I blogged earlier that 53% of those polled did not trust the government to tell the truth over recent "issues". I wasn't going to go back over all of the examples of this government fiddling figures or lying to us but then I considered the matter of unpaid fines.
In March 2002 it was reported that "More than one-third of financial penalties handed down last year went unpaid, says a report from the National Audit Office today. Across the 42 magistrates' court districts in England and Wales, penalties totalling £385 million were imposed but less than two-thirds of this was collected." The report included some examples of how fines came to be unpaid "In Cheshire, between 1996 and August 2000, magistrates imposed eight fines on a man for fraud and various motoring offences. Last year, he still owed £1,100 despite 60 enforcement actions and 26 enforcement hearings against him.
A man fined £80 plus £50 costs for criminal damage in south Durham in 1998 accumulated further fines totalling £500 by the following year. A series of enforcement notices were returned marked "Gone away". Eventually he was arrested in April 2000 and an order made for the money to be deducted from his wages. The fines were eventually paid off in May 2001.
In inner London a man failed to pay £1,000 compensation for damaging a car in a "road rage" incident. Eventually a warrant was issued for his arrest only to find he was already in jail on another offence. Magistrates asked the victim if he would waive the compensation, something he refused to do. Seven years later he is still waiting for his payment.
In 1991 magistrates in Cheshire imposed a fine of £160 and a compensation payment of £1,782 to the victim of a deception. In the intervening 11 years the court has taken 120 actions against the defaulter, including cancelling the fine in 1994. These include summonses, arrest warrants, committal to prison (suspended), changes of instalment plans and attachment of earnings orders. The victim is still waiting for the money to be paid."
In May this year, it was reported that "Almost half the fines imposed on offenders remain unpaid six months after they were handed out by the courts, according to Whitehall's spending watchdog.
In a critical report, the National Audit Office said that in some parts of the country the proportion of fines collected is as low as one in three. Last year alone, magistrates' courts imposed fines totalling £352 million but only £222 million was collected.
Of the remainder, around £75 million of fines were cancelled because they had been set at the wrong level, while the remaining £55 million were unpaid."
This article finished thus "The NAO's conclusions contrast with the Government's claim that the national payment rate for fines has risen from 55 to 80 per cent over the past three years."
In July this year, it was reported that "The amount of uncollected court fines has risen despite a high-profile Government campaign to improve performance.
Ministry of Justice data released today shows £486 million in fines was outstanding at the end of March in England and Wales, up £12 million on the previous year."
So there is a clear problem that a high percentage of fines were not being collected so this glorious Government had to do something and they did... According to a report in today's Telegraph (which I cannot find on-line, please assist...) what the Government have actually done is to write off millions of pounds of fines a year. "Around £50 million of unpaid fines are simply being cancelled or discontinued...The practice has allowed ministers to claim a dramatic rise in the rate at which fines are being paid...As a result, the official proportion of "paid" fines has shot up from around 60 per cent a few years ago to 98 per cent now."
Listen out for Labour claims that the "proportion of paid fines has increased from 60% to 98% and listen out for the complete lack of questioning of the figures by the Main Stream Media.
Now ask yourself this, what other "official" figures are being fiddled?
Sunday, 23 September 2007
World Cup Rugby
I have just turned on the Scotland v New Zealand match and am somewhat confused, both teams seem to be wearing the same coloured kit. New Zealand normally wear an all black kit, hence the name "All Blacks" and Scotland generally wear a dark blue kit. Today both teams are wearing black shorts and predominantly grey tops, the only differences appear to be that the All Blacks' kit has a little black on the shirt and the Scots have a little white. This is making watching the rugby rather confusing, except for the fact that the player scoring the try is playing for New Zealand!
Trust the government
There was a fair bit of publicity on Saturday for the latest YouGov opinion poll that appeared in the Daily Telegraph. The headline was the lead that Gordon Brown's Labour party still held despite the Northern Rock debacle. Two things struck me about this poll, first that Labour's figures dropped from 41% to 39% but more intriguing were the answers to the question "thinking about some of the issues that have erupted in recent weeks (such as terrorist threats, floods, foot-and-mouth and Northern Rock) how much do you trust government ministers to tell the truth on such occasions? The replies are interesting to say the least; 5% trust a great deal, 35% trust to some extent, 28% do not trust much, 25% do not trust at all and 6% don't know. Apart from saying that the 6% who don't know shouldn't be allowed out in public (let alone vote), that is 53% who on balance don't trust the government to tell the truth - a ringing endorsement of Gordon Brown!
UK electoral system inherent bias
The Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?
Take a look at this, this and this.
Take a look at this, this and this.
Saturday, 22 September 2007
TV trivia
Brindsley Forde guitarist and vocalist with Aswad was previously one of the cast of Here comes the Double Deckers; now that is weird...
Lucky Belgium
Belgium held a General Election on June 10th, since then the political parties have managed not to agree any coalition to govern the country. That's over 100 days without a government; has the economy come to a grinding halt? No. Has anarchy broken out? No.
How long do you think Belgium could cope without a government? How long do you think the UK could cope? Makes you think...
How long do you think Belgium could cope without a government? How long do you think the UK could cope? Makes you think...
The United Kingdom?
Watch this video
and ask yourself why? The answer is simple Scotland returned 72 MP's to Westminster, way out of proportion to their population, this will be reduced to 59 seats at the next General Election and they used to mainly return Labour MPs.
UPDATE: I stand corrected, I though the reduction to 59 MPs would come in the next election when in fact it started in the 2005 election. THe point about over representation by population in Scotland is therefore no longer as true.
However the Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?
and ask yourself why? The answer is simple Scotland returned 72 MP's to Westminster, way out of proportion to their population, this will be reduced to 59 seats at the next General Election and they used to mainly return Labour MPs.
UPDATE: I stand corrected, I though the reduction to 59 MPs would come in the next election when in fact it started in the 2005 election. THe point about over representation by population in Scotland is therefore no longer as true.
However the Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?
The McCann's
I have not blogged about the Madeleine McCann affair before, I have resisted all temptation as I think that there has been quite enough coverage on every TV station and radio station and every newspaper for the last what seems like six years. Then I read this article in the Daily Telegraph. I can honestly say that this is the biggest load of bollocks that I have read since the last Labour election manifesto and that is no real surprise as the McCann's this week took advantage of the services of Clarence Mitchell, a former BBC News presenter then working as a senior government spin-doctor to become the new voice of the McCanns. Ever since there has been a barrage of pro-McCann propaganda stories in the British press. I do not know what happened to Madeleine McCann and I am not sure if I really care that much. Hundreds of British children go missing each year and yet it is this story that has dominated our media for the last 4 months or so.
So has Clarence Mitchell been earning his, no doubt, substantial corn. Let's look at the afore-mentioned Daily Telegraph article. Apparently "Gerry McCann is convinced his daughter's kidnapper was hiding behind a door in their holiday apartment as he checked on his sleeping children, according to a friend." Why is he suddenly so convinced now? Who is the "friend"?
"The cardiologist saw all three of his offspring – Madeleine, and the twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping peacefully at just after 9pm on the night of her disappearance. But as he turned to leave the ground floor room, he noticed that a door which he thought he had closed earlier was slightly ajar. Agonisingly, he is now sure that standing behind this door was his four-year-old daughter's abductor, waiting to steal her from her bed in the Praia da Luz."
He's sure is he? Not just suspects?
"The friend said Gerry had pondered over the sequence of events that night for four and half painful months. "He believes the abductor came in, opened the door and didn't have time to close it (before Mr McCann arrived)," said the friend."
He's taken four and a half months to come up with this story.
As I say, I don't know what happened that night and I don't know if the McCann's had any involvement in the disappearance of their child; I do know that the stories coming out of the McCann camp now are pure and simple propaganda.
