StatCounter

Thursday, 30 September 2010

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.."

Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."


That's pretty clear, isn't it? It's even more specific than Golda Meir's statement. It reaffirms what I have written on this subject. And it is hardly the only such statement of its kind. Arafat himself made a very definitive and unequivocal statement along these lines as late as 1993. It demonstrates conclusively that the Palestinian nationhood argument is the real strategic deception – one geared to set up the destruction of Israel.

In fact, on the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV. Here's what he said: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

No matter how many people convince themselves that the aspirations for Palestinian statehood are genuine and the key to peace in the Middle East, they are still deceiving themselves.

I've said it before and I will say it again, in the history of the world, Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland. It was never ruled by Arabs as a separate nation.

Why now has it become such a critical priority?

The answer is because of a massive deception campaign and relentless terrorism over 40 years.

Golda Meir was right. Her statement is validated by the truth of history and by the candid, but not widely circulated, pronouncements of Arafat and his lieutenants.

Israel and the West must not surrender to terrorism by granting the killers just what they want – a public relations triumph and a strategic victory. It's not too late to say no to terrorism. It's not too late to say no to another Arab terror state. It's not too late to tell the truth about Palestine.


Thanks to Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily.comM for the article.

So when people claim that the Palestinians want peace with Israel, remember Yasser Arafat's words
"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."


I wonder if the BBC will report this inconvenient fact.

The BBC quoting statistics but not giving the whole story

The BBC report that:
'Today, while official discrimination based on sex is illegal, a gender pay gap persists.

The Office for National Statistics latest Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings puts it at 20.2%.'

However The Office For National Statistics report 'Gender Pay Gap - Gender pay gap narrows informs us that:
'Although median hourly pay provides a useful comparison between the earnings of men and women, it does not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs. Pay medians are affected by the different work patterns of men and women, such as the proportions in different occupations, their length of time in jobs and whether they work full-time or part-time.'
Now I have heard that explanation before and could find it very easily in the Office for National Statistics report, so why would the BBC not report it? Does the BBC want to report facts or create a 'narrative'?

The ninety-eighth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's winner is The Mail for their 'no, really' report entitled 'Are some children just born bad?'. Take it from someone with a 'bad' brother, it's nature not nurture.

'...some psychiatrists accept that previous thinking was flawed and that some children, through no fault of the parents, are simply bad seeds. In other words: born bad.'

"No shit, Sherlocks"

Spot the difference and anyway...

The BBC report that:
'The proposed wording for the question in the referendum on changing the UK voting system needs to change, the Electoral Commission says.

Some people - "particularly those with lower levels of education or literacy, found the question hard work and did not understand it" - its report says.

The watchdog says the structure, length and the language used made the question "harder to read than it needed to be".

The final wording of the question is a matter for the UK Parliament.'

Wow the wording must be really complex, maybe it includes the exact way that AV systems work? Well no:
'The proposed wording for the question at the moment is: 'Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the "alternative vote" system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?

The Electoral Commission's suggested redraft is: At present, the UK uses the 'first past the post' system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system be used instead?'
Two points; first ss the second wording much, if at all, clearer than the first and second if someone doesn't understand either question then should they be allowed to vote? The natural extension of this second point is that all electors should have to sit a short economics, history, mathematics and English test to see if they are intelligent enough, and have enough knowledge of the historical context to issues, to be allowed to vote. This is of course in addition to my 'no representation without taxation' rule. So long as the unemployable, dispossessed and intellectually challenged can vote on a par with taxpayers and intelligent human beings, this country will have to fear a return of the Labour party to power and that must not be allowed to happen.... (Only slightly tongue in cheek).

David and Ed Miliband - 'Two little boys'

'Two little boys had two little toys
A hammer, and a sickle too
Gaily they played each summer's day
Socialists through and through

One little chap then had a mishap
Off came his hammer's head
Wept for his tool - naive young fool
As his older brother said

"Did you think I would start you crying
With one swing of my sickle true
Don't you stammer, it's just a hammer
I'm much more sly than you

When we grow up we'll both be MPs
And we'll rise up above the noise
Just remember that you're the younger
Though we're just two little boys"

Long years passed, Brown quit at last
Burnham's hopes fade away
Abbott too loud
Balls mad and proud
Must be a brother's day

Up rang a shout, result's finally out
Out from the ranks so red
David's bid crashed, all hopes are dashed
Then came the voice of Ed -

"Did you think I would leave you dying
When I can stick the knife in too
Cry your tears, bro, the unions picked me
Though the membership wanted you

You just took the result for granted
One banana skin's wrecked your poise
Never thought once that I'd remember
When we were two little boys" '


Thanks to Cazzy Jones for that piece of sheer brilliance; obviously to be sung to the tune of that great tearjerker 'Two Little Boys', made famous by the one and only Rolf Harris.

Here's Rolf...


and here's Sinéad O'Connor!

One for the Doctor Who completists


'Doctor Who in 6 Minutes and 19 Seconds - A slideshow of the entire run of Doctor Who with at least one image from every storyline, as of March 2008.'

The Saudis have finally allowed women to drive


Hmmm..


Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

'Red Ed'? Looks like it

Should Gordon Brown stand trial?

Jeremy Warner in The Telegraph wonders whether:
'...Brown should be joining Iceland's former PM in the dock

Iceland’s decision to push ahead with charges of negligence against its former prime minister, Geir Haarde, raises the not entirely frivolous question of whether it might be possible to mount a similar case against Gordon Brown.

Nevermind the alleged war crimes of Tony Blair, ruination of the British economy is a pretty serious charge. The case is quite easily constructed; that he did willfully take the brakes off public spending, that he failed to control the recklessness of the banks, that he stripped the Bank of England of its powers of financial supervision and gave them instead to a shiny new, politically correct but wholly inept regulator, that he misled parliament over the state of the public finances...'

A good idea and one that I proposed some time ago.

Do also take the time to read the comments to this article, tehre are some good ones and some odd ones:
'Iamnotacrook
Today 09:16 AM
But surely this shouldn't surprise anyone? In The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism the author Bertrand Russel describes a meeting with

(damnit was in Lenin or Stalin? Stupid short term memory! lets call it Lenin)

Lenin where Lenin says that the aim of all Labour party members in the UK should be to destroy the democratic capitalist system from the inside, through deliberate mismanagement to create such unrest as to sow the seeds for a revolution. There is documented links between recent labour party members and communist russia right up to the 1980's.

This is what labour has always set out to do, to destroy our libertarian, democratic, capitalist society. Mission accomplished!

Edit - sorry for short term memory, on my first jaunt through this fascinating area and i tend to read books twice to let it all sink in, only on my first read of Russell.


remittance_man
Today 09:02 AM
Nulabour's entire economic model was nothing but a giant ponzi scheme. Inflation was fiddled to keep interest rates low, people were then encouraged to borrow excessively, often against the imagined increase in the value of their homes in order to stimulate a retail "boom" that could be misinterpreted as a real economic boom.

Like all ponzi schemes it worked for a while, but inevitably ended in tears.


UK_Debt_Slave
Today 09:58 AM
Yes, but it was designed to fail deliberately

People describe Bliar and brown as 'incompetent' but their destruction of our nation and our wealth was deliberate and very well planned.

