government is duplicitous and incompetent.
"Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: "After 10 years of failing to deliver, Labour now appear willing to betray the interests of patients by dropping their manifesto commitment to abolish mixed-sex wards as patients understand them. "As recently as last May, Patricia Hewitt made it clear that what she meant by single-sex accommodation excluded partitioned bays. "Now it seems the department are accepting the proposition that patients should be in mixed-sex accommodation with nothing but flimsy partitions between them. "Tony Blair said it couldn't be beyond the wit of Government to sort it out, but it is clearly beyond the competence of Labour." In May, Patricia Hewitt, the then Health Secretary, vowed there was more to be done to "meet our commitment to eliminate mixed-sex wards". Miss Hewitt stated two years ago that partitioned bays were "not good enough". The figures obtained by the Conservatives showed 31 per cent of the trusts admitted still having fully mixed wards - without any form of partition and excluding intensive care, emergency and children's wards. Some 26 per cent of trusts reported washing facilities were not segregated on all wards, while 29 per cent said lavatories were not fully segregated." In 1997, Labour swept to power promising to "work towards the elimination of mixed-sex wards" which appeared to characterise the lack of dignity afforded to NHS patients following years of Conservative cost-cutting. However, during Mr Blair's first term in office, he failed to end the problem and in 2001 Labour was forced to promise in its manifesto that it would end the wards by 2004.
Ministers missed at least three self-imposed deadlines. A succession of surveys demonstrated that government claims that only a tiny minority of wards treated both men and women after 2004 did not stand up to scrutiny. The commitment was dropped from the 2005 manifesto but ministers still claimed that mixed-sex wards would become a thing of the past. Often they quibbled over the definition of a mixed-sex ward and found themselves hammered by opposition parties and charities. Now more than ten years of political rhetoric and pledges were apparently abandoned with health officials declaring: "We have to get away from this idea of single sex wards.
"It is possible to envisage patient privacy and dignity with patients of different sexes on the same wards.""
Don't laugh, people voted for these knaves - more worryingly some will again and again.
You will be staggered to read here and here that the "Department of Health disclosed that eliminating mixed-sex wards is no longer an aim. A DoH spokesman said: "We have to get away from this idea of single-sex wards. That is not what it is all about. "Now we are in a situation where we are moving away from a set target on single-sex accommodation and moving towards the NHS locally taking privacy and dignity much more seriously. "It is possible to envisage patient privacy and dignity with patients of different sexes on the same wards but with proper segregation. "There are different ways of ensuring that. It's not about targets. Now it's much more about what the patient feels." The spokesman said a mixed ward divided into bays by fixed partitions - not necessarily fixed to the ceiling, but high enough that patients perceive they are in a separate room - counted as single-sex accommodation."
This government is duplicitous and incompetent.
"Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: "After 10 years of failing to deliver, Labour now appear willing to betray the interests of patients by dropping their manifesto commitment to abolish mixed-sex wards as patients understand them. "As recently as last May, Patricia Hewitt made it clear that what she meant by single-sex accommodation excluded partitioned bays. "Now it seems the department are accepting the proposition that patients should be in mixed-sex accommodation with nothing but flimsy partitions between them. "Tony Blair said it couldn't be beyond the wit of Government to sort it out, but it is clearly beyond the competence of Labour." In May, Patricia Hewitt, the then Health Secretary, vowed there was more to be done to "meet our commitment to eliminate mixed-sex wards". Miss Hewitt stated two years ago that partitioned bays were "not good enough". The figures obtained by the Conservatives showed 31 per cent of the trusts admitted still having fully mixed wards - without any form of partition and excluding intensive care, emergency and children's wards. Some 26 per cent of trusts reported washing facilities were not segregated on all wards, while 29 per cent said lavatories were not fully segregated." In 1997, Labour swept to power promising to "work towards the elimination of mixed-sex wards" which appeared to characterise the lack of dignity afforded to NHS patients following years of Conservative cost-cutting. However, during Mr Blair's first term in office, he failed to end the problem and in 2001 Labour was forced to promise in its manifesto that it would end the wards by 2004.
Ministers missed at least three self-imposed deadlines. A succession of surveys demonstrated that government claims that only a tiny minority of wards treated both men and women after 2004 did not stand up to scrutiny. The commitment was dropped from the 2005 manifesto but ministers still claimed that mixed-sex wards would become a thing of the past. Often they quibbled over the definition of a mixed-sex ward and found themselves hammered by opposition parties and charities. Now more than ten years of political rhetoric and pledges were apparently abandoned with health officials declaring: "We have to get away from this idea of single sex wards.
"It is possible to envisage patient privacy and dignity with patients of different sexes on the same wards.""
Don't laugh, people voted for these knaves - more worryingly some will again and again.
Lockerbie
A small piece in Friday's Daily Telegraph caught my eye and it concerns something that has concerned me for some time now. It starts "The release of a mystery document that could cast doubt over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber is being blocked by the Government."
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is the Libyan convicted of the awful bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. Take a look around the web and see if you can find out who really did it, I'll give you a clue - look towards Syria.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is the Libyan convicted of the awful bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. Take a look around the web and see if you can find out who really did it, I'll give you a clue - look towards Syria.
What a shock
This government seem incapable of telling the truth. If Gordon Brown claimed that coal was black, I'd have my doubts. Gordon Brown promised in his first Labour conference speech as leader that immigrants should "play by the rules or face the consequences". His promise to deport foreign criminals has proved to be a sham. The Daily Telegraph reports that "Thousands of criminals from European countries, including those convicted of violent offences, will not even be considered for deportation unless they spend more than two years in prison, the Home Office has admitted.
The policy means that violent foreign criminals may be released back on to Britain's streets despite the Prime Minister pledging a crackdown on law-breaking foreigners.
An internal Prison Service memo said the Border and Immigration Agency had "no interest" in deporting foreign prisoners serving less than a year in jail.
But it has emerged that the policy is even more lax for prisoners from 30 European countries who can spend up to two years in prison before being considered for deportation. There are about 2,500 European prisoners in Britain's jails.
Criminals not facing deportation under the 12-month exemption included burglars, drug dealers and sex offenders. However, the higher 24-month exemption for Europeans also includes those of violent offenders."
This is not solely Gordon's fault, it's EU legislation that stops us doing anything in this field. But then Gordon could tell us the truth, hold on that's where I came in.
The policy means that violent foreign criminals may be released back on to Britain's streets despite the Prime Minister pledging a crackdown on law-breaking foreigners.
An internal Prison Service memo said the Border and Immigration Agency had "no interest" in deporting foreign prisoners serving less than a year in jail.
But it has emerged that the policy is even more lax for prisoners from 30 European countries who can spend up to two years in prison before being considered for deportation. There are about 2,500 European prisoners in Britain's jails.
Criminals not facing deportation under the 12-month exemption included burglars, drug dealers and sex offenders. However, the higher 24-month exemption for Europeans also includes those of violent offenders."
This is not solely Gordon's fault, it's EU legislation that stops us doing anything in this field. But then Gordon could tell us the truth, hold on that's where I came in.
Gordon Brown and the latest You Gov opinion poll
You can read the details in the Daily Telegraph but there is one line that I found most intriguing "Since the sudden surge in Labour fortunes at the end of September, all social groups and all parts of the country have swung to the Tories by roughly similar amounts. For no obvious reasons, manual workers and women have registered the largest swings." Maybe they have sensed that there is something about Gordon that doesn't ring true; I knew that women had a sense about these things, I never knew that manual workers had the same gift.
How did he say he accepts all that the Church teaches?
It is reported that our "former Prime Minister Tony Blair has converted to the Catholic faith". Has he completed the necessary steps, has he declared that "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God". if so how did he reconcile that declaration with his previously declared views. Let's discuss Tony Blair's government's legislation on abortion, homosexual "marriage" and embryo research, or maybe Tony would rather we didn't.
Google referrers
I see that this blog is now number one for Google searches for "nigella lawson shit food norton" and number two for "sheep prices in hyderabad 2007". I am so happy!
Oh Mr Blair were you telling porkies?