So has Clarence Mitchell been earning his, no doubt, substantial corn. Let's look at the afore-mentioned Daily Telegraph article. Apparently "Gerry McCann is convinced his daughter's kidnapper was hiding behind a door in their holiday apartment as he checked on his sleeping children, according to a friend." Why is he suddenly so convinced now? Who is the "friend"?
"The cardiologist saw all three of his offspring – Madeleine, and the twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping peacefully at just after 9pm on the night of her disappearance. But as he turned to leave the ground floor room, he noticed that a door which he thought he had closed earlier was slightly ajar. Agonisingly, he is now sure that standing behind this door was his four-year-old daughter's abductor, waiting to steal her from her bed in the Praia da Luz."
He's sure is he? Not just suspects?
"The friend said Gerry had pondered over the sequence of events that night for four and half painful months. "He believes the abductor came in, opened the door and didn't have time to close it (before Mr McCann arrived)," said the friend."
He's taken four and a half months to come up with this story.
As I say, I don't know what happened that night and I don't know if the McCann's had any involvement in the disappearance of their child; I do know that the stories coming out of the McCann camp now are pure and simple propaganda.
NHS shenanigans
This is one of the most anti-democratic articles that I have read for quite a while on the web. Dr Ray is a consultant radiologist at a hospital in the Welsh borders. He writes that "Yesterday evening I had an insight into the workings of Nulabours "consultation" process on the planned closure of NHS District General Hospitals and replacement with dumbed down polyclinics.
A few weeks ago invitations to attend a public consultation were sent to consultants at our Trust. We were only given one day to reply for the meeting in the near future even though we have to give 6 weeks notice of leave because of "choose and book".
Obviously this meant that most of us could not attend but one consultant did take up the invitation.
The location of the meeting was kept secret until three days before the event and when this consultant was eventually told the location and turned up in Birmingham for the "Citizens Jury" it turned out that medical staff were outnumbered 2:1 by laypeople specifically chosen by an agency to attend the event. The media were present and had obviously been invited to publicise the event.
The delegates were split up into groups and each allocated an electronic voting device. A "minder" was allocated to each group.
Then the stars of the show arrived: Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson and Ara Darzi.
There followed a rapid succession of questions from the podium on which the delegates were asked to vote. The minder was available to suggest the best answer if there was any doubt.
Strangely, almost all the votes were 2:1 in favour of Nulabour's policy. Even the question: "Would you prefer gynaecological surgery to be carried out in your GP practice even if it meant the closure of your DGH facility?" was answered with 2:1 in favour.
Following the "consultation" the medical delegates were told to leave but the other 2/3 of the audience were kept back and each given an envelope. My colleague was intrigued by this and managed to catch one of the "chosen ones" and ask about the contents. Each envelope contained £75 in cash!
So now the consultation is over and the results indicate there is overwhelming public and doctor support for closing down the DGHs. I can only say that the way the voting was done makes the "Blue Peter" voting fraud seem like, well, "Blue Peter".
According to the Downing Street website there are nine more of these "consultations" due around the county. That's an awful lot of people to bribe with taxpayers money, but once they're done the business of closing the DGHs can start in earnest."
Is this true, is this how New Labour will get the results they want from Citizens Juries? Is this what New Labour mean by listening to the people? Do you trust New Labour to actually consult honestly on anything? The sad thing is that I am not really surprised by this story?
UPDATE:
From a Biased BBC comments thread:
"Anonanon:
Many readers of this blog will already be aware of the shenanigans surrounding Gordon Brown's NHS citizen jury in Birmingham (Brown's favourite polling company OLR bussed in "citizens" to support the government's proposals in return for envelopes stuffed with money).
One organisation heavily involved in the promotion of the citizen jury scam is Involve (or "involve" as the logo declares, with lower-case inevitability). Judging by the website this appears to be yet another pro-Labour outfit masquerading as independent.
Involve's director Richard Wilson is an adviser to the Home Office, the Department of Constitutional Affairs, the Department of Health, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the BBC. Head of Research & Development is Stella Creasy, a former Labour councillor and adviser to Douglas Alexander. The rest of the staff all have backgrounds in quangos, unions and big government bureaucracy. For example project manager Edward Andersson has worked for The Environment Council ("a UN-affiliated Lobby Group"), a Swedish Trade Union, and has "delivered participatory processes with the BBC", whatever that means.
The board members are more of the same, ranging from the chairman - sorry, chair - Geoff Mulgan, the Labour party strategist who was Head of Policy in No 10, through to Perry Walker of the left wing think tank the New Economics Foundation.
Involve's funding comes from the "progressive" (ie leftie) Joseph Rowntree Trust, but its projects have also been funded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Home Office, the Department of Communities and Local Government, the DTI, the Scottish Executive, the OECD and the Food Standards Agency. Oh yes, and the BBC.
All very cosy this use of our taxes and licence fee, isn't it?
Anonanon | 23.09.07 - 1:33 pm | # "
A few weeks ago invitations to attend a public consultation were sent to consultants at our Trust. We were only given one day to reply for the meeting in the near future even though we have to give 6 weeks notice of leave because of "choose and book".
Obviously this meant that most of us could not attend but one consultant did take up the invitation.
The location of the meeting was kept secret until three days before the event and when this consultant was eventually told the location and turned up in Birmingham for the "Citizens Jury" it turned out that medical staff were outnumbered 2:1 by laypeople specifically chosen by an agency to attend the event. The media were present and had obviously been invited to publicise the event.
The delegates were split up into groups and each allocated an electronic voting device. A "minder" was allocated to each group.
Then the stars of the show arrived: Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson and Ara Darzi.
There followed a rapid succession of questions from the podium on which the delegates were asked to vote. The minder was available to suggest the best answer if there was any doubt.
Strangely, almost all the votes were 2:1 in favour of Nulabour's policy. Even the question: "Would you prefer gynaecological surgery to be carried out in your GP practice even if it meant the closure of your DGH facility?" was answered with 2:1 in favour.
Following the "consultation" the medical delegates were told to leave but the other 2/3 of the audience were kept back and each given an envelope. My colleague was intrigued by this and managed to catch one of the "chosen ones" and ask about the contents. Each envelope contained £75 in cash!
So now the consultation is over and the results indicate there is overwhelming public and doctor support for closing down the DGHs. I can only say that the way the voting was done makes the "Blue Peter" voting fraud seem like, well, "Blue Peter".
According to the Downing Street website there are nine more of these "consultations" due around the county. That's an awful lot of people to bribe with taxpayers money, but once they're done the business of closing the DGHs can start in earnest."
Is this true, is this how New Labour will get the results they want from Citizens Juries? Is this what New Labour mean by listening to the people? Do you trust New Labour to actually consult honestly on anything? The sad thing is that I am not really surprised by this story?
UPDATE:
From a Biased BBC comments thread:
"Anonanon:
Many readers of this blog will already be aware of the shenanigans surrounding Gordon Brown's NHS citizen jury in Birmingham (Brown's favourite polling company OLR bussed in "citizens" to support the government's proposals in return for envelopes stuffed with money).
One organisation heavily involved in the promotion of the citizen jury scam is Involve (or "involve" as the logo declares, with lower-case inevitability). Judging by the website this appears to be yet another pro-Labour outfit masquerading as independent.
Involve's director Richard Wilson is an adviser to the Home Office, the Department of Constitutional Affairs, the Department of Health, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the BBC. Head of Research & Development is Stella Creasy, a former Labour councillor and adviser to Douglas Alexander. The rest of the staff all have backgrounds in quangos, unions and big government bureaucracy. For example project manager Edward Andersson has worked for The Environment Council ("a UN-affiliated Lobby Group"), a Swedish Trade Union, and has "delivered participatory processes with the BBC", whatever that means.
The board members are more of the same, ranging from the chairman - sorry, chair - Geoff Mulgan, the Labour party strategist who was Head of Policy in No 10, through to Perry Walker of the left wing think tank the New Economics Foundation.