And the sheeple swallowed it, infinitely appreciating house prices, wealth for nothing, pension paid for by equity in property. debt is wealth etc etc etc

Christ, the sheeple are sooooooooo fekkn dumb '

The BBC and the Ayodhya story (update)

Further to my earlier post, the BBC are now reporting that:
'The destruction of the mosque by Hindu extremists lead to widespread rioting in which some 2,000 people died. '

Has someone at the BBC seen my earlier post and decided that if Islamic terrorists are to be described as 'militants' then maybe Hindus should not be described as a 'mob'?

Mind you the original page still contains this:
'The Allahabad High Court will decide who owns land where Hindu mobs tore down a 16th Century mosque in 1992. '

Tony Curtis R.I.P.

Tony Curtis has died and a great actor has been lost to the world.

Thankfully he has left a lot of great memories; for me mainly of 'Some Like It Hot', one of the greatest films ever made and one that I can watch over and over again. Here are some clips:
The beach scene where Daphne (Jack Lemmon) and Sugar (Marilyn Monroe) are on the beach, Josephine (Tony Curtis) turns into Shell Oil Junior...


The tango/seduction scene on the ship...



And this clip from 'Some Like It Hot'; whilst it does not include Tony Curtis he is sitting in the rear of the boat and I love this scene so much!



Finally a clip from 'The Persuaders', my apologies for Roger Moore's shirt and cravat combo...


And as a postscript, remember Tony Curtis's comment that "I wouldn't be caught dead marrying a woman old enough to be my wife."

Ridiculous children's names

The excellent Anna Raccoon has posted a piece in a similar vein to my much shorter post. Here's what I had to say:
'Poppy Honey, Daisy Boo, Petal Blossom and Buddy Bear! What on earth were Jamie Oliver and Jools thinking of when they named their children? Get a grip guys! '
Here's part of what Anna Raccoon has to say:
'Mother’s Revenge?

by Gloria Smudd on September 29, 2010

Much has been made of Jamie’n’Jools Oliver’s choice of name for their new baby son (Buddy Bear) who joins Poppy Honey, Daisy Boo and Petal Blossom. It’s nice that all the little Oliver children have got chummy names that will help them get the kind of leg-up in life that having fantastically rich and famous parents couldn’t. Well, jolly good luck to ‘em all, I say.

With all the Fifi-Trixibelles, Apples, Harlows, Peaches and Romeos around, I can’t help feeling I was rather hasty in giving my own children what now seem positively pedestrian names; I can think of countless unique and attention-grabbing monikers that might have suited my children perfectly. In fact I’m convinced that parents should be able to bestow any number of additional names upon their children, reflecting their children’s unique qualities and personality traits as they emerge. And, as if that wasn’t enough, the children would HATE it which is almost enough recommendation in inself.

...

During the course of the ‘competitive parenting’ I encountered during those Playgroup/Pre-School years I spent time in the company of at least 5 mothers who would have wasted no time adding the names Gifted and Talented to the birth certificates of their quite ordinary children; the same parents would no doubt have returned to the Registery Office to add Advanced and Very Bright once their darlings reached Middle School, maybe adding Oxbridge and Harvard to the mix, just for good measure.

...

In case you’re interested, I’d love to add either Patience or Serena to my daughter’s names because she is conspicuously neither patient nor serene. I’d happily pay fee after fee at the Registery Office, adding Harpy, Ingrate, Impudence and Expenditure as the mood took me. I already think of my son as Rip (as in Van Winkle), Ravenous, Spendthrift and (from years ago) Fireman Sam. So by now my daughter could be Patience Ingrate Harpy Borstal Shouty-McClouty Fragrance real name Smudd and my son could be Rip Flatulence Ravenous Spendthrift Borstal Fireman Sam real name Smudd.

It’s a shame it’ll never catch on.'

Do read the whole of Anna Raccoon's piece, it's really funny and close to the mark.

The BBC's obvious partisanship regarding India


The BBC's latest report on the site at Ayodhya contains a fascinating word in the description. The BBC who carefully refer to Islamic terrorists as 'militants' use the word 'mobs' to describe some Hindus:
'The Allahabad High Court will decide who owns land where Hindu mobs tore down a 16th Century mosque in 1992.'
Have you ever seen the BBC refer to Muslims attacking Christian churches in Pakistan or Indonesia as 'mobs'? How about Islamic youth in Paris setting fire to vehicles and going on the rampage, have the BBC ever called them 'mobs'?

The BBC's bias is so blatant and so pervasive that even Helen Boaden must realise it is there.

Is the UK a 'soft option'?


Why do so many people want to come to the UK, is it our climate, the friendly welcome and sense of humour or the benefits?

John Redwood has a thoughtful piece regarding Nick Boles’s “Which Way’s Up” and pays special regard to the chapter on Immigration. Here's a long extract from John Redwood's article, please read it all and think about it before commenting:
' Then I came to passages on equality. He takes the argument often used by the left that societies like Sweden and Japan are happier ones because they have greater income equality. He suggest instead that these societies are happier because they are more homogeneous, allowing far less inward migration than the UK has experienced in recent years.

Warming to his theme, he devotes a whole chapter to making a series of very radical and contentious proposals on immigration. His critique states that 70% of the new jobs have gone to workers born overseas since 1997. He says:

“We will not be able to sustain a social contract in which schooling and healthcare are provided to all citizens free of charge and are funded by taxation if we continue to allow, every year, hundreds of thousands of people from around the world to join the queues at A and E and send their children to British schools. Nor can we sit back while eight million British citizens of working age are either shun or shut out from all forms of useful economic activity because employers can find migrant workers who will accept subsidence wages to do menial jobs”

There is a raw edge and anger in his language, backed by figures higher than the official ones. His remedies are equally contentious:

“Britain needs a new immigration settlement, involving tighter controls on the number of people who can move into the UK every year (from both inside and outside the EU), greater selectiveness about who is allowed to settle here, tougher financial demands on new immigrants and those who want to employ them, more robust measures to remove those who break our laws, and more intensive efforts to ensure that all those who do settle in Britain adopt British values and become part of a truly united kingdom.”

So what does he propose?

1. A cap on the numbers of non EU migrants each year of up to 20,000 to 50,000 – putting a number on stated Coalition policy.
2. Requiring a surety deposit from all non EU migrants. This would be repaid after they had paid taxes here for a number of years, or forfeited if they committed an offence or lived here without paying income tax.
3. For EU migrants the UK should enforce the Directive which only requires a member state to allow free movement for the purpose of residence supported by work income or independent means. “Whenever a migrant from within the EU applies to a central or local government authority for benefits or housing or part of the NHS for non emergency healthcare, that authority should be required to check whether the individual in question has a job or sufficient funds to support themselves in the Uk. If they don’t, they should be told to leave the country…”
4. No-one should be eligible for social housing until they lived here for five years.
'


So what do you think? Immigration is a very sensitive subject and one that tends to cause me problems from commentators, but it is important...

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

The people vs. Gordon Brown


A video that I had not seen before and I thought would be of interest...