Remember Tony Blair's dropping of the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into the Al Yamamah contract. Remember how Honest Tony said the decision to call off the investigation was taken on security grounds. The BBC report today that "Tony Blair raised fears about an investigation into a Saudi arms deal days before it was dropped last year, a newly-disclosed document has shown.... But in a letter released during a legal case, Mr Blair refers to "concern" over ongoing business negotiations.... The letter from Mr Blair to Lord Goldsmith dated 8 December 2006 was released to the High Court during a case brought by two pressure groups who are challenging the legality of the decision to end investigations into BAE Systems' dealings with Saudi Arabia.
It refers "critical difficulties" that might have affected the major contract for new military aircraft.
Six days after the letter was written, Lord Goldsmith announced to the House of Lords that the probe into allegations of kickbacks to Saudi princes was being suspended.
He said diplomatic cooperation between Britain and Saudi Arabia was being put at risk by the investigation, with implications for UK security.
Recent reports have suggested that Saudi Arabia had threatened to pull out of a potential new order for Typhoons.
Recent reports have suggested that Saudi Arabia had threatened to pull out of a potential new order for Typhoons.
In the letter to Lord Goldsmith, Mr Blair acknowledged that his intervention in such a case was unusual but said he would be failing in his duty if he did not point out the security issues at stake.
He went on to say: "While this letter is not primarily concerned with the serious damage being done to our bilateral relationship by the investigation, it is of course of concern to me, not least because of the critical difficulties present to the negotiations over the Typhoon contract."
In September, the Ministry of Defence announced a £4.43bn deal to sell 72 Typhoon aircraft to Saudi Arabia in September.
The contract safeguarded thousands of jobs in the north-west, where the planes will be partly built by BAE Systems."
Who would have believed it, Mr Blair might not have been "purer than purer or a "pretty straight guy" in this instance - quelle surprise.
It refers "critical difficulties" that might have affected the major contract for new military aircraft.
Six days after the letter was written, Lord Goldsmith announced to the House of Lords that the probe into allegations of kickbacks to Saudi princes was being suspended.
He said diplomatic cooperation between Britain and Saudi Arabia was being put at risk by the investigation, with implications for UK security.
Recent reports have suggested that Saudi Arabia had threatened to pull out of a potential new order for Typhoons.
Recent reports have suggested that Saudi Arabia had threatened to pull out of a potential new order for Typhoons.
In the letter to Lord Goldsmith, Mr Blair acknowledged that his intervention in such a case was unusual but said he would be failing in his duty if he did not point out the security issues at stake.
He went on to say: "While this letter is not primarily concerned with the serious damage being done to our bilateral relationship by the investigation, it is of course of concern to me, not least because of the critical difficulties present to the negotiations over the Typhoon contract."
In September, the Ministry of Defence announced a £4.43bn deal to sell 72 Typhoon aircraft to Saudi Arabia in September.
The contract safeguarded thousands of jobs in the north-west, where the planes will be partly built by BAE Systems."
Who would have believed it, Mr Blair might not have been "purer than purer or a "pretty straight guy" in this instance - quelle surprise.
Friday, 21 December 2007
Europe will become a Muslim continent, says Khamenei's spokesman
Adnkronos International report that Rasul Jalilzadeh, a representative of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, said that "In a dozen years, Europe will be an Islamic continent". He also said "The Islamisation of the European continent is imminent and this step favours the arrival of the Mahdi," referring to the 12th imam of Shiite Islam.
Shiites believe that the Imam Mahdi, who disppeared as an adolescent, will return to bring an end to chaos and bring universal justice.
Rasul Jalilzadeh believes that "the Islamisation of Europe is one of the consequences of the Islamic revolution in Iran" in that "the messages and values that this revolution has transmitted to the Europeans, to convince them "to abandon their current faiths and convert to Shiite Islam."
Shiites believe that the Imam Mahdi, who disppeared as an adolescent, will return to bring an end to chaos and bring universal justice.
Rasul Jalilzadeh believes that "the Islamisation of Europe is one of the consequences of the Islamic revolution in Iran" in that "the messages and values that this revolution has transmitted to the Europeans, to convince them "to abandon their current faiths and convert to Shiite Islam."
A prediction from The Appalling Strangeness
From The Appalling Strangeness comes this prediction for what will happen after the next general election.
"Gordon Brown will not be Prime Minister after the next election. Cameron may not get an overall majority, but the Clegg led Lib Dems will run into the waiting arms of Cameron in the event of young Hug A Husky needing to form a coalition. But that is not my prediction - my prediction is about how Brown will behave in the event of losing the election.
Brown has waited his entire adult life to be Prime Minister. He has had to live in the shadow of his much more capable (and calling Blair capable really shows the incompetence of Brown) and charismatic colleague for over a decade, watching that man in the job he feels he is owed. Now he has the job, his arrogance is such that he does not even feel the need to be elected by anyone. Can you imagine how he will feel if he loses the prize he has coveted for so long?
I think he will go into meltdown - suffer a Nixonesque mental collapse. He won't be calling Cameron to concede defeat in the election - a subordinate will do that. He won't be making a speech on election night: a senior Labour minister will make that speech for him. There will be no gracious concession speech, no "when the curtain falls it is time to get off the stage" moment. He will disappear into the woodwork, vanish up to Scotland in a way that will make Ming the Merciful's vanishing act look positively dignified. Grace and dignity will not be seen from Brown after the next election."
I have a nice warm feeling in my heart now.
"Gordon Brown will not be Prime Minister after the next election. Cameron may not get an overall majority, but the Clegg led Lib Dems will run into the waiting arms of Cameron in the event of young Hug A Husky needing to form a coalition. But that is not my prediction - my prediction is about how Brown will behave in the event of losing the election.
Brown has waited his entire adult life to be Prime Minister. He has had to live in the shadow of his much more capable (and calling Blair capable really shows the incompetence of Brown) and charismatic colleague for over a decade, watching that man in the job he feels he is owed. Now he has the job, his arrogance is such that he does not even feel the need to be elected by anyone. Can you imagine how he will feel if he loses the prize he has coveted for so long?
I think he will go into meltdown - suffer a Nixonesque mental collapse. He won't be calling Cameron to concede defeat in the election - a subordinate will do that. He won't be making a speech on election night: a senior Labour minister will make that speech for him. There will be no gracious concession speech, no "when the curtain falls it is time to get off the stage" moment. He will disappear into the woodwork, vanish up to Scotland in a way that will make Ming the Merciful's vanishing act look positively dignified. Grace and dignity will not be seen from Brown after the next election."
I have a nice warm feeling in my heart now.
Another delusional minister
Michael Wills on Radio 4's Any Questions tonight showed severe signs of being delusional. This government are all rapidly losing touch with reality.
Debt matters
I see that the true level of problem DEBT is coming to the fore. The Telegraph reports that "The pound has slumped to its lowest level in 20 months, after a "shocking" raft of figures revealed how deeply reliant the UK has become on debt."
Not a shock to anyone who has been reading this blog or similar.
"Britain's current account has recorded its worst deficit since the late 1980s, making Britain's national balance sheet worse than the United States' for the first time since Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer."
And going to get much worse.
"Figures published by the Office for National Statistics caused a major sell-off of the pound, as experts warned that the UK currency would have to fall in value to bring the current account back into line. Sterling dropped to 98.9 on the Bank of England's comprehensive trade-weighted index, which measures it against a basket of other currencies. This is the lowest level since April 2006."
What do you think the bottoming out value of the £ will be? $1.75, $1.50, $1.25, $1.00? Against the Euro? €1.50, €1.25, €1.00, €0.75?
"The pound's weakness followed ONS figures showing:
• The current account deficit almost doubled in the third quarter to £20bn. As well as being the biggest deficit ever in cash terms, at 5.7pc of gross domestic product it is now comparatively even bigger than the deficit in the US, and equals the worst-ever shortfalls in the past half-century, recorded in the 1980s."
Why aren't the BBC publicising this?
"• The domestic saving ratio, which measures how much of their incomes people are setting aside for the future, excluding pension contributions, remained deep in negative territory. At minus 1pc, it means families are borrowing in order to fund their everyday lifestyles - a highly unusual situation replicated in the late 1980s, before the last property crash."
I wonder why? Maybe the example of the current government's manic borrowing, much of it hidden via PFI schemes.