Involve's funding comes from the "progressive" (ie leftie) Joseph Rowntree Trust, but its projects have also been funded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Home Office, the Department of Communities and Local Government, the DTI, the Scottish Executive, the OECD and the Food Standards Agency. Oh yes, and the BBC.
All very cosy this use of our taxes and licence fee, isn't it?
Anonanon | 23.09.07 - 1:33 pm | # "
Tim Henman - a British sporting hero
Tim Henman was the best English male tennis player from 1994 until the arrival of Andy Murray, Greg Rusedski in 1997 may be the exception. I remember following tennis in the 1980's and there was very little to cheer other than Annabel Croft's "form". Tim Henman's ATP end of year rankings from 1994 were: 167 95 29 17 7 11 10 9 8 15 6 36 39. During that period he won 11 ATP tournaments, contrary to the "he never won anything" brigade's claims. In the 1980s English tennis players rarely made it the second week at Wimbledon, Tim Henman's Wimbledon record is from 1994 1R 2R QF QF SF SF 4R SF SF QF QF 2R 2R 2R - that's 1996 to 2004 four semi-final losses, four quarter-final losses and just one fourth round loss. You can add to that a French and a US Open semi-final appearance in 2004 and an Olympic silver medal in the men's doubles in 1996. Tim Henman reached the ranking of Number 4 in the world. Tim Henman's serve and volley style was best suited to Wimbledon where he played his best tennis. Two of his four semi-final losses there were to the then world number one, Pete Sampras and another to Lleyton Hewitt, that year the world number one ranked player. He should have beaten Goran Ivanišević in the 2001 semi-final and came within two points of victory before the rain came again and again. In 2003 he took his first and only ATP Masters Series title, winning the Paris Masters against Andrei Pavel. On the way to the final he beat Nikolay Davydenko, Sébastian Grosjean, Gustavo Kuerten, Roger Federer and Andy Roddick and only lost one set in the entire competition.
I get really angry at the insults aimed at Tim Henman for not being angry enough on court and for not winning anything. As I have pointed out above, he won lots and how many tournaments have the overpaid, over hyped English football team won? They seem to make quarter finals and occasional semi finals and yet they are acclaimed as heroes. As to his lack of anger on court, I think he learned his lesson in 1994 when he was disqualified at Wimbledon in 1994 when he hit a ball in a fit of anger during a doubles match, striking a ball girl on the head. The other angle of attack on Time Henman has been his being middle class, an unforgivable offence for many in New Labour Britain. The insults that I have heard aimed at Tim Henman for being a middle class mummies boy would if aimed at a working class footballer have been described as discriminatory. The fun that "The Now Show" have made of Tim Henman and his fans has been nothing short of disgraceful. It seems that in "modern Britain" it is fine to make fun of middle aged, middle class female tennis supporters and to express disgust at their polite queueing and cries of "come on Tim" but at the same time it is not allowed to question too closely the antics of the many shaven headed, thuggish football fans who drunkenly cause more damage every weekend at football matches all over the country.
As Tim Henman wins his last Davis Cup singles match yesterday and today hits the winner, a fabulous cross-court forehand in the doubles against Croatia, thus taking England into the World Group for the first time since 2003 we should salute a great British sporting hero.
I get really angry at the insults aimed at Tim Henman for not being angry enough on court and for not winning anything. As I have pointed out above, he won lots and how many tournaments have the overpaid, over hyped English football team won? They seem to make quarter finals and occasional semi finals and yet they are acclaimed as heroes. As to his lack of anger on court, I think he learned his lesson in 1994 when he was disqualified at Wimbledon in 1994 when he hit a ball in a fit of anger during a doubles match, striking a ball girl on the head. The other angle of attack on Time Henman has been his being middle class, an unforgivable offence for many in New Labour Britain. The insults that I have heard aimed at Tim Henman for being a middle class mummies boy would if aimed at a working class footballer have been described as discriminatory. The fun that "The Now Show" have made of Tim Henman and his fans has been nothing short of disgraceful. It seems that in "modern Britain" it is fine to make fun of middle aged, middle class female tennis supporters and to express disgust at their polite queueing and cries of "come on Tim" but at the same time it is not allowed to question too closely the antics of the many shaven headed, thuggish football fans who drunkenly cause more damage every weekend at football matches all over the country.
As Tim Henman wins his last Davis Cup singles match yesterday and today hits the winner, a fabulous cross-court forehand in the doubles against Croatia, thus taking England into the World Group for the first time since 2003 we should salute a great British sporting hero.
President Ahmadinejad of Iran visits New York
The dean of Columbia University's school of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson, invited the Iranian President, Mr Ahmadinejad, to speak at the World Leader's Forum, a year-long program that aims to unite "renowned intellectuals and cultural icons from many nations to examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives." A staggering thing to do? Well Columbia University has form in the area of inviting representatives of anti-semitic regimes to speak at their University. In 1933 Columbia University invited a representative of the Nazi government in Germany to speak at the University, you can read an article on this visit here. "in 1933, Columbia president Nicholas Murray Butler invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, to speak on campus, and also hosted a reception for him. Luther represented "the government of a friendly people," Butler insisted. He was "entitled to be received ... with the greatest courtesy and respect." Ambassador Luther's speech focused on what he characterized as Hitler's peaceful intentions. Students who criticized the Luther invitation were derided as “ill-mannered children” by the director of Columbia’s Institute of Arts and Sciences...Columbia also insisted on maintaining friendly relations with Nazi-controlled German universities. While Williams College terminated its program of student exchanges with Nazi Germany, Columbia and other universities declined to do likewise. Columbia refused to pull out even after a German official candidly asserted that his country’s students were being sent abroad to serve as “political soldiers of the Reich.”
In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg. This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors. Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was “very enjoyable.”"
Of course Columbia was not unique in inviting representatives of Nazi Germany to speak at American Universities, Harvard, MIT and Princeton all did likewise. The difference is that these other universities seem to have learnt the lesson of the 1930's whilst Columbia has not. According to Israel’s ambassador, inviting Ahmadinejad to speak is the equivalent of “inviting Hitler to [speak] in the 1930s,” because “appeasing fanatics and granting them legitimacy leads to genocide and war.” Will some future Columbia president one day look back at the invitation to Ahmadinejad and say the same thing? I hope not but fear it may be the case.
It appears that the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, yesterday withdrew the invitation to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Mr. Bollinger said he canceled Mr. Ahmadinejad's invitation because he couldn't be certain it would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum." He told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Ahmadinejad could speak at the school of international and public affairs, just not as a part of the university-wide leader's forum. That is something but appeasement was not the answer in the 1930's and I don't believe it is the answer now.
It appears that President Ahmadinejad also asked to visit Ground Zero during his visit and this request provoked the response that he wanted, that is lots of anger that a supporter of terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and elsewhere and a vehement enemy of the USA wanted to visit the site of the Twin Towers' destruction by Islamic terrorists in 2001.
In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg. This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors. Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was “very enjoyable.”"
Of course Columbia was not unique in inviting representatives of Nazi Germany to speak at American Universities, Harvard, MIT and Princeton all did likewise. The difference is that these other universities seem to have learnt the lesson of the 1930's whilst Columbia has not. According to Israel’s ambassador, inviting Ahmadinejad to speak is the equivalent of “inviting Hitler to [speak] in the 1930s,” because “appeasing fanatics and granting them legitimacy leads to genocide and war.” Will some future Columbia president one day look back at the invitation to Ahmadinejad and say the same thing? I hope not but fear it may be the case.
It appears that the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, yesterday withdrew the invitation to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Mr. Bollinger said he canceled Mr. Ahmadinejad's invitation because he couldn't be certain it would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum." He told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Ahmadinejad could speak at the school of international and public affairs, just not as a part of the university-wide leader's forum. That is something but appeasement was not the answer in the 1930's and I don't believe it is the answer now.