We should never forget the legacy left to this country by Tony Blair & Gordon Brown's governments. Nor should we forget the culpability of every Minister that served under them; including Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, Yvette Cooper and the rest. Their names should live in infamy.

In case the BBC's longing for David Miliband makes you think he wasn't such a bad chap

Remember he was a big part of the Labour government that left us this legacy...

The Milibanana has split!

"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."

I read that:
'When he was pictured with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, trailing behind Barack Obama on the red carpet at the White House recently, it was nothing Photoshop could not fix. So, on Tuesday, the state-run daily Al-Ahram published the photo, taken at the launch of the latest Middle East peace talks – but with Mubarak switched to the front of the procession.'

The Guardian have the photos, do take a look...

Wafa Sultan on Islam


Raised in Syria, Wafa Sultan suffered under Sharia law. The author of 'A God Who Hates', she sits down with Bill Whittle to talk oppression, freedom, and the creep of Sharia across the globe.

What Labour leaders say is not always the case

The Anger of a Quiet Man has been comparing Ed Miliband's speech with his record: This from the BBC:
'Ed Miliband has said Labour "needs to change" after its election defeat, in his first big speech as party leader.
He praised the party's achievements but said they had to face "painful truths" - such as the Iraq war being "wrong".
In an hour-long speech he also said the party failed to listen to voters' concerns on immigration.
Mr Miliband, who paid tribute to "extraordinary" brother David, said the "new generation" in Labour were now "the optimists" in British politics.
In a more personal part of the speech he told how his parents' experience as refugees fleeing the Nazis shaped his values. '

This from PublicWhip (my emphasis):
'How Edward Miliband voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly for more EU integration.

Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament.
Voted moderately against greater autonomy for schools.
Voted moderately for replacing Trident.
Voted very strongly for introducing a smoking ban.
Voted very strongly for a stricter asylum system.
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.

Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.
Voted very strongly for allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.

Voted a mixture of for and against laws to stop climate change.
Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards.

Voted for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
Voted very strongly for a wholly elected House of Lords. '

Hazel Blears "speaking from her heart"


Did Hazel Blears lie on, and to, the BBC? Will any other BBC programme other than Andrew Neil's report this? Will we see this lie (if lie it be) reported on the BBC website? Because you can be sure that such a 'misspeak' by a Conservative ex-Minister would be headline news. Remember Teresa May's 'Nasty Party' comment and how often that was played and recalled over the years, something tells me Hazel Blears' remark will be forgotten (by the BBC) by the weekend.




Thanks to Guido Fawkes for the spot.

No love lost amongst the Labour ferrets


David has a hissy fit at Harriet, Harriet just wants to ingratiate herself with the new leader. David leaves the Labour Conference early but doesn't announce he won't be standing for the Shadow Cabinet, the BBC can talk of little else. Exciting isn't it?

The Archers has no cast

If like me you follow Radio 4's 'The Archers' and have had a sneaking feeling for some time that it is not a fictional programme but a gritty documentary, then you might like to take a look at Archers Anarchists. Their motto is 'The Archers are real - there is no cast' and the results of their surveys alone deserves wider recognition, here's a few samples:





If you don't follow 'The Archers' then I apologise for wasting your time!

Ed Miliband - rebel

Ed miliband and his propagandists at the BBC are trying to portray him as a new boom, part of a new generation leading the labour party, someone untouched by associations with Iraq war and maybe a bit of a rebel.

Let's examine these claims and the facts. The 'new broom' has been a Labour MP since 2005 and before that was an economic advisor to Gordon Brown. Edward Miliband also lead the writing of Labour's 2010 general election manifesto. So this 'new broom' seems to be well rooted in the many mistakes of the last Labour government.

The new generatoin is an odd one, Ed Miliband is certainly younger than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are now but let us see the composition of the Labour Shadow Cabinet before we accept this claim.

Ed Miliband's associations with the Iraq war, or rather covering up its murky origins were covered by this piece earlier today.

Ed Miliband, the rebel? Public Whip record that ed Miliband voted three times against government policy all on House of Lords reform in May 2007. What a rebel...

David Bowie - 'Rebel rebel'

"You voted for it. Why are you clapping?"

"You voted for it. Why are you clapping?"
The words of David Miliband to Harriet Harman according to Channel 4 News who report:
'He used the hour-long speech - coming just three days after he beat his brother to become the Labour leader - to distance himself from some of the policies of his party when in government - most notably declaring that the invasion of Iraq was "wrong".

The criticism caused some consternation in the conference hall.

In a moment captured by ITN cameras, Harriet Harman clapped Ed Miliband's criticism of the war, his brother David Miliband asked her: "You voted for it. Why are you clapping?"

Channel 4 News Political Editor Gary Gibbon said: "David Miliband's hands stayed firmly apart. His face tenses as Ed Miliband says the words then he looks down at Harriet Harman's hands and then says the words. Harriet Harman's remarks back to David Miliband aren't audible on the tape. But his words are. He doesn't look like a man who is going to hang around in the Shadow Cabinet to me."'


I see this exchange has also been reported by The Guardian and even by the BBC who report it thus:
'David Miliband has been caught on film rebuking a former cabinet minister for applauding his brother who said Labour was "wrong" to go to war in Iraq.

Ed Miliband, who was not an MP when Iraq was invaded, raised the issue in his first speech as Labour leader.

Former Foreign Secretary David Miliband was filmed turning to Harriet Harman and asking: "You voted for it, why are you clapping?"

­Alistair Darling, Jack Straw and Andy Burnham also did not applaud.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the unscripted aside from David Miliband illustrated how he, and other former Labour ministers, "deeply resent" the way in which Ed Miliband used his "rather less than public opposition to the war" to win the party leadership.

Ed Miliband - who beat his brother to the party leadership - has previously said he did not back the decision to go to war in Iraq. '

The BBC have decided that Ed Miliband's not being an MP in 2003 and so not voting to go to war in Iraq gets him off the hook. In the above piece this obviously crucial fact is mentioned three times and is used as the caption for the top of article picture, as shown here...

It is true that Ed Miliband was not an MP in 2003 and so could not vote for or against the war. However he has been an MP since 2005 and his voting record on Iraq related matters is there for all to see at Public Whip:
'Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.'

'voted strongly against the policy Iraq Investigation - Necessary'


Ed Miliband and the BBC happily whitewashing the new labour leader just as they have done in the past.

Tuesday, 28 September 2010

The totalitarian instincts of the left in evidence once again

I read in the NY Times that:
'Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally. '

Once again the true face of the totalitarian left comes into clear focus and its not a pretty sight is it? The need to monitor everything and know everything has been a feature of left wing regimes from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Honecker through Gordon Brown & his team of control freaks to the frankly scary Barack Obama.

It would seem that inflation is not an accident it's a deliberate policy

Further to this morning's piece about the Bank of England's Deputy Governor, Charlie Bean, telling us to "go out and spend to help invigorate the UK's economic recovery" because "I think it needs to be said that savers shouldn't necessarily expect to be able to live just off their income in times when interest rates are low. It may make sense for them to eat into their capital a bit."

The more I think about this advice the more angry I get. There are many anger making points arising from Mr Bean's advice, here's a few:
1) If people have put money aside for a rainy day, something the last Labour government singly failed to do, why should they be punished whilst the feckless find the amount of their debts reduced?