"• The amount families and businesses are having to set aside for mortgage and debt payments hit the highest level since the early 1990s, in the latest sign that the record mountain of UK lending is causing serious pain. The household debt service burden rose to 13.6pc of income - the highest level since 1991, while the equivalent measure for non-financial businesses hit 28.8pc of their profits - the highest since 1992."
A "mountain of debt", absolutely the case and a bloody big mountain.
"• The Government's finances dipped even deeper into the red, as the Chancellor suffered a record shortfall on his budget in November. The ONS said public-sector net borrowing was £11.2bn - the biggest since comparable records began in 1993. It brings the total lending so far this financial year to £36.2bn, and raising the likelihood that Chancellor Alistair Darling will overshoot his £38bn forecast this year."
This is all without the PFI debt, with that the situation would look a whole lot scarier. This Labour government have mortgaged the whole country and rescuing the situation may not even be possible - we may be totally screwed.
"Diana Choyleva, director at Lombard Street Research, said the drop in the currency's value indicated investor's collapse in confidence in sterling.
"I have been in this business for ten years and this is the most uncertain I've felt about the prospects for the UK economy. Things could get much worse.""
Much worse Diana, very much worse.
Not a shock to anyone who has been reading this blog or similar.
"Britain's current account has recorded its worst deficit since the late 1980s, making Britain's national balance sheet worse than the United States' for the first time since Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer."
And going to get much worse.
"Figures published by the Office for National Statistics caused a major sell-off of the pound, as experts warned that the UK currency would have to fall in value to bring the current account back into line. Sterling dropped to 98.9 on the Bank of England's comprehensive trade-weighted index, which measures it against a basket of other currencies. This is the lowest level since April 2006."
What do you think the bottoming out value of the £ will be? $1.75, $1.50, $1.25, $1.00? Against the Euro? €1.50, €1.25, €1.00, €0.75?
"The pound's weakness followed ONS figures showing:
• The current account deficit almost doubled in the third quarter to £20bn. As well as being the biggest deficit ever in cash terms, at 5.7pc of gross domestic product it is now comparatively even bigger than the deficit in the US, and equals the worst-ever shortfalls in the past half-century, recorded in the 1980s."
Why aren't the BBC publicising this?
"• The domestic saving ratio, which measures how much of their incomes people are setting aside for the future, excluding pension contributions, remained deep in negative territory. At minus 1pc, it means families are borrowing in order to fund their everyday lifestyles - a highly unusual situation replicated in the late 1980s, before the last property crash."
I wonder why? Maybe the example of the current government's manic borrowing, much of it hidden via PFI schemes.
"• The amount families and businesses are having to set aside for mortgage and debt payments hit the highest level since the early 1990s, in the latest sign that the record mountain of UK lending is causing serious pain. The household debt service burden rose to 13.6pc of income - the highest level since 1991, while the equivalent measure for non-financial businesses hit 28.8pc of their profits - the highest since 1992."
A "mountain of debt", absolutely the case and a bloody big mountain.
"• The Government's finances dipped even deeper into the red, as the Chancellor suffered a record shortfall on his budget in November. The ONS said public-sector net borrowing was £11.2bn - the biggest since comparable records began in 1993. It brings the total lending so far this financial year to £36.2bn, and raising the likelihood that Chancellor Alistair Darling will overshoot his £38bn forecast this year."
This is all without the PFI debt, with that the situation would look a whole lot scarier. This Labour government have mortgaged the whole country and rescuing the situation may not even be possible - we may be totally screwed.
"Diana Choyleva, director at Lombard Street Research, said the drop in the currency's value indicated investor's collapse in confidence in sterling.
"I have been in this business for ten years and this is the most uncertain I've felt about the prospects for the UK economy. Things could get much worse.""
Much worse Diana, very much worse.
Memo sparks foreign criminals row
Go and read this from the BBC on the latest Home Office (or relative of) cock-up. This time the news that "Immigration officials have "no interest" in deporting foreign prisoners who have served less than 12 months in jail, a leaked memo says.
The admission was made in a memo from Prison Service deputy director general Michael Spurr to prison governors."
The admission was made in a memo from Prison Service deputy director general Michael Spurr to prison governors."
Can you spot what's missing from this page?
What no mention of the latest "rogue poll" from YouGov for the Daily Telegraph, this time showing per Sky News that "The current YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph gives the Tories a solid 12 point lead - on 43% to Labour's 31%. According to the latest poll, just 24% of people currently express satisfaction with the job he (Brown) has done since taking office in July.
More than half (51%) believe Mr Brown has been poor or very poor, against 14% who praise him as good or very good.
David Cameron - who is due to arrive back from his trip to China - is basking in his highest ever approval ratings, with 47% saying he is "proving a good leader" of the Tories."
Why so coy BBC?
Thursday, 20 December 2007
Global warming isn't happening
I have blogged numerous times about the great Man Made Climate Change swindle. I was amazed to read in the New Statesman an article by David Whitehouse - BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics. Here are some extracts, my emphasis:
"Has global warming stopped? - 'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001' Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly....
here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased....
So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data....
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped."
So will the BBC stop pushing the "the argument is over", "global warming is real", "we must make major changes now" line? What do you think?
"Has global warming stopped? - 'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001' Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly....
here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased....
So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data....
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped."
So will the BBC stop pushing the "the argument is over", "global warming is real", "we must make major changes now" line? What do you think?
Gordon Brown at it again and what should be done
I have blogged before about Gordon Brown's seemingly distant relationship with the truth. Fraser Nelson over at The Spectator Coffee House has a good article about this.
"Brown at it again on party funding
Gordon Brown is an accomplished expert in the art of misrepresentation, here's a prime example is from his press conference today:
On the political funding issue, I think the Conservative Party has exactly the same problems, revealed yesterday, in fact a problem in relation to foreign donors which is not lawful… I think the most important thing for party political party funding is that people can see this thing being sorted out as quickly as possible and that's why I regret the fact that the Conservatives have walked away from the discussions that are necessary to get an all party agreement on this issue.
Exactly the same problems? In his dreams. Four problems…
1) Cameron does not have “exactly the same problems”: no Tory is being investigated by police for a criminal act. Their problem was one of the donor not being on the electoral roll.
2) Cameron’s dodgy donation was for a mere £7,000 accepted by a local branch from someone not on the electoral roll. Labour’s was £550,000 from a donor illegally using third parties with the knowledge of the party's last general secretary.
3) The Tories handed back the cash voluntarily. Labour’s longstanding criminal practise had to be uncovered by a newspaper investigation.
4) Where is the link between this and state funding? What justifies Brown to make this leap to Sir Hayden Phillips? The way to get this “sorted out” is for Labour to obey its own laws. Not to have a state bailout for political parties because they can’t be trusted to obey the law.
But seriously, this is how Brown operates – and it’s a skill. Perhaps his biggest one. Natural as breathing, he slips out claims so outrageous that even Blair would choke on them, and he is often believed. He did this all the way through the last election campaign (with his fake claims of 'Tory cuts'), and we can expect him to keep doing so if he makes it to the next election."
This is right on the money and some of the comments in the Coffee House are worth publicising further....
"Jo - Exactly so. However, it is the Opposition's job to ensure that Brown is not allowed to get away with these statements. One should be able to rely on the media to point out these misrepresentations but with a few honourable exceptions this is unlikely to happen. Brown will continue to say that black is white and vice versa (read Tom Bower's biography of GB for chapter and verse) for as long as he is allowed to. Landing a few good punches at PMQ is not enough: the Tories need to deconstruct the GB myths at every opportunity."
"Mike - The Conservatives need to get their "rapid rebuttal" service up and running asap to counter Browns blatant lies. Plus they need to show him up to be the spinner and liar he is"
and the one that I think bears repeating again and again:
"TGF UKIP - Brown gets away with it because the Tories allow him to. At a similar stage Blair, Brown Campbell & Mandelson were ferociously dismembering John Major. It was bareknuckle, eye gouging, below the belt stuff - and it worked, boy did it work! No use you Tories huffing and puffing in The Speccie or the The Telegraph (now promoters of Brown anyway) about his skill in "the art of misrepresentation" that simply by-passes at least 90% of the population. It,s time to do a "Gordon" back and get down and get dirty. Cameron, or someone very senior (my man DD would have just the right touch) needs to go on the BBC, ideally on Marr, and use the "L" word and when Marr responds "Are you really calling our PM a liar" the answer should come "Andrew, we're not just fed up with Browns lies and misrepresentations we're even more fed up with parts of the media and particularly the BBC not challenging him over what they know to be falsehoods." When Marr coughs and splutters Dave or DD should simply produce an impressive looking file and start on the examples. They won't do it of course because Dave, Boy George, Hilton and Coulson aren't Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Campbell."