It appears that President Ahmadinejad also asked to visit Ground Zero during his visit and this request provoked the response that he wanted, that is lots of anger that a supporter of terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and elsewhere and a vehement enemy of the USA wanted to visit the site of the Twin Towers' destruction by Islamic terrorists in 2001.
Rugby World Cup
I missed the World Cup victory in 2003 as I was on an airplane, so I am less than happy at being able to watch England's "performances" this time around. To cheer me and you up, try this rugby related cartoon - 
News from the Lebanon
The Lebanon is an unfortunate country, what was once the Paris of the East is in a geographically important position and suffers from having powerful neighbours and a very mixed population. Interestingly the population split in the Lebanon is unknown because they have not held a census since 1932 because of sensitivity/controversy over the religious makeup of the population. It is estimated that the Lebanese population is now about 60% Muslim and 40% Christian. Wikipedia states that "Lebanon is a parliamentary, democratic republic, which implements a special system known as confessionalism. This system, meant to insure that sectarian conflict is kept at bay, attempts to fairly represent the demographic distribution of religious sects in the governing body. As such, high-ranking offices in the government are reserved for members of specific religious groups. The President, for example, has to be a Maronite Catholic Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister an Orthodox Christian, and the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim. The Lebanese parliament building at the Place de l'ÉtoileThis trend continues in the distribution of the 128 parliamentary seats, which are divided proportionally between Muslims and Christians. Prior to 1990, the ratio stood at 6:5 in favor of Christians; however, the Taif Accord, which put an end to the 1975-1990 civil war, adjusted the ratio to grant equal representation to followers of the two religions. According to the constitution, direct elections must be held for the parliament every four years, although for much of Lebanon’s recent history, civil war precluded the exercise of this right."
Lebanon's main problem is its neighbours, it's Southern neighbour is Israel but its more dangerous neighbour is to the East and North, Syria. Syria has increasingly wanted Lebanon as under its control, as it was prior to independence from France in the 1940's. Syria has been meddling in Lebanon's affairs for many years but recently this has reached serious levels. On February 14 2005 the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut. Syria was accused of carrying out the attack due to rift between Hariri and Damascus over the Syrian-backed constitutional amendment extending pro-Syrian President Lahoud's term in office. The assassination of Hariri marked the beginning of a series of assassination attempts that led to the loss of many prominent Lebanese figures.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously called for an investigation into the assassination of Rafik Hariri. The findings of this investigation suggested the assassination was carried out by a group with considerable resources, that it had been prepared many months in advance, and that the group had detailed knowledge of Hariri’s movements. This investigation into the Hariri assassination is ongoing and has yet to be concluded. The United Nations Security Council and the Lebanese cabinet have approved a Special Tribunal for Lebanon that would prosecute those responsible for Hariri's death. On February 28 2005, with over 50,000 people demonstrating in Martyrs' Square, Prime Minister Omar Karami and his Cabinet resigned. In response, Hezbollah organized a large counter-demonstration attended by hundreds of thousands of people, supporting Syria and accusing Israel and the United States of meddling in internal Lebanese affairs. On March 14 2005, one month after Hariri's assassination, throngs of people rallied in Martyrs' Square in Lebanon with around 1 million people. Protesters marched demanding the truth about Hariri's murder and independence from Syrian presence in Lebanon. The march reiterated their desire for a sovereign, democratic, and unified country, free of Syria's hegemony.
In the weeks following the demonstrations, bombs were detonated in Christian areas near Beirut. Although the damage was mostly material, these acts threatened to drag Lebanon back into sectarian strife. Eventually, and under pressure from the international community, Syria began withdrawing its 15,000 army from Lebanon. By April 26 2005, all uniformed Syrian soldiers had already crossed the border back to Syria. On April 27 2005, anti-Syrian Lebanese celebrated their first free-from-Syria day. UN forces led by Senegalese Brig. Gen. Mouhamadou Kandji and Lebanese Brig. Gen. Imad Anka were sent to Lebanon to verify the military withdrawal which was mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1559. During the first parliamentary elections held after Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2005, the anti-Syrian coalition of Sunni Muslim, Druze and Christian parties led by Saad Hariri, son of assassinated ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, won a majority of seats in the new Parliament.The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), though not allied with the Rafik Hariri Martyr List during the elections, garnered strong representation in the newly elected Parliament. The political alliances were interesting in that in some areas the anti-Syrian coalition allied with Hezbollah and in others with Amal. They did not win the two-thirds majority required to force the resignation of Syrian-appointed President Lahoud voted for by Rafik Hariri parliamentary bloc, due to the unexpectedly strong showing of formerly exiled General Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement party in Mount Lebanon. Despite being staunchly anti-Syrian during his 15-year exile, upon his return Aoun aligned himself with politicians who were friendly to the Syrians in the past decade: Soleiman Franjieh Jr and Michel Murr. Their alliance dominated the north and the Matn District of Mount Lebanon. Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt joined forces with the two staunchly pro-Syrian Shiite movements, Hezbollah and Amal, to secure major wins in the South, Beqaa, as well as the Baabda and Aley districts of Mount Lebanon. This alliance proved temporary. On February 6, 2006 Hezbollah signed an understanding of disarmament with Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement. After the elections, Hariri's Future Movement party, now the country's dominant political force, nominated Fouad Siniora, a former Finance Minister, to be Prime Minister.His newly formed representative government has obtained the vote of confidence from the parliament. On July 18 2005, Lebanon elected a new parliament dominated by an anti-Syrian coalition. This parliament approved a motion to free Samir Geagea, leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces, who had spent most of the past eleven years in solitary confinement in an underground cell with no access to news. The motion was endorsed by pro-Syrian Lebanese President Émile Lahoud the next day. (The above section quotes liberally from Wikipedia)
What has happened now is that another Christian politician has been killed by a car bomb. Antoine Ghanem, 64, a member of the Right-wing Christian Phalange Party, was killed along with eight other people in the attack in a Christian suburb of Beirut. He was the eighth prominent anti-Syrian figure assassinated since 2005 and the attack came just six days before parliament was scheduled to meet to elect a new president in a deeply divisive vote.
This assassination is aimed at preventing any elections from taking place and at distracting world attention from Syria's weapons programme, a plan that took a severe knock on 6 September - see my article on Syria.
Lebanon's main problem is its neighbours, it's Southern neighbour is Israel but its more dangerous neighbour is to the East and North, Syria. Syria has increasingly wanted Lebanon as under its control, as it was prior to independence from France in the 1940's. Syria has been meddling in Lebanon's affairs for many years but recently this has reached serious levels. On February 14 2005 the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut. Syria was accused of carrying out the attack due to rift between Hariri and Damascus over the Syrian-backed constitutional amendment extending pro-Syrian President Lahoud's term in office. The assassination of Hariri marked the beginning of a series of assassination attempts that led to the loss of many prominent Lebanese figures.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously called for an investigation into the assassination of Rafik Hariri. The findings of this investigation suggested the assassination was carried out by a group with considerable resources, that it had been prepared many months in advance, and that the group had detailed knowledge of Hariri’s movements. This investigation into the Hariri assassination is ongoing and has yet to be concluded. The United Nations Security Council and the Lebanese cabinet have approved a Special Tribunal for Lebanon that would prosecute those responsible for Hariri's death. On February 28 2005, with over 50,000 people demonstrating in Martyrs' Square, Prime Minister Omar Karami and his Cabinet resigned. In response, Hezbollah organized a large counter-demonstration attended by hundreds of thousands of people, supporting Syria and accusing Israel and the United States of meddling in internal Lebanese affairs. On March 14 2005, one month after Hariri's assassination, throngs of people rallied in Martyrs' Square in Lebanon with around 1 million people. Protesters marched demanding the truth about Hariri's murder and independence from Syrian presence in Lebanon. The march reiterated their desire for a sovereign, democratic, and unified country, free of Syria's hegemony.