2) If the current economic recession was caused largely by excessive spending, why does Mr Bean want us to repeat the mistakes?

3) Inflation is just another stealth tax, maybe the most effective one. It is a tax imposed by governments on those holding its debt and anyone whose savings are not index-linked (and by the correct index) is paying towards that tax.

4) In Feb 2009, just before the Labour Government & Bank of England turned on the banknote printing presses, the Bank of England predicted that inflation in late 2010 would be between 0% and 1%. A year later in Feb 2010 they predicted it would be between 1% and 2%. Now in September 2010 it's 3.1%. So why hould anyone believe a Bank of England who still claim that inflation is not a real worry, deflation is?

5) OK so we are not alone, the US Federal has said it is willing 'to provide additional accommodation if needed to … return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate' - More deliberate inflation...

6) Back to the value in property point. Yes my house has gone up in value and yes that is nice (on paper) but it gives me no income and I can only release that increase in value when I sell it. But at that point I will need to buy another house so how does that help. As I see it the only time the 'profit' in my house will be realised is when I die and the beneficiaries of my will pay inheritance tax. Hold on is that the real plan? Force old age pensioners and other savers with no real income to starve so that they die and then the government gets a percentage of the rise in house prices in the form of inheritance tax? Surely no government could be that cruel...

'Remember, lads: If your penis is still attached, it's probably going to be fine.'

Wise words from Aron Krongrad a US surgeon who 'specializes in surgery for prostate cancer and chronic prostatitis.'

There are some eye-watering stoies on his site, here's an example that will have every man wincing or crossing his legs as he reads it:
'The operation began, as they do, with a penile degloving. Sound nice, yes? Like taking your cat for declawing. In reality, it means that a ring is cut at the head and the skin is retracted to the base, so as to expose all the internal components. It is followed by an evacuation of urine and clot, identification of torn urethra and shaft, some freshening to make it look nice, neat rows of suture, and voilà! Good as new, with a white bow of gauze and a slick rubber catheter'

And the money just keeps on rolling in for those who were on the EU gravy train

The Telegraph reports that:
'Lord Mandelson is still paid £8,600 a month by the EU despite leaving his Brussels post two years ago and earning hundreds of thousands in royalties from his memoir, it has emerged.

After leaving his Brussels job in Oct 2008, the Labour peer is still receiving a "transitional allowance" of £103,465 a year, which is funded by the taxpayer. The payment of £8,622 (€10,139) a month is set at 50 per cent of his former salary as European trade commissioner, a stipend paid at low rates of "community tax".

Despite being only 56 and highly employable, Lord Mandelson is entitled to claim the allowance until Oct 2011. '
I presume that this might help to explain the self-satisfied smirk often to be found playing across the lips of Peter Mandelson. For more on Peter Mandelson and his EU income have a wade through this blog!

Labour's New Generation living in the past

Ed Miliband has stated that:
"A new generation leads our party, humble about our past and idealistic about our future. It is a generation which thirsts for change. This week, we embark on the journey back to power"
Pausing only to note that Ed Miliband as a former economic advisor to Gordon Brown and author of the 2010 election manifesto has a hell of a lot to be humble about, I thought that you might be interested in how Labour's own website is reporting the state of the Leadership campaign...


Labour - a new generation that is seemingly as efficient as their last one!

A future history of Palestine

Rubin Reports, it starts:
'The following article isn’t intended to reject a two-state solution but to point out issues that would inevitably arise if one ever came about. Recently, a once-major American magazine ran a cover story saying Israelis aren’t desperately eager for “peace” without ever mentioning the real reasons why that's so:

It's simple: Rather reasonably, Israelis want to know whether they would be better or worse off after making a deal to get a promise of peace in exchange for accepting a fully independent Palestinian state.

Making a strategy requires figuring out where things can go wrong and working to avoid or reduce the consequences. Pretending problems won't happen is the best way to engender catastrophes. So let's look at what would happen:'
Do read the article, it's thought provoking.

The BBC's latest investigation of Lord Ashcroft

Last night's BBC Panorama programme about Lord Ashcroft's tax affairs was pulled. The BBC have a short article explaining why; it is very dry and very brief:
'The BBC has withdrawn an edition of Panorama on the financial affairs of the Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft.

It was due to have been shown on BBC One at 2030 BST on Monday night.

The BBC said it had put a number of questions to Lord Ashcroft two weeks ago and had received a response on a particular issue on Monday.

The Panorama team is now reviewing the programme in light of the new information. The programme was replaced with one about UK military justice.

A BBC spokesperson said: "We put a number of questions to Lord Ashcroft two weeks ago, including one relating to a share interest transfer.

"We asked for a response by Friday 24th September. In a response received this afternoon we have been given information that sheds new light on that issue and we will therefore review the programme."'

Even The Guardian, no friend of Lord Ashcroft and usually a political ally of the BBC does better in their report:
'A BBC Panorama investigation into the financial affairs of the outgoing Conservative party deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft was tonight pulled from BBC1's evening schedules at the last moment.

The programme is believed to have run into legal problems following objections from the Tory benefactor, who has been at the centre of fierce political controversy over his previous status as a tax exile.

...

The Panorama programme, widely trailed over the weekend in the run-up to its anticipated Monday evening slot, alleged Ashcroft had avoided more than £3m in tax through a financial manoeuvre that involved transferring shares in the Impellam Group worth £17m to a trust to benefit his children.

Sources close to the peer claimed the programme was pulled because journalists had misinterpreted a company document released by Impellam on 6 April 2010.

Some of the interviews for the programme were filmed before the general election. Lawyers for Ashcroft have been engaged in a year-long battle with the BBC over the investigation into the Tory peer.

The Impellam document said the company "had been notified that, following a transfer of an indirect interest in the company, Lord Ashcroft no longer has a beneficial interest in 25,745,349 ordinary shares of 1p each in the company. These shares represented the whole of his beneficial interest in the company".

The BBC's investigators interpreted this to mean that Ashcroft had controlled the shares and subsequently moved them into a trust to benefit his children, according to a Conservative source. Ashcroft's lawyers, however, argued that the use of the phrase "indirect interest" showed that he did not own the shares.

A BBC spokesman last night confirmed that the programme had been delayed. "We put a number of questions to Lord Ashcroft two weeks ago, including one relating to a share interest transfer. We asked for a response by Friday 24 September. A response was received this afternoon. We have been given information that sheds new light on that issue and we will therefore review the programme."

The Conservative source said that the peer had been "saddened" and alleged there had been by a "demise of journalistic standards" at the BBC.

"There has been enormous waste of public money chasing this story – from flights to the Caribbean, to expensive legal fees," he said. "How the BBC could get itself into such a mess over such an easily checkable fact is laughable."

Lord Ashcroft's spokesman declined to comment.'

Yesterday evening's 5Live News was full of this story, stating as fact that Lord Ashcroft had avoided taxation. I trust that should the true story be as is now reported that the BBC will broadcast a full apology to Lord Ashcroft as many times as the initial report was broadcast and for as long.