"Brown at it again on party funding
Gordon Brown is an accomplished expert in the art of misrepresentation, here's a prime example is from his press conference today:
On the political funding issue, I think the Conservative Party has exactly the same problems, revealed yesterday, in fact a problem in relation to foreign donors which is not lawful… I think the most important thing for party political party funding is that people can see this thing being sorted out as quickly as possible and that's why I regret the fact that the Conservatives have walked away from the discussions that are necessary to get an all party agreement on this issue.
Exactly the same problems? In his dreams. Four problems…
1) Cameron does not have “exactly the same problems”: no Tory is being investigated by police for a criminal act. Their problem was one of the donor not being on the electoral roll.
2) Cameron’s dodgy donation was for a mere £7,000 accepted by a local branch from someone not on the electoral roll. Labour’s was £550,000 from a donor illegally using third parties with the knowledge of the party's last general secretary.
3) The Tories handed back the cash voluntarily. Labour’s longstanding criminal practise had to be uncovered by a newspaper investigation.
4) Where is the link between this and state funding? What justifies Brown to make this leap to Sir Hayden Phillips? The way to get this “sorted out” is for Labour to obey its own laws. Not to have a state bailout for political parties because they can’t be trusted to obey the law.
But seriously, this is how Brown operates – and it’s a skill. Perhaps his biggest one. Natural as breathing, he slips out claims so outrageous that even Blair would choke on them, and he is often believed. He did this all the way through the last election campaign (with his fake claims of 'Tory cuts'), and we can expect him to keep doing so if he makes it to the next election."
This is right on the money and some of the comments in the Coffee House are worth publicising further....
"Jo - Exactly so. However, it is the Opposition's job to ensure that Brown is not allowed to get away with these statements. One should be able to rely on the media to point out these misrepresentations but with a few honourable exceptions this is unlikely to happen. Brown will continue to say that black is white and vice versa (read Tom Bower's biography of GB for chapter and verse) for as long as he is allowed to. Landing a few good punches at PMQ is not enough: the Tories need to deconstruct the GB myths at every opportunity."
"Mike - The Conservatives need to get their "rapid rebuttal" service up and running asap to counter Browns blatant lies. Plus they need to show him up to be the spinner and liar he is"
and the one that I think bears repeating again and again:
"TGF UKIP - Brown gets away with it because the Tories allow him to. At a similar stage Blair, Brown Campbell & Mandelson were ferociously dismembering John Major. It was bareknuckle, eye gouging, below the belt stuff - and it worked, boy did it work! No use you Tories huffing and puffing in The Speccie or the The Telegraph (now promoters of Brown anyway) about his skill in "the art of misrepresentation" that simply by-passes at least 90% of the population. It,s time to do a "Gordon" back and get down and get dirty. Cameron, or someone very senior (my man DD would have just the right touch) needs to go on the BBC, ideally on Marr, and use the "L" word and when Marr responds "Are you really calling our PM a liar" the answer should come "Andrew, we're not just fed up with Browns lies and misrepresentations we're even more fed up with parts of the media and particularly the BBC not challenging him over what they know to be falsehoods." When Marr coughs and splutters Dave or DD should simply produce an impressive looking file and start on the examples. They won't do it of course because Dave, Boy George, Hilton and Coulson aren't Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Campbell."
Baby names
I blogged this morning about the National Statistics list on most popular boys names and the way that the BBC was covering it being at odds with what The Times had predicted in June. Several comments were posted on this blog to the effect that the relatively low ranking of Mahammed on the official list was due to each of the different spellings of the name being shown separately; it appears that you were all right.
The Telegraph reports that "In a reflection of the increasing influence of Islam, figures released yesterday showed the most popular spelling of the name - Mohammed - had climbed five places to 17th in the annual list of top baby names. However, when the seven other spellings of the name are taken into account, the total comes to 6,347 babies, making it the second most popular name of the year - up from 5,936 last year. Although Jack topped the list with 6,772 babies, that figure fell 156 on last year, meaning if the trends were repeated next year, Mohammed and its variant spellings would be the most popular choice in England and Wales. The other spellings are Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed and Mohammod."
I wonder why the BBC is so keen not to report this fact. Who or what are they trying to protect?
Interestingly(?) the blogspot spell checker likes Muhammad, Mohammad and Mohamed but not Mohammed, Mahammed, Muhammed, Mohamad, Muhamed and Mohammod.
The Telegraph reports that "In a reflection of the increasing influence of Islam, figures released yesterday showed the most popular spelling of the name - Mohammed - had climbed five places to 17th in the annual list of top baby names. However, when the seven other spellings of the name are taken into account, the total comes to 6,347 babies, making it the second most popular name of the year - up from 5,936 last year. Although Jack topped the list with 6,772 babies, that figure fell 156 on last year, meaning if the trends were repeated next year, Mohammed and its variant spellings would be the most popular choice in England and Wales. The other spellings are Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed and Mohammod."
I wonder why the BBC is so keen not to report this fact. Who or what are they trying to protect?
Interestingly(?) the blogspot spell checker likes Muhammad, Mohammad and Mohamed but not Mohammed, Mahammed, Muhammed, Mohamad, Muhamed and Mohammod.
Matthew Parris on Gordon Brown
From today's Times comes this cogent analysis of Gordon Brown.
"As the year nears its close with a new Prime Minister test-driven, run-in and, from the look of him, near done-in, your diarist wrestles with a professional problem. I think Gordon Brown is mad.
But the trouble is, I said Tony Blair was mad, too. I said it for nearly ten years. Readers will surely begin to worry that it is I who am mad — or, worse, that I'm just a former Tory MP who thinks all Labour leaders are insane.
But with Mr Brown it shouts at you, doesn't it? The constant, mindless, repetition of comfort-blanket verbal formulae. The anger, the obstinacy — a man by turns bullying yet paralysed by indecision.
And those awful stories: fits of yelling at people, refusing to look at people, unpardonable rudeness to staff, fidgeting, nail-biting, afraid of letting go of anything, terrified of committing yet clinging with blind rigidity to commitments he does make. Then there's the (surely) telltale mistrust of all but a small circle of devotees...
I could go on. But I promise not to. Look, in return for easing up on this in 2008, can I just say one thing now about this madness stuff? With Tony Blair it was a metaphor. With Gordon Brown it's a diagnosis."
I'd like to hear from anyone who wants to take issue with Matthew Parris's remarks...
"As the year nears its close with a new Prime Minister test-driven, run-in and, from the look of him, near done-in, your diarist wrestles with a professional problem. I think Gordon Brown is mad.
But the trouble is, I said Tony Blair was mad, too. I said it for nearly ten years. Readers will surely begin to worry that it is I who am mad — or, worse, that I'm just a former Tory MP who thinks all Labour leaders are insane.
But with Mr Brown it shouts at you, doesn't it? The constant, mindless, repetition of comfort-blanket verbal formulae. The anger, the obstinacy — a man by turns bullying yet paralysed by indecision.
And those awful stories: fits of yelling at people, refusing to look at people, unpardonable rudeness to staff, fidgeting, nail-biting, afraid of letting go of anything, terrified of committing yet clinging with blind rigidity to commitments he does make. Then there's the (surely) telltale mistrust of all but a small circle of devotees...
I could go on. But I promise not to. Look, in return for easing up on this in 2008, can I just say one thing now about this madness stuff? With Tony Blair it was a metaphor. With Gordon Brown it's a diagnosis."
I'd like to hear from anyone who wants to take issue with Matthew Parris's remarks...
Matthew Parris and I agree on mobile telephones
I see that Matthew Parris is a devotee of the Nokia 6310i and sings its praises today. I too am a 6310i man, indeed I have a spare just in case my main one dies. As Matthew says people "still want them, because the keyboard is big, well-spaced and straightforward, the carcass is robust and the battery lasts about three days."