In the weeks following the demonstrations, bombs were detonated in Christian areas near Beirut. Although the damage was mostly material, these acts threatened to drag Lebanon back into sectarian strife. Eventually, and under pressure from the international community, Syria began withdrawing its 15,000 army from Lebanon. By April 26 2005, all uniformed Syrian soldiers had already crossed the border back to Syria. On April 27 2005, anti-Syrian Lebanese celebrated their first free-from-Syria day. UN forces led by Senegalese Brig. Gen. Mouhamadou Kandji and Lebanese Brig. Gen. Imad Anka were sent to Lebanon to verify the military withdrawal which was mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1559. During the first parliamentary elections held after Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2005, the anti-Syrian coalition of Sunni Muslim, Druze and Christian parties led by Saad Hariri, son of assassinated ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, won a majority of seats in the new Parliament.The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), though not allied with the Rafik Hariri Martyr List during the elections, garnered strong representation in the newly elected Parliament. The political alliances were interesting in that in some areas the anti-Syrian coalition allied with Hezbollah and in others with Amal. They did not win the two-thirds majority required to force the resignation of Syrian-appointed President Lahoud voted for by Rafik Hariri parliamentary bloc, due to the unexpectedly strong showing of formerly exiled General Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement party in Mount Lebanon. Despite being staunchly anti-Syrian during his 15-year exile, upon his return Aoun aligned himself with politicians who were friendly to the Syrians in the past decade: Soleiman Franjieh Jr and Michel Murr. Their alliance dominated the north and the Matn District of Mount Lebanon. Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt joined forces with the two staunchly pro-Syrian Shiite movements, Hezbollah and Amal, to secure major wins in the South, Beqaa, as well as the Baabda and Aley districts of Mount Lebanon. This alliance proved temporary. On February 6, 2006 Hezbollah signed an understanding of disarmament with Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement. After the elections, Hariri's Future Movement party, now the country's dominant political force, nominated Fouad Siniora, a former Finance Minister, to be Prime Minister.His newly formed representative government has obtained the vote of confidence from the parliament. On July 18 2005, Lebanon elected a new parliament dominated by an anti-Syrian coalition. This parliament approved a motion to free Samir Geagea, leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces, who had spent most of the past eleven years in solitary confinement in an underground cell with no access to news. The motion was endorsed by pro-Syrian Lebanese President Émile Lahoud the next day. (The above section quotes liberally from Wikipedia)
What has happened now is that another Christian politician has been killed by a car bomb. Antoine Ghanem, 64, a member of the Right-wing Christian Phalange Party, was killed along with eight other people in the attack in a Christian suburb of Beirut. He was the eighth prominent anti-Syrian figure assassinated since 2005 and the attack came just six days before parliament was scheduled to meet to elect a new president in a deeply divisive vote.
This assassination is aimed at preventing any elections from taking place and at distracting world attention from Syria's weapons programme, a plan that took a severe knock on 6 September - see my article on Syria.
Friday, 21 September 2007
Get lost (reprise)
One of my first posts back in May concerned the European Gallileo project. It now appears that "The British Government, along with every other EU state, signed up to the principle of Galileo in 2000 on the basis that it would be co-funded with industry in a public-private partnership. The original plan was for taxpayers to finance for the first four satellites, and industry to pay for two thirds of the costs of the next 26.
The project was allocated €1 billion (about £700 million) in the current EU budget. But the complete withdrawal of funding from commercial companies has left Galileo in urgent need of a further €2.4 billion to stay on schedule for completion by 2012. With just one satellite in orbit, four more need to be launched as soon as possible to get the system back on track.
Britain has found itself powerless to stop the spiralling costs – initially €915 million – because all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects – including France, Germany, Italy and Spain – have consistently voted in favour."
So now the French have decided to bail out the project with a €2.1 billion raid on the EU farming budget. This would of course break many EU budgetary rules and set an alarming precedent. However, with European prestige and Gallic pride at stake the French government has won the backing of the European Commission to use public money.
How is this possible you may ask? The answer is that all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, have consistently voted in favour.
The project was allocated €1 billion (about £700 million) in the current EU budget. But the complete withdrawal of funding from commercial companies has left Galileo in urgent need of a further €2.4 billion to stay on schedule for completion by 2012. With just one satellite in orbit, four more need to be launched as soon as possible to get the system back on track.
Britain has found itself powerless to stop the spiralling costs – initially €915 million – because all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects – including France, Germany, Italy and Spain – have consistently voted in favour."
So now the French have decided to bail out the project with a €2.1 billion raid on the EU farming budget. This would of course break many EU budgetary rules and set an alarming precedent. However, with European prestige and Gallic pride at stake the French government has won the backing of the European Commission to use public money.
How is this possible you may ask? The answer is that all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, have consistently voted in favour.
Boris Johnson's web site
If you are looking for Boris Johnson's web site today you will not find it. http://www.boris-johnson.com/ has disappeared. Why? Well the answer is most intriguing and can be found at Iain Dale's Diary: In Support of Tim Ireland and Craig Murray#links#links. Most intriguing and worrying.
UPDATE: This story is all over the blogosphere but not being covered much by the MSM, I wonder why? You can read more and find more links here and here.
UPDATE: This story is all over the blogosphere but not being covered much by the MSM, I wonder why? You can read more and find more links here and here.
The coming General Election
Next week is the Conservative Party Conference, I think that in contrast to their generally favourable coverage of Menzies Cambell's speech and the Liberal Democrat's conference in general the BBC will be covering the Conservative conference rather more critically and especially questioning the leadership of David Cameron and the presence of splits within the party over grammar schools and Europe. The Labour government need a resurgent Liberal Democrat party to reduce Conservative gains in the coming election and the BBC will oblige their masters.
I have a feeling that Gordon Brown may be readying himself to announce a snap election and may do so on the day of David Cameron's conference speech so taking the spotlight away from David Cameron and rousing the spirits of his party. Announcing an election then would also reduce the chances of opposition to his policies being voiced at the Labour conference.
Of course the main reason to call an election now is that the economy is on the edge of disaster and the economic and political climate will not be as positive for a long while.
I have a feeling that Gordon Brown may be readying himself to announce a snap election and may do so on the day of David Cameron's conference speech so taking the spotlight away from David Cameron and rousing the spirits of his party. Announcing an election then would also reduce the chances of opposition to his policies being voiced at the Labour conference.
Of course the main reason to call an election now is that the economy is on the edge of disaster and the economic and political climate will not be as positive for a long while.
Problem getting a mortgage?
There I was siting at home indulging in some light blogging when my home telephone rings. It is a recorded message from Britain's largest mortgage advisor offering to help me get a mortgage if I have ever had problems getting a mortgage in the past. Apparently this company specialises in helping people with a poor credit history get a mortgage. Bearing in mind the sub-prime problems in the USA and the coming financial storm in the UK, does anybody think this type of marketing is wise?
The blame game and Gordon Brown's "big tent"
Another oddity in this affair were the comments of Andy Burnham, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. When he was asked on Monday whether the government would "guarantee 100% of all bank deposits", he replied that it would be "the wrong thing" for politicians to get involved "in that way". An unusually straight answer for a Labour Minister, he must have been very sure of the answer indeed. Unfortunately, within an hour his boss Alistair Darling had done exactly what Andy Burnham had said would be "the wrong thing" and had issued the 100% guarantee.
I am not convinced by Mervyn King's evidence to the Treasury Select Committee yesterday, there seems to be too much evidence pointing to the involvement of Number 11 and hence Number 10 in the decision to support Northern Rock. One of Mervyn King's comments regarding the guarantee was interesting "my understanding...as far as I know" was odd from the man who was supposed to have been in charge and to have made the decision. He was also careful to say that the decision was a tripartite one involving the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England. He also appeared to be careful not to be 100% clear over whose idea the 100% guarantee had been. I suppose if we are lucky we may find out the truth in 20 years time. In the meantime, this Labour Government will sail serenely on protected by the BBC and tame journalists from any hard questioning. Gordon's "big tent" will expand as we slip towards one party rule.