Maybe the BBC should concentrate on trying to impartially report the news rather than behave as the Labour party's propaganda arm and attack dog.

Citroen Presidentielle update







Further to my recent post about unusual Citroens, which included pictures of the great and very rare (only two built) Citroen SM Presidentielle, I found another! Earlier this year, Bonhams sold a copy, it was built in 2006/07 by Garage du Lac in Neuchatel, Switzerland, approved by Chapron and based on a normal SM. It apparently cost €480,000 to build and sold for €155,250 inclusive of Buyer's Premium. Not a bargain but what a car, and as the two originals are no longer in running order despite being still owned by the Office of the President of the Republic, it is a unique vehicle and one that I would love to travel in.

Here are a few pictures of this unique copy...

"Not for a long time yet"

Oh really Ed Miliband?

From 1:23...

“the bloody beast is back.”

Pajamas Media print a large section of a sermon given by Rabbi S. Lewis on Rosh Hashona, entitled “Ehr Kumt” (He is Coming). It's a sobering piece that fits in with my view that israel's time is nearly up, here's part of it:
'I thought long and I thought hard on whether to deliver the sermon I am about to share. We all wish to bounce happily out of shul on the High Holidays, filled with warm fuzzies, ready to gobble up our brisket, our honey cakes and our kugel. We want to be shaken and stirred – but not too much. We want to be guilt-schlepped – but not too much. We want to be provoked but not too much. We want to be transformed but not too much.

I get it, but as a rabbi I have a compelling obligation, a responsibility to articulate what is in my heart and what I passionately believe must be said and must be heard. And so, I am guided not by what is easy to say but by what is painful to express. I am guided not by the frivolous but by the serious. I am guided not by delicacy but by urgency.

We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn’t know it from our behavior. During WWII we didn’t refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn’t call the Gestapo, militants. We didn’t see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault. We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people. We did not apologize for Dresden, nor for The Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein, nor for D-Day.

Evil – ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake.

Not all Germans were Nazis – most were decent, most were revolted by the Third Reich, most were good citizens hoisting a beer, earning a living and tucking in their children at night. But, too many looked away, too many cried out in lame defense – “I didn’t know.” Too many were silent. Guilt absolutely falls upon those who committed the atrocities, but responsibility and guilt falls upon those who did nothing as well.

In WWII we won because we got it. We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute. We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis. We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe. We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win … to rid the world of malevolence.

We are at war. … Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London, from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza, the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.

To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable.

...

I remember one Shabbos in 1938 when Vladimir Jabotinsky came to the shul... When Jabotinsky came, he delivered the drash on Shabbos morning and I can still hear his words burning in my ears. He climbed up to the shtender, stared at us from the bima, glared at us with eyes full of fire and cried out. ‘EHR KUMT. YIDN FARLAWST AYER SHTETL – He’s coming. Jews abandon your city.’”

We thought we were safe in Lithuania from the Nazis, from Hitler. We had lived there, thrived for a thousand years but Jabotinsky was right — his warning prophetic. We got out but most did not.”

We are not in Lithuania. It is not the 1930s. There is no Luftwaffe overhead. No U-boats off the coast of long Island. No Panzer divisions on our borders. But make no mistake; we are under attack – our values, our tolerance, our freedom, our virtue, our land.

...

Today the enemy is radical Islam but it must be said sadly and reluctantly that there are unwitting, co-conspirators who strengthen the hands of the evil doers…The good Muslims must sponsor rallies in Times Square, in Trafalgar Square, in the UN Plaza, on the Champs Elysee, in Mecca condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent. Thus far, they have not. The good Muslims must place ads in the NY Times. They must buy time on network TV, on cable stations, in the Jerusalem Post, in Le Monde, in Al Watan, on Al Jazeena condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent – thus far, they have not. Their silence allows the vicious to tarnish Islam and define it.

Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.

Lighten up, Lewis. Take a chill pill, some of you are quietly thinking. …It’s not that bad. It’s not that real.” But I am here to tell you – “It is.” Ask the member of our shul whose sister was vaporized in the Twin Towers and identified finally by her charred teeth, if this is real or not. Ask the members of our shul who fled a bus in downtown Paris, fearing for their safety from a gang of Muslim thugs, if this is an exaggeration. Ask the member of our shul whose son tracks Arab terrorist infiltrators who target – pizza parlors, nursery schools, Pesach seders, city buses and play grounds, if this is dramatic, paranoid hyperbole.

Ask them, ask all of them – ask the American GI’s we sit next to on planes who are here for a brief respite while we fly off on our Delta vacation package. Ask them if it’s bad. Ask them if it’s real.

…From sea to shining sea, we must stand tall, prideful of our stunning decency and moral resilience. Immediately after 9/11 how many mosques were destroyed in America? None. After 9/11, how many Muslims were killed in America? None. After 9/11, how many anti-Muslim rallies were held in America? None. And yet, we apologize. We grovel. We beg forgiveness….

Israel is the laboratory – the test market. Every death, every explosion, every grisly encounter is not a random, bloody orgy. It is a calculated, strategic probe into the heart, guts and soul of the West….

As Israel, imperfect as she is, resists the onslaught, many in the Western World have lost their way displaying not admiration, not sympathy, not understanding, for Israel’s galling plight, but downright hostility and contempt. Without moral clarity, we are doomed because Israel’s galling plight ultimately will be ours. Hanna Arendt in her classic Origins of Totalitarianism accurately portrays the first target of tyranny as the Jew. .. If the Jew/Israel is permitted to bleed with nary a protest from “good guys” then tyranny snickers and pushes forward with its agenda…

Isaiah warned us thousands of years ago — “Oye Lehem Sheh-Korim Layome, Laila v’Laila, yome – Woe to them who call the day, night and the night, day.” We live on a planet that is both Chelm and Sodom. It is a frightening and maddening place to be.

I know that there are those sitting here today who have turned me off. But I also know that many turned off their rabbis seventy five years ago in Warsaw, Riga, Berlin, Amsterdam, Cracow, Vilna. I get no satisfaction from that knowledge, only a bitter sense that there is nothing new under the sun…

A rabbi was once asked by his students….“Rebbi. Why are your sermons so stern?” Replied the rabbi, “If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love? Kinderlach, ‘di hoyz brent.’ Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber.”

Democracies don’t always win.

Tyrannies don’t always lose.

My friends — the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. EHR KUMT.'


Remember that 'Democracies don’t always win. Tyrannies don’t always lose.'

The diminishing Israel

'Israel is already tiny. At 8500 square miles, it is smaller than all but 3 US states, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island. Compared to its Muslim neighbors, it's even smaller than that. It's barely 2 percent of Egypt, which it nevertheless defeated in several wars. It's 1/4th the size of Jordan and 1/8th the size of Syria. Compared to Turkey or Iran, it hardly even appears on the map.

Under the Palestine Mandate, Israel's territory would have been six times as large as it is now. Since 1967, Israel has ceded territory 3 times its own size. This would be astonishing even if Israel were a larger country. Instead it's one of the world's smaller countries, with one of the world's highest population densities. And still the Muslim world and its Western backers continue demanding that Israel continue giving up land even though over 7 million Israelis live on a piece of land smaller than New Hampshire with a population density that is the 37th largest in the world, barely behind Japan at 32nd, Rwanda at 37th and denser than Haiti at 42nd. When eliminating islands, city states and principalities from the list, Israel actually has the 10th highest population density in the world behind India, Japan and Rwanda.