Use the technology you need, not the technology they say you need.
Use the technology you need, not the technology they say you need.
Something strange has happened here
The BBC are reporting that "Jack remains the most popular name for baby boys in England and Wales, the 13th year it has topped the list... BOYS' NAMES: ENGLAND & WALES
1. Jack (-)
2. Thomas (-)
3. Oliver (4)
4. Joshua (3)
5. Harry (5)"
This is odd because in June this year, the Times reported that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver."
What has happened in the last six months to account for this change or is the BBC report skewed in some way. The National Statistics News Release shows Mohammed at 17th (up 5 places on last year).
There is something odd here and I will investigate.
1. Jack (-)
2. Thomas (-)
3. Oliver (4)
4. Joshua (3)
5. Harry (5)"
This is odd because in June this year, the Times reported that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver."
What has happened in the last six months to account for this change or is the BBC report skewed in some way. The National Statistics News Release shows Mohammed at 17th (up 5 places on last year).
There is something odd here and I will investigate.
Dealing with the real criminals
You will all be relieved to hear that this Labour government has decided to finally crack down on some of the most serious criminals in this land. I am of course referring not to burglars or muggers but to Motorists caught using a hand-held mobile phone.
"Motorists caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving could be jailed for two years under tough new guidelines issued today by prosecutors."
Thankfully the new guidance doesn't end there, also liable for a prison sentence are those "drivers who adjust sat-navs, tinker with MP3 music players such as iPods or send text messages at the wheel".
I have a bluetooth earpiece, I bought it before the legislation that outlawed using a hand-held mobile while driving was introduced in 2003. I feel safer driving whilst using it rather than holding a phone to my ear or trying to balance my mobile betwixt ear and shoulder (and my chiropractor bills have been reduced as a result). I also get irritated when I see drivers using a mobile telephone whilst driving especially as their Transit van careers towards me as the driver tries to talk on his mobile whilst avoiding the newest road humps on a quiet suburban back street.
Rob Gifford, of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said "This sends a clear message to motorists: don't mix driving and communicating, just as you would not drink and drive...This is long overdue. At last the law has caught up with the reality of the road, with too many people using their phone while driving."
I see that those of us using a handsfree mobile should not feel smug, in an effort to improve the crime detection statistics, sorry make the roads safer, "drivers were also warned that similar penalties could be imposed for using a hands-free device if they were judged not to be in control of their car. Police now check mobile phone records after accidents to see if the driver was making a call at the time."
It is amazing how much Police resources can be allocated to detecting, investigating and prosecuting drivers for such heinous crimes, thankfully the Police have all but ended the less serious crimes of mugging and burglary so they have the time free to do this.
"Using a hand-held mobile was made illegal in 2003, when the penalty was limited to a £30 fine, but it acted as little deterrent and the latest figures show that in 2005 129,700 motorists still flouted the ban.
In February the law was toughened, with drivers facing a £60 fine and three points on their licence."
Ah so there is a revenue raising angle to this legislation as well, good for a moment I was worried that the Labour government had forgotten to add that to the punishment.
"A new offence of causing death by careless driving is to be created under the Road Safety Act, due to come into force early next year."
The roads are too crowded, so rather than build new roads or try and stop people driving who have no licences in cars that are not taxed, insured or MOT'd, this government have decided to attack the drivers who are easier to catch and prosecute. As I have said before the generally law-abiding middle-classes are easier to police and punish than the criminal classes, so this Labour government have decided to go for the easy option.
"Ministers are keen to take an even stronger line after figures showed that mobile phones were linked to 13 fatal accidents in 2005 and 52 serious crashes."
I wonder how many people were killed or seriously injured by muggers last year? I wonder if those muggers caught were given a custodial sentence or were their defence legal team allowed to plead mitigating factors? It really, really pisses me off that a driver is considered guilty of the "crime" they have been accused off and will be punished accordingly, whereas a "scrote" will be given every excuse for his behaviour and allowed a second, third ... forty-third chance before facing a custodial sentence. Truly we live in a land where our priorities on crime and punishment have become ridiculously confused.
"Motorists caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving could be jailed for two years under tough new guidelines issued today by prosecutors."
Thankfully the new guidance doesn't end there, also liable for a prison sentence are those "drivers who adjust sat-navs, tinker with MP3 music players such as iPods or send text messages at the wheel".
I have a bluetooth earpiece, I bought it before the legislation that outlawed using a hand-held mobile while driving was introduced in 2003. I feel safer driving whilst using it rather than holding a phone to my ear or trying to balance my mobile betwixt ear and shoulder (and my chiropractor bills have been reduced as a result). I also get irritated when I see drivers using a mobile telephone whilst driving especially as their Transit van careers towards me as the driver tries to talk on his mobile whilst avoiding the newest road humps on a quiet suburban back street.
Rob Gifford, of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said "This sends a clear message to motorists: don't mix driving and communicating, just as you would not drink and drive...This is long overdue. At last the law has caught up with the reality of the road, with too many people using their phone while driving."
I see that those of us using a handsfree mobile should not feel smug, in an effort to improve the crime detection statistics, sorry make the roads safer, "drivers were also warned that similar penalties could be imposed for using a hands-free device if they were judged not to be in control of their car. Police now check mobile phone records after accidents to see if the driver was making a call at the time."
It is amazing how much Police resources can be allocated to detecting, investigating and prosecuting drivers for such heinous crimes, thankfully the Police have all but ended the less serious crimes of mugging and burglary so they have the time free to do this.
"Using a hand-held mobile was made illegal in 2003, when the penalty was limited to a £30 fine, but it acted as little deterrent and the latest figures show that in 2005 129,700 motorists still flouted the ban.
In February the law was toughened, with drivers facing a £60 fine and three points on their licence."
Ah so there is a revenue raising angle to this legislation as well, good for a moment I was worried that the Labour government had forgotten to add that to the punishment.
"A new offence of causing death by careless driving is to be created under the Road Safety Act, due to come into force early next year."
The roads are too crowded, so rather than build new roads or try and stop people driving who have no licences in cars that are not taxed, insured or MOT'd, this government have decided to attack the drivers who are easier to catch and prosecute. As I have said before the generally law-abiding middle-classes are easier to police and punish than the criminal classes, so this Labour government have decided to go for the easy option.
"Ministers are keen to take an even stronger line after figures showed that mobile phones were linked to 13 fatal accidents in 2005 and 52 serious crashes."
I wonder how many people were killed or seriously injured by muggers last year? I wonder if those muggers caught were given a custodial sentence or were their defence legal team allowed to plead mitigating factors? It really, really pisses me off that a driver is considered guilty of the "crime" they have been accused off and will be punished accordingly, whereas a "scrote" will be given every excuse for his behaviour and allowed a second, third ... forty-third chance before facing a custodial sentence. Truly we live in a land where our priorities on crime and punishment have become ridiculously confused.
Equivalence
I haveblogged before about the government's attempts to a) fiddle the GCSE exam results and b) carry out a bit of social engineering by making one GNVQ equal in "value" to four A-grade GCSE passes - "in 2005 GCSE results again improved but only because this statistic fiddling government decided that a GNVQ was equivalent to four A-C GCSE passes. Where the figure of four comes from we are not told and I doubt that one GNVQ is equal to one A-C GCSE pass. If you exclude GCSE equivalents from the pass rates in 2005 then according to... Telegraph report the magnificent results start to look less magnificent; "The inexorable rise in the five or more A*-C pass rate looks less impressive once vocational qualifications are taken out of the calculation. The GCSE pass rate on its own has remained almost stagnant for the last five years, hovering around 50 per cent.". Take a look at that article of mine it has quite a lot of interesting information.
It was reported yesterday that this fiddling Labour government plans to make their new Diploma equivalent to three and a half A-levels. "The decision by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service means students may find it easier to get into university by taking the new courses, which will combine vocational and academic studies.
It could lead to a sharp increase in the number of pupils going to university, particularly those from poor backgrounds who are often turned off by purely academic study.
However, there are fears the diploma - which will include subjects such as hospitality and hair and beauty - may be less rigorous than A-levels.
Although universities will not be obliged to admit teenagers with a diploma, it is thought the move will pile pressure on admissions tutors to look favourably on the new qualifications.