I have just taken a look at the BBC UK news home page and the Northern Rock affair has disappeared completely. I moved onto the BBC UK business page and there we have "The City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, is next to be quizzed by MPs on Northern Rock's problems" and more on Mervyn King - "Has Mervyn King" done enough?". The giving of "independence" to the Bank of England in 1997 was a masterstroke, suddenly the Treasury and the Government have no responsibility for anything going wrong with the banking sector of the economy.
Of course one source of criticism of the Government has been noticeably silent, the Conservative Party. George Osborne should be doing a tour of the media attacking Gordon Brown's economic record not sitting quietly admiring his tasteful wallpaper. I would like to see John Redwood being used to attack the Government's economic policy, he actually understamnds what has been happening and can articulate it. Unfortunately the BBC have destroyed his credibility by showing "that video" so many times. Take a look at John Redwood's web site there are many excellent articles on the Northern Rock crisis which are extremely well and intelligently written, I wish I could write as well as he does.
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Protesting at ‘the Islamisation of Europe’ in Brussels
Please read this article from the excellent Archbishop Cranmer.
I was wondering why the Mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, would clamp down so hard against a peaceful demonstration against the Islamisation of Europ but then I started to read about the political problems in Belgium, the deepening splits between the French and Walloon parts of the country and finally I read this article which explains that "Already, the Mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, presides over a ruling Socialist Party caucus, ten of whose seventeen members are Muslim."
I was wondering why the Mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, would clamp down so hard against a peaceful demonstration against the Islamisation of Europ but then I started to read about the political problems in Belgium, the deepening splits between the French and Walloon parts of the country and finally I read this article which explains that "Already, the Mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, presides over a ruling Socialist Party caucus, ten of whose seventeen members are Muslim."
A message from the Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, sent a greeting to Jewish Communities at the start of the festival of Rosh Hashanah, marking the start of the Jewish New Year. He sent this message last Tuesday, 11 September, I didn't notice any publicity about the message, maybe the BBC were upset by this paragraph "I sincerely hope that all that may have marred the year past – a rising level of anti-semitic incidents and the anxieties and insecurities arising from conflict in the Middle East – will be alleviated in the coming year. I particularly hope and pray for the return of Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev to their families."
After all to the BBC mind, reminding everyone of the captured Israeli soldiers is in such poor taste and might distract from the real issue of the perpetual persecution of the Palestinians by the nasty Israelis and their supporters the USA.
You can read the whole of the Archbishop's greeting here.
After all to the BBC mind, reminding everyone of the captured Israeli soldiers is in such poor taste and might distract from the real issue of the perpetual persecution of the Palestinians by the nasty Israelis and their supporters the USA.
You can read the whole of the Archbishop's greeting here.
BBC fixing
There has been a lot of coverage of more allegations of BBC fixing phone-ins etc over the past few weeks, please see Biased-BBC for more details. One small item has tickled my fancy yesterday and today; there was a story that Blue Peter had asked viewers to vote on the name to be applied to the new BBC cat. However it was the name that came second in the poll that was declared the winner - Socks. So what was the name that won the poll that couldn't be used? I am pleased to report that Mrs Slocombe would be most happy that Pussy was the winning name. So do Blue Peter viewers have no originality or are they possessed of an incredible sense of juvenile fun or maybe "Are you being served?" is more popular that I thought amongst 7-13 year children.
UPDATE: What a shame, the winning name wasn't Pussy but Cookie.
UPDATE: What a shame, the winning name wasn't Pussy but Cookie.
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
and I thought I was paranoid
This is a comment on Guido Fawkes today - "Anonymous said...
One thing to think about at least is this.
Lets imagine that Gordon Brown is really an UNREFORMED Neo Marxist on a serious long term mission.
Is it possible he has long engineered this crisis as an excuse to 'very radically change' the banking system?
Think about it how else can he possible get out of the hole he has long since been digging?
Why else dig the hole in the first place if there was no planned punch line when the spade busts?
The BBC will not blame Gordon Brown they will blame the Free market system, long enough to make this smallish crisis into an almost complete national financial collapse followed by a massive devaluation of the "pound in your pocket."
Gordon Brown will then at this point come up with the only solution that will by then make any sense to the otherwise soon to be homeless and or bankrupt large section of the British electorate.
A government of national unity with Gordo the terrible at its dictatorial head.
This country will by this time be effectively a one party state with a central government power base to die for, and a government owned banking system to hold it all up.
Perfect time to then turn his head to Europe for more of the same.
Now that could all just be a load of crap, but there again is any one completely sure these days that it is not?
4:13 AM, September 19, 2007"
Hmm now I am in great fear of what Gordon Brown might be up to but even I had not considered this theory, I shall mull it over today...
One thing to think about at least is this.
Lets imagine that Gordon Brown is really an UNREFORMED Neo Marxist on a serious long term mission.
Is it possible he has long engineered this crisis as an excuse to 'very radically change' the banking system?
Think about it how else can he possible get out of the hole he has long since been digging?
Why else dig the hole in the first place if there was no planned punch line when the spade busts?
The BBC will not blame Gordon Brown they will blame the Free market system, long enough to make this smallish crisis into an almost complete national financial collapse followed by a massive devaluation of the "pound in your pocket."
Gordon Brown will then at this point come up with the only solution that will by then make any sense to the otherwise soon to be homeless and or bankrupt large section of the British electorate.
A government of national unity with Gordo the terrible at its dictatorial head.
This country will by this time be effectively a one party state with a central government power base to die for, and a government owned banking system to hold it all up.
Perfect time to then turn his head to Europe for more of the same.
Now that could all just be a load of crap, but there again is any one completely sure these days that it is not?
4:13 AM, September 19, 2007"
Hmm now I am in great fear of what Gordon Brown might be up to but even I had not considered this theory, I shall mull it over today...
PC Copperfield
For the rest of the week you can watch the Panorama programme "Wasting Police Time" with PC Copperfield from a link here.
A letter you should read and my reaction
From yesterday's Daily Telegraph a letter from Winston S. Churchill reads as follows:
"Islamist danger
Sir – Britain sends some of the finest and most courageous of their generation to risk their lives and spill their blood chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But who, meanwhile, is guarding our homeland?
A recent police report makes clear that, back here in Britain the Deobandi – the very same Islamist sect responsible for spawning the Taliban in Afghanistan – has succeeded in taking over more than 600 of Britain's 1,350 mosques. In addition, it controls 17 of Britain's 26 Islamic seminaries and produces 80 per cent of Britain's home-trained Islamic clerics.
It's a funny old world, as Margaret Thatcher once famously remarked. Except that this is no laughing matter. Not for 70 years has there been a more clear or present danger to our internal security, to our free society and to our democracy, than that posed by this vipers' nest in our midst. The Deobandi, an ultra- conservative sect, outlaws music, art, television and football, and also demands the entire concealment of women.
According to the Lancashire Council of Mosques, the Deobandi has now taken control of 59 out of 75 mosques in the old Lancashire mill towns of Oldham, Preston, Bury, Blackburn and Burnley. While not all Deobandis are extremist, leading preachers of this sect aim to radicalise the Islamic youth of Britain, and to mobilise them against our society and the freedoms we hold so dear.
When will the Government wake up to this mortal threat which – if not swiftly dealt with – threatens to bring strife and bloodshed to the streets of Britain on a scale far exceeding anything seen in the bombings of recent years?
Why are Gordon Brown and David Cameron, indeed our entire political class, so deafeningly silent on this, the most pressing matter confronting Britain today? Who will help the moderate majority of Muslims maintain control of their mosques? Who will safeguard the homeland?
Winston S. Churchill, London SW1"
I have been predicting for a few years now that by 2020 some of our northern towns, such as Burnley and Oldham, would be run under a system of Sharia law as well as the law of the United Kingdom. Three years ago my more "right on" friends said I was mad to think this was possible, later they said I was massively exaggerating the situation, more recently they said maybe Sharia law running alongside United Kingdom law wouldn't be too bad and anyway it won't affect us in London, now they look a little more worried...