And it gets even worse from there. Because Israel's width at its narrowest point is less than 10 miles (15 kilometers). Considering that Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries whose populations still consider Israel the enemy, despite whatever territory was already conceded in order to sign peace agreements with them, it means that hostile armies from both sides could cut Israel in half in only a matter of miles. Just to make matters worse still, that narrow point intersects Israel's capital, the seat of its government and its largest city-- Jerusalem. And finally to put it all into perspective, that is exactly the territory that every "peacemaker" from Clinton to Blair to Obama want to slice into. And not just "slice into", but turn into a geographically contiguous state for Hamas and Fatah terrorists that would cut Israel in two at its must vulnerable point.'
For more on Israel and the weasel words of Bill Clinton, take a read of Sultan Knish's piece entitled 'Israel reduced to the size of a jail cell..'.

There is also a link to a piece that examines Bill Clinton's activities in the 1990s and his links with Communists. The line that struck a chord with me was this
'During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton’s student protests and Moscow trip generated much controversy, but few answers. While Clinton’s government files from that era seemingly remain unavailable even today'
Was the hiding of Bill Clinton's record in 1992 the template for the secrecy about Barack Obama's past in 2008? In both cases the lack of interest shown by a predominately left-of-cebtre US media speaks volumes.

If Gordon Brown was Stalin, does that make Ed Miliband Nikita Khrushchev?

Dizzy Thinks writes:
'The general thought and cliche is that he will "turn the page" on New Labour and essentially trash the record of his predecessor[s] to some extent. How long therefore will it take someone clever enough in the newspapers to note that the "Labour Party Conference 2010" should be renamed the "20th Congress of the Communist Party 1956"?

We had the insurgent revolutionary Blair (Lenin), followed by the Machiavellian calculating control freak Brown (Stalin) and now we've got the young Miliband who's going to denounce the other two. The comparison with Khrushchev at the 20th Congress in February 1956 is hardly rocket science now is it?

Now all he has to do is be weak, come up with policies that don't really work, whilst behind closed doors the whispering begins and people start maneuvering themselves for a Breschnevian takeover, then Ed can go and retire quietly in a flat in Priomrose Hill.'

Cuts what cuts?


Governmnet spending this year in real times will be more than in 2005; Sky's Jeff Randall makes the point, when will anyone on the BBC?

In bust Britain is saving 'wrong'?


No I won't spend all my income, isn't tht how Britain got into this mess; a labour government incapable of living within its means and a populace driven to have the latest of everything and buy it on credit if they haven't the money. What ever happened to prudence?

Andrew Neil got it spot on about Ed Miliband

"You're the second preference candidate in this election, how does it feel to be regarded as most folks' second best? ... If you win at all it'll be on second preferences"


Do watch the whole video and especially Ed Miliband's body language; I think there's a bully just waiting to emerge and now he's elected...

Why are the requirements of Islam of more importance than the requirements of another religion?

Archbishop Cranmer writes about the revelations that Halal meat is being sold at Wembley Stadium and in many UK supermarkets, without being marked as from such a source.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of killing an animal without it being stunned first it is important to realise that
'when it comes to halal, we are all being sold meat without being made aware of the fact that what we are eating has been ritually blessed and dedicated to Allah.'
As a Jew do I want to eat meat that has been dedicated by a religion many of whose members, if they follow the instructions of the Koran, presumably would like to see me and family dead? But Archbishop Cranmer makes a very good point regarding another religious minority in the UK, one that rarely makes the headlines but one that will fight its corner if need be:
'Unlike Hindus, some Sikhs eat meat, not least because one of their gurus is recorded as being a hunter. Yet within the Sikh faith are the ‘kurahit’, or prohibitions, one of which is to not eat meat ‘killed in the Muslim way’. The origins, as ever, have more to do with the politics of identity, but it is a sustained article of belief for Sikhs all over the world – they are simply not permitted to eat halal meat at all. '


maybe the only way to be sure that your meat has not been slaughtered ‘Bismillah Allah-hu-Akbar!’ (‘In the name of Allah, who is the greatest’) is to buy pork or other meat from a pig. However this does not really help an observant Jew...

Part of one comment from Archbishop Cranmer's site caught my attention:
'Preacher said...
If we have visited a Muslim country we have almost certainly eaten halal meat, or in Israel Kosher meat. As Dr Cranmer so rightly points out, it's the deceit that is wrong. I've heard of Muslim cab & bus drivers who have refused to accept dogs, even guide dogs in their vehicles on religous grounds & I'm sure that if a strict Muslim were in some way to be sold pork in say a meatball there would be riots. The only answer is to boycott the stores that are using this subterfuge, go veggie as in the book of Daniel 1 vs 8-21 (might be beneficial) or exist on the good old British breakfast with loads of sausage & Bacon. '

The repositioning of the global environmental crisis

James Delingpole in The Telegraph writes a fascinating article. He reports that (my emphasis):
'The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.'
And concludes from this that
'Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.'
So it could be back to the 1970s worry of Global Cooling as the figures show that there is no real global warming, once one subtracts 'fiddle factors', disregards rising temperatures reported from weather stations sited on heat islands, etc. etc.

James Delingpole writes
'The next few years are going to be very interesting. Watch the global power elite squirming to reposition itself as it slowly distances itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming (”Who? Us? No. We never thought of it as more than a quaint theory…”), and tries to find new ways of justifying green taxation and control. (Ocean acidification; biodiversity; et al). You’ll notice sly shifts in policy spin. In Britain, for example, Chris “Chicken Little” Huhne’s suicidal “dash for wind” will be re-invented as a vital step towards “energy security.” There will be less talk of “combatting climate change” and more talk of “mitigation”. You’ll hear enviro-Nazis like Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren avoid reference to “global warming” like the plague, preferring the more reliably vague phrase “global climate disruption.”'
And he is probably right but as I have said before the Global Warming/Man Made Climate Change 'narrative' was always less about the planet and more about power and control by government and big corporations over the little people.


Do read the comments under James Delingpole's piece there are many nuggets of information there, information that the 'warmist' mainstream media would never acknowledge.

What is it with International bodies?

To add to Libya being elected to the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), we now have Pakistan heading up the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). How is this sensible? Pakistan has not even signed up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Monday, 27 September 2010

Gold is the final refuge against universal currency debasement

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph explains why the price of gold may have further to rise. Here's an extract:
'The US and Britain are debasing coinage to alleviate the pain of debt-busts, and to revive their export industries: China is debasing to off-load its manufacturing overcapacity on to the rest of the world, though it has a trade surplus with the US of $20bn (£12.6bn) a month.

...

The latest Fed minutes are remarkable. They add a new doctrine, that a fresh monetary blitz – or QE2 – will be used to stop inflation falling much below 1.5pc. Surely the Fed has not become so reckless that it really aims to use emergency measures to create inflation, rather preventing deflation? This must be a cover-story. Ben Bernanke’s real purpose – as he aired in his November 2002 speech on deflation – is to weaken the dollar.