Ministers believe they will become the "qualification of choice" over GCSEs and A-levels.
Head teachers admitted that the A-level equivalent value of the diploma - coupled with the promise of extra cash for pupils taking the qualification - would increase the number of institutions offering it.
But critics suggested the untested qualification may have been pitched too high.
Michael Gove, the shadow children's secretary, said: "The A-level is a tried and tested examination which the world's leading universities recognise.
"It is jumping the gun to say that an exam which hasn't even been rigorously tested should be worth more than three A-levels.""
So more social engineering and a "dumbing down" of educational standards from this Labour government, this time associated with a bribe to educational establishments. Has this government no shame? I think we all know the answer to that question.
It was reported yesterday that this fiddling Labour government plans to make their new Diploma equivalent to three and a half A-levels. "The decision by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service means students may find it easier to get into university by taking the new courses, which will combine vocational and academic studies.
It could lead to a sharp increase in the number of pupils going to university, particularly those from poor backgrounds who are often turned off by purely academic study.
However, there are fears the diploma - which will include subjects such as hospitality and hair and beauty - may be less rigorous than A-levels.
Although universities will not be obliged to admit teenagers with a diploma, it is thought the move will pile pressure on admissions tutors to look favourably on the new qualifications.
Ministers believe they will become the "qualification of choice" over GCSEs and A-levels.
Head teachers admitted that the A-level equivalent value of the diploma - coupled with the promise of extra cash for pupils taking the qualification - would increase the number of institutions offering it.
But critics suggested the untested qualification may have been pitched too high.
Michael Gove, the shadow children's secretary, said: "The A-level is a tried and tested examination which the world's leading universities recognise.
"It is jumping the gun to say that an exam which hasn't even been rigorously tested should be worth more than three A-levels.""
So more social engineering and a "dumbing down" of educational standards from this Labour government, this time associated with a bribe to educational establishments. Has this government no shame? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Where's the balance
I have blogged before about how the BBC cannot produce an article for their news website that reports a Conservative policy initiative or indeed any pro-Conservative article, rare as they might be on the BBC, without having some attacking copy from Labour - as balance. Strange how the BBC see no such need for balance when reporting the latest Gordon Brown"policy" on Northern Rock.
I wonder why this is?
I wonder why this is?
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
BBC political bias again
The Politics front page currently has the top story "Nationalising Rock not ruled out : Gordon Brown says it would be wrong to dismiss any options over Northern Rock - including nationalisation."
The number two story as "Crises will be forgotten - Brown : Gordon Brown says scandals such as the loss of data and proxy Labour donations will be forgotten in the New Year.".
The number three story as "Straw to change self-defence laws : Justice Secretary Jack Straw announces changes to the laws on self-defence to increase public confidence."
That's three stories, two positive about the Labour government and one neutral.
The "OTHER TOP STORIES" side bar contains:
'Fair' deal at fisheries summit - a Pro Labour and EU story
Clegg 'does not believe in God' - a humorous Nick Clegg story
Brown backs peerage change - a pro Gordon Brown story
Key EU healthcare report delayed - a balancing act between anti-Europe and pro Labour
Parties 'should not pick peers' - anti-political corruption
Brown pledge appals MPs - Clarke - anti Brown's racist pledge, but with balancing comments
Salmond to be at Trump probe - Scottish political story
That's two pro Labour, one pro Lib Dem, one pro SNP, two neutral and one that might be seen as anti-Brown.
Then comes the "ALSO IN THE NEWS" section
The Spanish lawyer married to new Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg - Warm, cuddly pro Lib Dem Leader story
Nick Clegg is new Lib Dem leader - Lib Dem positive story
Huhne hails 'great leader' Clegg - Lib Dem positive story
Cameron attacked over donations - anti-David Cameron and Conservatives story
Labour MP's fury at Blears' plans - Anti-Hazel Blears story (as covered by me earlier today
That's three pro-Lib Dem, one anti-Conservative and one carefully anti-Hazel Blears.
Do you see a pattern? Mention the Conservatives only when it can be negative. Positively mention the Lib Dems and Labour as much as possible. Anyone would think the BBC were biased against the Conservative party, surely not ...
"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias", Andrew Marr, the Daily Mail, Oct 21st, 2006.
The number two story as "Crises will be forgotten - Brown : Gordon Brown says scandals such as the loss of data and proxy Labour donations will be forgotten in the New Year.".
The number three story as "Straw to change self-defence laws : Justice Secretary Jack Straw announces changes to the laws on self-defence to increase public confidence."
That's three stories, two positive about the Labour government and one neutral.
The "OTHER TOP STORIES" side bar contains:
'Fair' deal at fisheries summit - a Pro Labour and EU story
Clegg 'does not believe in God' - a humorous Nick Clegg story
Brown backs peerage change - a pro Gordon Brown story
Key EU healthcare report delayed - a balancing act between anti-Europe and pro Labour
Parties 'should not pick peers' - anti-political corruption
Brown pledge appals MPs - Clarke - anti Brown's racist pledge, but with balancing comments
Salmond to be at Trump probe - Scottish political story
That's two pro Labour, one pro Lib Dem, one pro SNP, two neutral and one that might be seen as anti-Brown.
Then comes the "ALSO IN THE NEWS" section
The Spanish lawyer married to new Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg - Warm, cuddly pro Lib Dem Leader story
Nick Clegg is new Lib Dem leader - Lib Dem positive story
Huhne hails 'great leader' Clegg - Lib Dem positive story
Cameron attacked over donations - anti-David Cameron and Conservatives story
Labour MP's fury at Blears' plans - Anti-Hazel Blears story (as covered by me earlier today
That's three pro-Lib Dem, one anti-Conservative and one carefully anti-Hazel Blears.
Do you see a pattern? Mention the Conservatives only when it can be negative. Positively mention the Lib Dems and Labour as much as possible. Anyone would think the BBC were biased against the Conservative party, surely not ...
"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias", Andrew Marr, the Daily Mail, Oct 21st, 2006.
The fight-back against a "ghastly dehumanised moron" picks up pace
Ken Livingstone once said that "only some ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster" bus, then he went ahead and did just that. Thanks to Guido Fawkes we can see that Boris Johnson "is backing the futuristic clean, low emission, hydrogen-powered wheelchair and pushchair friendly double decker bus."
Anything rather than the bloody bendy buses which clog up the capital and make driving hazardous and cycling far too dangerous to even contemplate.
The Routemaster bus was one of the symbols of London and is much missed. Ken's reasoning for introducing the bendy bus was that it (unlike the Routemaster) complied with the Disability Discrimination Act, which had to be complied with by 2017. Of course the introduction of these "Chariots of Fire" has lead to increased fare evasion. Articulated buses in London have three separate entrances, and passengers are expected to pay for their journey by validating their Oyster card. Since the introduction of this bus type, many people opt to evade their fare by choosing not to pay for their journey. Passengers simply board the bus via the middle or rear doors and don't present their Oyster card. As I blogged back in May, "Oyster cards seem a great idea and they do work on the tube with controlled entrance and exit from each station but on London buses they are a joke. I took a short journey on a bendy bus today and counted the number of people who got into the bus via one of the centre doors without "touching in"; I made it about 40% ignoring the machines. Many people are getting a free ride on London buses, maybe that is what "cuddly" Ken Livingstone wants but do the rest of us really want to subsidise the travel arrangements of freeloaders?".
I blogged in June about the dangers associated with the bendy bus for London drivers, you know the people that Ken wants to "drive" of the road - "As a driver in London, bendy buses are a menace. I was once driving along the Euston Road into London and had to turn left across the bus lane, however there was a bendy bus there blocking the left turn. I couldn't cut into the bus lane behind the bendy bus because that would have meant me risking being caught on film and fined and I couldn't stop where I needed to turn left and wait for the bus to move off as that would have held up traffic. So I drove on, turned left when I was next allowed to and wiggled my way back to where I actually wanted to be. This was never a problem with the Routemaster bus."
I also discussed compliance with the DDA "Disabled access being something that had to be assured on London's roads by 2017. Although disabled access is easier now with the bendy bus, it was even easier with Dial-a-Ride service that London boroughs are cutting back on as result of bendy bus provision. Bendy buses are only better for wheelchair access if their ramp works and if there is space on board, neither being always the case."