"Islamist danger
Sir – Britain sends some of the finest and most courageous of their generation to risk their lives and spill their blood chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But who, meanwhile, is guarding our homeland?
A recent police report makes clear that, back here in Britain the Deobandi – the very same Islamist sect responsible for spawning the Taliban in Afghanistan – has succeeded in taking over more than 600 of Britain's 1,350 mosques. In addition, it controls 17 of Britain's 26 Islamic seminaries and produces 80 per cent of Britain's home-trained Islamic clerics.
It's a funny old world, as Margaret Thatcher once famously remarked. Except that this is no laughing matter. Not for 70 years has there been a more clear or present danger to our internal security, to our free society and to our democracy, than that posed by this vipers' nest in our midst. The Deobandi, an ultra- conservative sect, outlaws music, art, television and football, and also demands the entire concealment of women.
According to the Lancashire Council of Mosques, the Deobandi has now taken control of 59 out of 75 mosques in the old Lancashire mill towns of Oldham, Preston, Bury, Blackburn and Burnley. While not all Deobandis are extremist, leading preachers of this sect aim to radicalise the Islamic youth of Britain, and to mobilise them against our society and the freedoms we hold so dear.
When will the Government wake up to this mortal threat which – if not swiftly dealt with – threatens to bring strife and bloodshed to the streets of Britain on a scale far exceeding anything seen in the bombings of recent years?
Why are Gordon Brown and David Cameron, indeed our entire political class, so deafeningly silent on this, the most pressing matter confronting Britain today? Who will help the moderate majority of Muslims maintain control of their mosques? Who will safeguard the homeland?
Winston S. Churchill, London SW1"
I have been predicting for a few years now that by 2020 some of our northern towns, such as Burnley and Oldham, would be run under a system of Sharia law as well as the law of the United Kingdom. Three years ago my more "right on" friends said I was mad to think this was possible, later they said I was massively exaggerating the situation, more recently they said maybe Sharia law running alongside United Kingdom law wouldn't be too bad and anyway it won't affect us in London, now they look a little more worried...
Monday, 17 September 2007
I agree with a Liberal Democrat!!!
This article made me agree with a Lib Dem spokesman, in this case Vincent Cable. He said today that Gordon Brown's attempts to recruit politicians from other parties is a "threat to democracy". Mr Cable said the "offer from Gordon Brown to join the big tent" had to be rejected. He added: "What he's doing is not just a threat to us or the Tories but a threat to democracy, an attempt to stifle democracy. "He's trying to create a permanent dominance. That's something we can fight."
An undercover policeman missed
I wanted to watch Panorama tonight but Mrs NotaSheep wanted to watch Nigella Express; we watched Nigella! I will catch PC Copperfield tomorrow morning. In the meantime here are my impressions of the Nigella programme, and impression is the key word as it seems that Nigella was doing an impression of Roni Ancona doing an impression of Nigella Lawson. Smiley, smiley, smiley; most peculiar.
Whilst looking for a piece of video of Ronia Ancona doing an impression of Nigella Lawson I found this unexpected forum with this extract - "What if your were lucky enough to pull someone like Nigella (or Roni Ancona as Nigella) at a nightclub?
You might take her home, go to bed then find out that in fact, she's a rubbish shag. She might just lie there like a sack of tatties while you're giving it laldy, refusing to go doggies because "it's dirty" or worst still, absolutely refusing access to "the tradesmans" for biblical reasons (and that's just plain unacceptable).
Christ, you might go back to her's for a snog and not even get the tit." Well it made me laugh, and Mrs NotaSheep.
This was another link I found, I love the Internet... you never know what you will find.
Whilst looking for a piece of video of Ronia Ancona doing an impression of Nigella Lawson I found this unexpected forum with this extract - "What if your were lucky enough to pull someone like Nigella (or Roni Ancona as Nigella) at a nightclub?
You might take her home, go to bed then find out that in fact, she's a rubbish shag. She might just lie there like a sack of tatties while you're giving it laldy, refusing to go doggies because "it's dirty" or worst still, absolutely refusing access to "the tradesmans" for biblical reasons (and that's just plain unacceptable).
Christ, you might go back to her's for a snog and not even get the tit." Well it made me laugh, and Mrs NotaSheep.
This was another link I found, I love the Internet... you never know what you will find.
Tilt shift photography
I saw an article in the Sunday papers the other week about a really interesting photographic technique, tilt shift. I found it quite tricky to understand the technique which involves adjusting the focus and depth of field to make the image of a real location or object look like a photograph of a scale model miniature. By distorting the focus of the photo, the artist fools the eye into believing that the distances in the photograph are much smaller than they really are. Tricky to understand but easy to appreciate if you look at the work of Naoki Honje which will be exhibited from September 28th at Paul Smith's Albemarle Street shop, the exhibition is called "Small Planet". Here are two examples -
There were some lovely tilt shift photos of London in the article but I cannot find them on the web and have lost the original article - can anyone help me locate them?
There are some other photographers taking this sort of photograph, you can see examples of their work here , here and some more from Noki Honge here.
There were some lovely tilt shift photos of London in the article but I cannot find them on the web and have lost the original article - can anyone help me locate them?
There are some other photographers taking this sort of photograph, you can see examples of their work here , here and some more from Noki Honge here.
Where's Gordon
Surely our brave Prime Minister should be out and about reassuring the public as to the state of the economy after all it's his policies that have brought us to edge of the financial abyss.
The economy is FUBAR (part 3)
I have been looking at various news forums to see what the general public have to say about the Northern Rock affair, this comment on the BBC seemed quite pithy - "Gordon Brown is to blame for this situation. he knew if getting finance was easy, people would borrow more and more, creating a false and deluded feeling that the country was prospering and all was well under labour. House prices soar, and he gets more revenue from inheritance tax and stamp duties. Well, the Party is almost over, Here comes the Hangover!! Martin Saunders, Bournemouth"
I think he meant "party" rather than "Party" but maybe he has something!
I think he meant "party" rather than "Party" but maybe he has something!
Israel v Hizbullah and the power of the press
I thought you might be interested in this article from Gateway Pundit on the ending of the war between Israel and Hizbullah last year.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Council of Britain and other matters jihadi
The Muslim Brotherhood is an organisation that has its origins in 1928 Egypt and a very questionable present but my attention has been drawn to this article that reminds me that in 1991 the FBI found out more than enough about the Muslim Brotherhood but took no action. The document they discovered 16 years ago was an "explanatory memorandum," which outlined the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph: "The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack."
The entire 18 page platform outlines a plan for the long haul. It sets out the Muslim Brotherhood's comprehensive plan to set down roots in civil society. Back to the Dallas News "It begins by both founding and taking control of American Muslim organizations, for the sake of unifying and educating the U.S. Muslim community – this to prepare it for the establishment of a global Islamic state governed by sharia.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory out of a bad Hollywood movie – but it's real. Husain Haqqani, head of Boston University's Center for International Relations and a former Islamic radical, confirms that the Brotherhood "has run most significant Muslim organizations in the U.S." as part of the plan outlined in the strategy paper."
"The HLF trial is exposing for the first time how the international Muslim Brotherhood – whose Palestinian division is Hamas – operates as a self-conscious revolutionary vanguard in the United States. The court documents indicate that many leading Muslim-American organizations – including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim American Society – are an integral part of the Brotherhood's efforts to wage jihad against America by nonviolent means.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an affiliation of at least 70 Islamist organizations around the world, all tracing their heritage to the original cell, founded in Egypt in 1928. Its credo: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." Sayyid Qutb, hanged by the Egyptian government in 1966 as a revolutionary, remains its ideological godfather. His best-known work, Milestones, calls for Muslims to wage violent holy war until Islamic law governs the entire world."