If so, he has succeeded. The Swiss franc smashed through parity last week as investors digested the message. But the swissie is an over-rated refuge. The franc cannot go much further without destabilizing Switzerland itself.

Gold has no such limits. It hit $1300 an ounce last week, still well shy of the $2,200-2,400 range reached in the late Medieval era of the 14th and 15th Centuries.

This is not to say that gold has any particular "intrinsic value"’. It is subject to supply and demand like everything else. It crashed after the gold discoveries of Spain’s Conquistadores in the New World, and slid further after finds in Australia and South Africa. It ultimately lost 90pc of its value – hitting rock-bottom a decade ago when central banks succumbed to fiat hubris and began to sell their bullion. Gold hit a millennium-low on the day that Gordon Brown auctioned the first tranche of Britain’s gold. It has risen five-fold since then.

We have a new world order where China and India are buying gold on every dip, where the West faces an ageing crisis, and where the sovereign states of the US, Japan, and most of Western Europe have public debt trajectories near or beyond the point of no return.

The managers of all four reserve currencies are playing fast and loose: the Fed is clipping the dollar; the Bank of England is clipping sterling; the European Central Bank is buying the bonds of EMU debtors to stave off insolvency, something it vowed never to do just months ago; and the Bank of Japan has just carried out two trillion yen of “unsterilized” intervention.

Of course, gold can go higher. '

A suggestion for David Cameron

At the first PMQs could he refer to Ed Miliband as the Leader of the Labour Party (sponsored and chosen by UNITE)?

The difference between fellatio and inflation


French politician Rachida Dati has been forced to issue a public apology after confusing fellatio (oral sex on a man) with inflation. The 44-year-old former justice minister and MEP has been called ‘Rachida Barbie’ by her political opponents because of her supposed poor understanding of complicated political and economic issues.

On Sunday she was asked about overseas investment funds maybe profiteering during a period of economic uncertainty and said:
"I see some of them looking for returns of 20 or 25 per cent, at a time when fellatio is almost non-existent."


In French, fellatio is ‘fellation’, which sounds rather like inflation, which is the same in French as in English.

Miss Dati has apologised for her slip of the tongue (pun intended) saying on Facebook: ‘This kind of thing happens if you speak too quickly on this kind of programme.’


Of course fellatio is likely to bring about inflation but I suppose that after completion, deflation is likely to follow!



Thanks t The Mail for the spot.

Hypocrisy about Israel & the Palestinians


If you know the background then what more needs to be said?

If you don't then you should know that The Palestinian Authority has reaffirmed the death penalty for any Palestinian found guilty of selling land to Israelis with no noticeable protests from the United Nations, the Barack Obama Presidency or any mainstream western media. Meanwhile the Israelis are to resume building housing on land captured in 1967 and the world is in uproar. Which other country is expected to return land taken in a defensive war? Any at all?

'Charlie Whelan: I persuaded six MPs to switch second preference to Ed Miliband'

The Guardian reports that
'It was Charlie Whelan wot won it. At least that's what the outgoing Unite political director is saying, proudly recounting the hardball political operation he ran to deliver the Labour leadership to Ed Miliband.

The new leader himself denied any such thing to Andrew Marr on BBC1 this morning: "Why did the trade unions endorse me? Not because there was some kind of cabal who made the decision," he said.

Whelan begs to differ. The former spokesman for Gordon Brown told me in the Radisson hotel how the "Big Four" union leaders had sat together in the summer working out who was best placed to be the "stop David" candidate. Their own personal preference would probably have been Ed Balls, but a lack of initial support among MPs suggested his chances were limited. "I'm pragmatic," Whelan said, explaining that the union men then came to the swift, unsentimental view that Ed Miliband was the likeliest to thwart his older brother, whom they regarded as too Blairite.

Formal endorsements soon followed from Unite, Unison and the GMB. Whelan and his colleagues focused their energies particularly on second preferences, seeking to persuade union members that even if they put Balls, Andy Burnham or Diane Abbott first, they should place the younger Miliband second – calculating, rightly, that it was those second votes that would determine the election.

The effort reached its climax at the Trade Union Congress earlier this month. Whelan targeted a dozen union-backed MPs who were at the TUC, putting pressure on them to switch their second preference to Ed Miliband. He had, he says, a 50% success rate, converting six of the 12. Run the maths and, under Labour's weighted electoral college system, the votes of those six MPs may have been just enough to have given the younger Miliband his one-point margin of victory.'
Remember this when the BBC spin the line that Ed Miliband is his own man.

Two unusual Citroen cars


A Citroen CX Orphee - a convertible CX







The Citroen SM Presidentielle being one of the two 4-door convertible Citroën SM présidentielle models.


More odd Citroens soon...

A political pundit getting it wrong on the Labour leadership

No, not Nick Robinson although he did make a rather embarrassing cock-up on Saturday.

The pundit I have in mind is Sky's Jon Craig who writes:
'I wondered here back in June whether David Miliband might live to regret nominating Diane Abbott and ensuring she got the required number of nominations.

Having looked at the final results, I think Diane's intervention probably didn't make any difference to the result.'

Hmm as I blogged on Saturday 'Diane Abbott's votes went to Ed 3.14% and David 1.11%' That makes a difference of 2.03%, far more than the eventual difference between Ed & David Miliband...

A fine idea from the Helen Boaden BBC board

I see that Helen Boaden still has not bothered to answer the mostly negative points made to her Impartiality is in Our Genes post. I do like the following comment though:
'170. At 2:43pm on 26 Sep 2010, DeathnTaxis wrote:

Helen,
If you truly believe what you write I suggest the next time you are on a coffee break and chatting with your collegues try this simple test. Make a list of which ones are Tories, which ones are Liberals and which ones are Labour etc. In a second column mark which ones are the sons/daughters of peers, MPS etc. In another column mark which one s have other relationships to political parties. i.e their wives were PA to Gordon Brown for instance.
Think of all your ex-collegues like Martin Sixsmith or Martin Bell. Did they leave to work for a particular party? Which one was it?
Once you have finished can you honestly say that the marks are equal across all parties (including the BNP or BCP/RCP). Can you honestly say that those with links to a party are ALWAYS balanced in their approach?
After you have finished try the same activity with the 'talent'. You know the journalist, comedians, presenters, actors, writers etc. Same result?
You could even publish your results (no names of course, just numbers).
Are you, Helen, prepared to prove your point or are you just another self-justifying public purse leech?'

The BBC biased by instinct.

Why don't Africans matter to the BBC?

I have blogged before about the disproportional coverage the BBC give to every minor Israel/Palestinian story when compared to the coverage they allocate to African stories. I was reminded of this when I cam across this piece that revealed that:
'More than 300 men, women and children were raped during a four-day assault by rebel militia in the Democratic Republic of Congo, double the number first reported, the United Nations said yesterday. '
Quite a big story, yet it is not even referenced from the BBC's main news page. Imagine the wall to wall coverage if the Israeli army had been found guilty of just one rape of a Palestinian...

Here's something I wrote on this matter last year:
'"What are these numbers?