You can read about the bendy buses role in increasing youth crime here, their role in killing cyclists here and their accident rate here.
Of course statistics published by Transport for London show that the articulated buses have twice as many collisions per mile than other buses, but they say that the figures do not represent a 'like for like' comparison. Well they would, wouldn't they.
If Boris is elected Mayor then it will be nice to have a Mayor who might actually listen to the views of ordinary Londoners rather than one who just imposes his viciously left wing policies upon London taxpayers, whilst being supported by the special interest groups and so forth that he has so carefully cultivated.
Ken's 26 years of ruining London, both as head of the GLC (1981-1986) and London mayor (2000-now) may hopefully be nearing an end.
Anything rather than the bloody bendy buses which clog up the capital and make driving hazardous and cycling far too dangerous to even contemplate.
The Routemaster bus was one of the symbols of London and is much missed. Ken's reasoning for introducing the bendy bus was that it (unlike the Routemaster) complied with the Disability Discrimination Act, which had to be complied with by 2017. Of course the introduction of these "Chariots of Fire" has lead to increased fare evasion. Articulated buses in London have three separate entrances, and passengers are expected to pay for their journey by validating their Oyster card. Since the introduction of this bus type, many people opt to evade their fare by choosing not to pay for their journey. Passengers simply board the bus via the middle or rear doors and don't present their Oyster card. As I blogged back in May, "Oyster cards seem a great idea and they do work on the tube with controlled entrance and exit from each station but on London buses they are a joke. I took a short journey on a bendy bus today and counted the number of people who got into the bus via one of the centre doors without "touching in"; I made it about 40% ignoring the machines. Many people are getting a free ride on London buses, maybe that is what "cuddly" Ken Livingstone wants but do the rest of us really want to subsidise the travel arrangements of freeloaders?".
I blogged in June about the dangers associated with the bendy bus for London drivers, you know the people that Ken wants to "drive" of the road - "As a driver in London, bendy buses are a menace. I was once driving along the Euston Road into London and had to turn left across the bus lane, however there was a bendy bus there blocking the left turn. I couldn't cut into the bus lane behind the bendy bus because that would have meant me risking being caught on film and fined and I couldn't stop where I needed to turn left and wait for the bus to move off as that would have held up traffic. So I drove on, turned left when I was next allowed to and wiggled my way back to where I actually wanted to be. This was never a problem with the Routemaster bus."
I also discussed compliance with the DDA "Disabled access being something that had to be assured on London's roads by 2017. Although disabled access is easier now with the bendy bus, it was even easier with Dial-a-Ride service that London boroughs are cutting back on as result of bendy bus provision. Bendy buses are only better for wheelchair access if their ramp works and if there is space on board, neither being always the case."
You can read about the bendy buses role in increasing youth crime here, their role in killing cyclists here and their accident rate here.
Of course statistics published by Transport for London show that the articulated buses have twice as many collisions per mile than other buses, but they say that the figures do not represent a 'like for like' comparison. Well they would, wouldn't they.
If Boris is elected Mayor then it will be nice to have a Mayor who might actually listen to the views of ordinary Londoners rather than one who just imposes his viciously left wing policies upon London taxpayers, whilst being supported by the special interest groups and so forth that he has so carefully cultivated.
Ken's 26 years of ruining London, both as head of the GLC (1981-1986) and London mayor (2000-now) may hopefully be nearing an end.
What could possibly be the reason for the delay?
From Hansard yesterday I see that another piece of Labour dishonesty has been exposed. It came in a speech by Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) (my emphasis)
"We are in the middle of the consultation on the closure of 2,500 post offices. It is depressing that the Government seem to have come at the issue with a top-down attitude, looking at how many post offices they can afford to close, rather than at what kind of network is needed to deliver the criteria that they have set for the Post Office. The approach should have been much more bottom-up, based on the community’s needs. The Government should have worked out those needs and then built up to the kind of network that was needed to fulfil them, rather than coming up with a figure of 2,500 at the start of the process. The feedback from the Post Office is that if any individual campaign makes during the consultation an effective case for the non-closure of a post office, the Post Office will have to find another post office to close to make up the numbers. That means that the feedback from communities will not be as effective as it would be if a community-up approach were adopted.
In the north-east, there will be a month’s delay before the community will know what will happen. It was meant to be April, but it is now going to be May before we know the Post Office’s decision."
Now what is happening in early May that might have made the Labour government delay this unpopular decision? Might it be the local elections? What do you think? Mind you the Labour party are heading for such a defeat in the 2008 local elections anyway that this one delayed decision will make little difference; either way Gordon Brown is going to be in severe trouble with his party - that's if he manages to limp on until then.
"We are in the middle of the consultation on the closure of 2,500 post offices. It is depressing that the Government seem to have come at the issue with a top-down attitude, looking at how many post offices they can afford to close, rather than at what kind of network is needed to deliver the criteria that they have set for the Post Office. The approach should have been much more bottom-up, based on the community’s needs. The Government should have worked out those needs and then built up to the kind of network that was needed to fulfil them, rather than coming up with a figure of 2,500 at the start of the process. The feedback from the Post Office is that if any individual campaign makes during the consultation an effective case for the non-closure of a post office, the Post Office will have to find another post office to close to make up the numbers. That means that the feedback from communities will not be as effective as it would be if a community-up approach were adopted.
In the north-east, there will be a month’s delay before the community will know what will happen. It was meant to be April, but it is now going to be May before we know the Post Office’s decision."
Now what is happening in early May that might have made the Labour government delay this unpopular decision? Might it be the local elections? What do you think? Mind you the Labour party are heading for such a defeat in the 2008 local elections anyway that this one delayed decision will make little difference; either way Gordon Brown is going to be in severe trouble with his party - that's if he manages to limp on until then.
An honest appraisal of a cynical Minister
From Hansard yesterday comes a sparkling contribution by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (often described as a "battle-axe") in the adjournment debate. I reproduce all of her speech here for your enjoyment, although I doubt that Hazel Blears will be enjoying some of the speech (my emphasis).
"The business of government in a democratic country is a delicate balance between the needs of the population and the desires and political objectives of the Government. Although we have a system that enables us to vote for our Governments on a four or sometimes five-yearly basis, in the interim it is essential that whoever the Government are they do not misunderstand the implications of the changes they make.
In the administration of our country, local government has an important part to play. Indeed, one might say that the present Government have channelled large sums of money into local government and given it extra powers precisely because they expect there to be a partnership between the needs of the population at local level and the Government centrally. There are frequently objections from people who believe that all decisions should be taken centrally and imposed on those who for one reason or another have different views. That has never been my view and it never will be.
I believe that today the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—to whom I have given notice that I intend to mention her—intends to announce the reorganisation of Cheshire. She has never at any point deigned to explain the reasons for those major changes. Indeed, just before the summer recess, when an announcement was made that it was the intention to divide Cheshire into two, irrespective of the needs or wishes of the population, a letter was issued from the Department saying that the decision would none the less be subject to close examination of a number of factors, of which the economic ones were enormously important.
Rather foolishly, I thought that comment was serious and in the intervening time, with the assistance of people in education, the health service and general services, I have endeavoured to persuade Her Majesty’s Government—pointlessly, as it now appears—of the inequity and imbalance of the scheme they were proposing. My reasons were simple. The decision is not political. As anyone who bothers to make even the most elementary calculation will discover, the Labour party has little to gain from what is being proposed. The fact that my constituency will become part of a council dominated by a 56 per cent. Conservative vote is obviously of no concern to some people, but it is important to understand that the other part of Cheshire will be no safer. Those who pretend that the decision is political should examine the facts and figures.
The decision is certainly not economic. Cheshire is a mixed, interesting and dynamic county, which is changing every day. It has close relationships with Manchester in one direction, Liverpool in another and with north Wales and the potteries at various points. It is notable not only that the county has responded at all levels to the need for imaginative change, but that it is clearly capable of carrying forward at county level a unitary government that would be economically viable and would respond to the dynamic that the Labour Government have been proposing.