5.4 million

400,000

65,000

3,400

1,000


Any ideas?


Well:
5.4 million is the number of people killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo since a 1998 civil war began. That war continues today despite numerous peace treaties.

400,000 is the number of people killed in the Darfur region of the Sudan since a 2003 outbreak of violence between the government-backed Janjaweed militias and the secular "rebels" of the region. Approximately 100 additional people were killed there a few of weeks ago. Fighting continues in Darfur today.

65,000 is the number of Sri Lankans killed since the late 1980s, most of which have been civilians. During the war in Gaza, the Sri Lankan government forces overran the last stronghold of the Tamil Tigers -- a group considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government -- at the expense of dozens of civilians. Approximately 50,000 government troops are currently advancing through the jungle, taking aim at the rebels.

3,400 is a conservative estimate of the number of Palestinians killed by the Jordanian government in the span of 11 days during the Black September Jordanian civil war of 1970. Palestinian estimates claimed more than 20,000 dead.

1,000 is the number of Palestinians killed as of Jan. 15 in Israel's current war of self-defense against Hamas, the vast majority of which have been terrorists.


Yet it is Israel that is condemned by the U.N., the Vatican, and the rest of the world. It is Jews that are attacked all over Europe."'


So what accounts for the disparity of coverage by the BBC? Do the BBC not care about African & Tamil lives as much as Palestinians? Do the BBC have an anti-Israel agenda that supersedes the rights of others?

Ed Miliband is Jewish

The fact that ed Miliband is Jewish by birth if not be practice seems to be reported very quietly if at all by the BBC. Why? If a Muslim had been elected leader of one of the main British political parties then I would expect the BBC to be in raptures, but a Jew not so much. Is this the BBC's doing or Ed Milibands? Maybe they don't want to risk upsetting their core vote amongst the ever expanding Muslim 'community' in the UK.

Who are 'the rich'?

Watt Tyler at Burning Our Money explains how taxing 'the rich' may not be the answer to raising money fraom taxation.

Today is 70 years since the last battle to take place on British mainland soil

The Battle of Graveney Marsh happened when a Junkers 88 bomber crash-landed after being attacked by two RAF Spitfire fighter planes. One of the bomber’s engines had already been knocked out by anti-aircraft fire when the second was put out of action by the Spitfires. The pilot was forced to land on Graveney Marsh in Kent. The crash was seen by members of the London Irish Rifles’ who were 'holed up' in the Sportsman Inn in Seasalter, a hamlet near Whitstable, and they were dispatched to the downed bomber. They expected the four-strong Luftwaffe crew to give themselves up without a fight but as they approached the aircraft the Germans opened fire with the aircraft’s two machine guns. Some of the British servicemen dived to the ground and returned fire, whilst another group crawled along a dyke to get within 50 yards of the plane before they started shooting. The Germans soon surrendered and the battle was over with few injuries and no deaths.


For more on this little known battle take a look at Time Gun or The Telegraph.

Sunday, 26 September 2010

Who are The Jolly Boys and what is Mento?



Further to my post about The Jolly Boys' cover version of Amy Winehouse's 'Rehab' I thought some background on The Jolly Boys and Jamaica's Mento music might be in order.

Were British spies really wankers?

The Telegraph reports that:
'British intelligence services experimented with using semen as an invisible ink to write top-secret letters, it has been disclosed.

A diary entry belonging to a senior member of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) has revealed that during the First World War it was discovered that the bodily fluid could act as an effective invisible ink. '

Interesting but the two bits that really caught my eye were these, first this:
'Furthermore it had the advantage of being readily available. '
Readily? Well not immediately and certainly not inexhaustibly!

and second this:
'at least one agent had to be reminded to use only fresh supplies of the 'ink' when correspondents began noticing an unusual smell. '
Words fail me...

Two and a Half Men - a memorable image


Jenny McCarthy as Courtney in Series 5 of Two and a Half Men...

A "travesty of justice."


Remember this image from the US Presidential election?

Do you remember my postings on this Black Panter intimidation at the polling booths and More on the Black Panthers intimidation case... and Even more on the dropping of the Black Panthers voter intimidation prosecution ?

Do you remember the videos I posted?




So I was interested to read that:
'The Justice Department is ignoring civil rights cases that involve white victims and wrongly abandoned a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party last year, a top department official testified Friday. He called the department's conduct a "travesty of justice."

Christopher Coates, former voting chief for the department's Civil Rights Division, spoke under oath Friday morning before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a long-awaited appearance that had been stonewalled by the Justice Department for nearly a year.

Coates discussed in depth the DOJ's decision to dismiss intimidation charges against New Black Panther members who were videotaped outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008 dressed in military-style uniforms -- one was brandishing a nightstick -- and allegedly hurling racial slurs.

The case has drifted in and out of the limelight over the past year as the commission has struggled to investigate it. Former Justice official J. Christian Adams fueled the controversy when he testified in July and accused his former employer of showing "hostility" toward cases that involved white victims and black defendants.

Nearly three months later, Coates backed up Adams' claims. In lengthy and detailed testimony, he said the department cultivates a "hostile atmosphere" against "race-neutral enforcement" of the Voting Rights Act.

He said civil rights attorneys stick to cases that involve minority victims, and he said the Black Panther case was dismissed following "pressure" by the NAACP and "anger" at the case within the Justice Department itself.

"That anger was the result of their deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of white voters who have been discriminated against," he said.

He said a 2005 case against a black official in Mississippi over voter intimidation claims had stirred a backlash in the department and from civil rights groups -- and that the New Black Panther case was no different.

The Department of Justice dismissed the testimony, calling the investigation "thin on facts and evidence and thick on rhetoric."

"The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved," department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation."

The Bush Justice Department first brought the case against three members of the Black Panther group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voting Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case and at one point won a default judgment, but the administration last year moved to dismiss the charges after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree not to carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012.

Coates rejected as weak the department's rationale for abandoning the case, saying the department let one of the Black Panther members off the hook because a local police officer had determined he was a Democratic Party poll watcher. Coates called it "extraordinarily strange" for the department to rely on this and urged the commission to consider what the legal backlash would have been if the Panthers had been members of the Ku Klux Klan.

"To understand the rationale of these articulated reasons for gutting this case ... one only has to state the facts in the racial reverse," he said. Coates said that with the United States becoming increasingly diverse, it is "absolutely essential" that the law be enforced equally.

"As important as the mandate in the Voting Rights Act is to protect minority voters, white voters also have an interest in being able to go to the polls without having race-haters such as Black Panther King Samir Shabazz, whose public rhetoric includes such statements as 'kill cracker babies' ... standing at the entrance of the polling place with a billy club in his hand hurling racial slurs at voters," he said.

"Given this outrageous conduct, it was a travesty of justice for the Department of Justice not to allow attorneys in the voting section to obtain nationwide injunctive relief against" the defendants, he said.

Since last year, Coates has been transferred to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina. He said Friday that the Justice Department told him not to testify before the commission after he was first subpoenaed in December 2009; in testifying Friday, he claimed protection from retaliation under "whistleblower" laws.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., also wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder warning the Justice Department not to punish Coates in any way for testifying. '