The Secretary of State has taken the decision not on political grounds—certainly not on party political grounds—and not on economic grounds, because all that information was supplied to her and to Treasury Ministers in considerable detail from the beginning of the discussion in July. It was pointed out to her that the two new authorities would rapidly run out of reserves—indeed, that they would do so within the first year of their creation. It was pointed out to her in great detail—the figures have been emphasised time and time again by independent audit—that the effect on the population of Cheshire, and particularly on my constituency, would be directly felt in the development of its schools, hospitals and general services, be they waste, roads or any of the other services that local government controls.
Therefore, there has to be a particular reason for today’s statement. Of course, that statement is in the form of a written answer, because it would be unfortunate to have to come here and answer questions from the Members concerned. Presumably it is because the Secretary of State is alleged to have said—although I am sure it cannot be true—that Cheshire is too big. May I point out that of the five unitary counties that have been given permission to go ahead by the Secretary of State, Cheshire is the smallest area? But, of course, throughout the debate facts have not really carried any great emphasis.
Why are we continuing to press ahead with a change that will not just destroy the old county boroughs and the cohesion of our education services, but will make the situation impossible, for example, for large assets that are jointly owned, such as Tatton Hall, which will need vireing from one authority to another before it can remain in the control of the population of Cheshire? But none of those things is of concern. We must move on; progress is all.
We should give full credit to the Secretary of State. She alone appears to have taken the decision. Treasury Ministers know very well that the facts and figures with which they were presented were absolutely watertight and that discussions have been held both at county level and at local government level in Chester and elsewhere with a number of auditors who have made it plain that they have accepted the case for one unitary county because those figures are viable and the alternative is not. It is known that the taxpayers in my area will not only have to pay many thousands of pounds, but will face the loss of many of the advantages that they have at present.
I have been in the House long enough to see the coming and going of many inadequate personalities. I have seen those on both sides of the House who have been promoted for various reasons. I have seen the crawlers. I have seen those who have used sex— [ Interruption. ] Oh, there are so many it would take too long to name them. I have seen those whose sexual preferences were of interest to others. I have seen those who demonstrated a great commitment to their own interests, irrespective of the political parties that they were supposed to represent.
But I have rarely seen a decision such as this, taken with such cynicism and with so little respect for the interests of the average voter. When the Secretary of State was seeking office as the deputy leader of the Labour party, she said that people frequently become disaffected with their own Government because they feel that no one is listening to them. Wherever could they have got that idea from? She also made it clear—she told us constantly—that she would listen.
Let me make it very plain: this decision will affect everything in my constituency—every practical purpose that I am pursuing at the moment. Three new health centres, a new school, which is desperately needed in one of the most deprived areas, and a new railway station: all those things will be scuppered by this decision, which will make my local government fundamentally uncertain not only in economic terms, but in its political control.
If I may say so, the decision has been taken with a degree of cynicism that I have not seen for some time. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the Labour party, but then it has never been pretended that the decision is in the interests of the Labour party or of individual voters. It is not in the interests of those who work in the health service, the education service, or social services, or of those who want decent, high-quality local government services. I believe that it is a decision that has been taken for the most venal and personal reasons, and I find it wholly and deeply objectionable."
Strong stuff Ms Dunwoody, what do you have to say in your defence Ms Blears?
"The business of government in a democratic country is a delicate balance between the needs of the population and the desires and political objectives of the Government. Although we have a system that enables us to vote for our Governments on a four or sometimes five-yearly basis, in the interim it is essential that whoever the Government are they do not misunderstand the implications of the changes they make.
In the administration of our country, local government has an important part to play. Indeed, one might say that the present Government have channelled large sums of money into local government and given it extra powers precisely because they expect there to be a partnership between the needs of the population at local level and the Government centrally. There are frequently objections from people who believe that all decisions should be taken centrally and imposed on those who for one reason or another have different views. That has never been my view and it never will be.
I believe that today the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—to whom I have given notice that I intend to mention her—intends to announce the reorganisation of Cheshire. She has never at any point deigned to explain the reasons for those major changes. Indeed, just before the summer recess, when an announcement was made that it was the intention to divide Cheshire into two, irrespective of the needs or wishes of the population, a letter was issued from the Department saying that the decision would none the less be subject to close examination of a number of factors, of which the economic ones were enormously important.
Rather foolishly, I thought that comment was serious and in the intervening time, with the assistance of people in education, the health service and general services, I have endeavoured to persuade Her Majesty’s Government—pointlessly, as it now appears—of the inequity and imbalance of the scheme they were proposing. My reasons were simple. The decision is not political. As anyone who bothers to make even the most elementary calculation will discover, the Labour party has little to gain from what is being proposed. The fact that my constituency will become part of a council dominated by a 56 per cent. Conservative vote is obviously of no concern to some people, but it is important to understand that the other part of Cheshire will be no safer. Those who pretend that the decision is political should examine the facts and figures.
The decision is certainly not economic. Cheshire is a mixed, interesting and dynamic county, which is changing every day. It has close relationships with Manchester in one direction, Liverpool in another and with north Wales and the potteries at various points. It is notable not only that the county has responded at all levels to the need for imaginative change, but that it is clearly capable of carrying forward at county level a unitary government that would be economically viable and would respond to the dynamic that the Labour Government have been proposing.
The Secretary of State has taken the decision not on political grounds—certainly not on party political grounds—and not on economic grounds, because all that information was supplied to her and to Treasury Ministers in considerable detail from the beginning of the discussion in July. It was pointed out to her that the two new authorities would rapidly run out of reserves—indeed, that they would do so within the first year of their creation. It was pointed out to her in great detail—the figures have been emphasised time and time again by independent audit—that the effect on the population of Cheshire, and particularly on my constituency, would be directly felt in the development of its schools, hospitals and general services, be they waste, roads or any of the other services that local government controls.
Therefore, there has to be a particular reason for today’s statement. Of course, that statement is in the form of a written answer, because it would be unfortunate to have to come here and answer questions from the Members concerned. Presumably it is because the Secretary of State is alleged to have said—although I am sure it cannot be true—that Cheshire is too big. May I point out that of the five unitary counties that have been given permission to go ahead by the Secretary of State, Cheshire is the smallest area? But, of course, throughout the debate facts have not really carried any great emphasis.
Why are we continuing to press ahead with a change that will not just destroy the old county boroughs and the cohesion of our education services, but will make the situation impossible, for example, for large assets that are jointly owned, such as Tatton Hall, which will need vireing from one authority to another before it can remain in the control of the population of Cheshire? But none of those things is of concern. We must move on; progress is all.
We should give full credit to the Secretary of State. She alone appears to have taken the decision. Treasury Ministers know very well that the facts and figures with which they were presented were absolutely watertight and that discussions have been held both at county level and at local government level in Chester and elsewhere with a number of auditors who have made it plain that they have accepted the case for one unitary county because those figures are viable and the alternative is not. It is known that the taxpayers in my area will not only have to pay many thousands of pounds, but will face the loss of many of the advantages that they have at present.
I have been in the House long enough to see the coming and going of many inadequate personalities. I have seen those on both sides of the House who have been promoted for various reasons. I have seen the crawlers. I have seen those who have used sex— [ Interruption. ] Oh, there are so many it would take too long to name them. I have seen those whose sexual preferences were of interest to others. I have seen those who demonstrated a great commitment to their own interests, irrespective of the political parties that they were supposed to represent.
But I have rarely seen a decision such as this, taken with such cynicism and with so little respect for the interests of the average voter. When the Secretary of State was seeking office as the deputy leader of the Labour party, she said that people frequently become disaffected with their own Government because they feel that no one is listening to them. Wherever could they have got that idea from? She also made it clear—she told us constantly—that she would listen.
Let me make it very plain: this decision will affect everything in my constituency—every practical purpose that I am pursuing at the moment. Three new health centres, a new school, which is desperately needed in one of the most deprived areas, and a new railway station: all those things will be scuppered by this decision, which will make my local government fundamentally uncertain not only in economic terms, but in its political control.
If I may say so, the decision has been taken with a degree of cynicism that I have not seen for some time. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the Labour party, but then it has never been pretended that the decision is in the interests of the Labour party or of individual voters. It is not in the interests of those who work in the health service, the education service, or social services, or of those who want decent, high-quality local government services. I believe that it is a decision that has been taken for the most venal and personal reasons, and I find it wholly and deeply objectionable."
Strong stuff Ms Dunwoody, what do you have to say in your defence Ms Blears?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