The key here is that it has taken many years of pressure by various experts on the Islamic threat to the West for the Main Stream Media to acknowledge that there are demands for a return to the caliphate in Muslim lands. Still interviewers and presenters fail to ask what is a Muslim land. They allow the Islamist interviewee to say Muslim lands and move on. The inconvenient truth is that Muslim lands are anywhere that has ever been Muslim territory. Just as no building that has ever been a Mosque can be used as anything other than a Mosque, so any land that has been ruled as Muslim land is considered as Muslim land.
At this point you might want to read an earlier article where I include Hassan Butt's explanation of what motivates British jihadis - "though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice."
"How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?
There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.
Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.
For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).
Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world."
"Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.
In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians. "
It is not enough to glibly say that Islam is the Religion of Peace. There are Islamists who use the Qur’aan to justify their murderous attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel & the Palestinians, Chechnya are all red herrings - the truth is out there, go look.
This links in with another article I wrote about the language used by Inayat Bunglawala and Muhammad Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain (incidentally why not Great Britain and what about Northern Ireland?) when they are asked for their opinion or that of the Qur’aan on acts of terrorism. They say something along the lines of "We condemn the killing of all innocent people wherever they are" or "Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity." The key word is "innocent" as we heard during the trial of the thwarted terrorist Jawad Akbar, who planned to commit slaughter on the Ministry of Sound's dance floor, "No one can turn around and say, 'Oh, they were innocent', those slags dancing around. Do you understand what I mean?" So in his view these were not innocent people, how about in the view of Inayat Bunglawala and Muhammad Abdul Bari? The follow-up question that is never asked of these representatives of the MCB is "are those people who don't pray to Allah five times a day and who don't follow the tenets of Islam, innocent?".
I am not saying that Muhammad Abdul Bari or Inayat Bunglawala are terrorists, I am not saying that they support terrorism within the UK; however I am saying that the question "in your view and in the word of the Qur’aan, what types of people are innocent and what types of people are not innocent?" should be asked of, and answered, by them.
The entire 18 page platform outlines a plan for the long haul. It sets out the Muslim Brotherhood's comprehensive plan to set down roots in civil society. Back to the Dallas News "It begins by both founding and taking control of American Muslim organizations, for the sake of unifying and educating the U.S. Muslim community – this to prepare it for the establishment of a global Islamic state governed by sharia.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory out of a bad Hollywood movie – but it's real. Husain Haqqani, head of Boston University's Center for International Relations and a former Islamic radical, confirms that the Brotherhood "has run most significant Muslim organizations in the U.S." as part of the plan outlined in the strategy paper."
"The HLF trial is exposing for the first time how the international Muslim Brotherhood – whose Palestinian division is Hamas – operates as a self-conscious revolutionary vanguard in the United States. The court documents indicate that many leading Muslim-American organizations – including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim American Society – are an integral part of the Brotherhood's efforts to wage jihad against America by nonviolent means.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an affiliation of at least 70 Islamist organizations around the world, all tracing their heritage to the original cell, founded in Egypt in 1928. Its credo: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." Sayyid Qutb, hanged by the Egyptian government in 1966 as a revolutionary, remains its ideological godfather. His best-known work, Milestones, calls for Muslims to wage violent holy war until Islamic law governs the entire world."
The key here is that it has taken many years of pressure by various experts on the Islamic threat to the West for the Main Stream Media to acknowledge that there are demands for a return to the caliphate in Muslim lands. Still interviewers and presenters fail to ask what is a Muslim land. They allow the Islamist interviewee to say Muslim lands and move on. The inconvenient truth is that Muslim lands are anywhere that has ever been Muslim territory. Just as no building that has ever been a Mosque can be used as anything other than a Mosque, so any land that has been ruled as Muslim land is considered as Muslim land.
At this point you might want to read an earlier article where I include Hassan Butt's explanation of what motivates British jihadis - "though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice."
"How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?
There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.
Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.
For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).
Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world."
"Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.
In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians. "
It is not enough to glibly say that Islam is the Religion of Peace. There are Islamists who use the Qur’aan to justify their murderous attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel & the Palestinians, Chechnya are all red herrings - the truth is out there, go look.
This links in with another article I wrote about the language used by Inayat Bunglawala and Muhammad Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain (incidentally why not Great Britain and what about Northern Ireland?) when they are asked for their opinion or that of the Qur’aan on acts of terrorism. They say something along the lines of "We condemn the killing of all innocent people wherever they are" or "Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity." The key word is "innocent" as we heard during the trial of the thwarted terrorist Jawad Akbar, who planned to commit slaughter on the Ministry of Sound's dance floor, "No one can turn around and say, 'Oh, they were innocent', those slags dancing around. Do you understand what I mean?" So in his view these were not innocent people, how about in the view of Inayat Bunglawala and Muhammad Abdul Bari? The follow-up question that is never asked of these representatives of the MCB is "are those people who don't pray to Allah five times a day and who don't follow the tenets of Islam, innocent?".
I am not saying that Muhammad Abdul Bari or Inayat Bunglawala are terrorists, I am not saying that they support terrorism within the UK; however I am saying that the question "in your view and in the word of the Qur’aan, what types of people are innocent and what types of people are not innocent?" should be asked of, and answered, by them.
Driving
I have just returned from 8 days well deserved rest in Mallorca and have been considering the way that drivers are treated there compared with here. Getting to the airport in England necessitated a drive around part of the M25 and along another motorway. It was not a familiar route to me but it was on three lane motorways with nice wide British lanes. The speed limit is an unrealistically low 70mph and the fear of speed cameras and lurking police speed traps meant that I (and presumably other drivers) were spending as much time looking at their speedometer to make sure that I had not inadvertantly drifted over 75mph and looking for yellow boxes next to the carriageway, odd cameras on gantries and white vans on overhead bridges. By way of contrast in Mallorca the roads are easier to drive on. I have never seen so many decent two and three lane roads in such a small place. The lanes are narrower and the speed limits not so frequently advertised, also as there are no fixed speed cameras and speed traps are rare many people exceed the speed limits and concentrate on driving as fast as the conditions allow. The result is that traffic flows well as drivers are concentrating on the road, the conditions, the traffic around them and not on avoiding being caught by the authorities. I can honestly say that my driving in Mallorca was a pleasure, like driving in the UK was before the collection of fines and the suppression of any joy in motoring took hold. Maybe a move to Mallorca is in order?
An uncovered policeman
One of my regular read is PC David Copperfield, I also have his book and I thoroughly recommend that you read both the website and the book. Now I read that PC Copperfield has come into the open, presumably risking his position in the Police Force as a result, and will be appearing tonight (Monday 17 September) on a Panorama programme entitles "Wasting Police Time". I would strongly suggest that you watch it, unless they have stitched Stuart Davidson up, his views are trenchant and accurate and a fine riposte to the cr*p that we are fed about crime and how we deal with it in this country.
UPDATE: Iain Dale's Diary: PC Copperfield Exposed#links#links says that PC Copperfield will be leaving the Burton-on-Trent police and moving to Canada to join the Canadian Police.
UPDATE: Iain Dale's Diary: PC Copperfield Exposed#links#links says that PC Copperfield will be leaving the Burton-on-Trent police and moving to Canada to join the Canadian Police.
The economy is FUBAR (part 2)
I blogged recently that the crash was coming. Today Alan Greenspan is reported to be warning of increases in UK interest rates and a doubling of inflation, he also predicts a world wide increase in inflation as China starts to consume the products that it has been selling so cheaply to the West. He also predicts a fall in US house prices, something that I have been predicting in the UK for quite a while now - you can read about Alan Greenspan's prediction in the FT here and my predictions on this blog. Alan Greenspan does have a book (or books) to sell, you can read a US review here but he knows what he is talking about. Alan Greenspan is not predicting world financial meltdown, I however am; we will see who is right...
You can read the BBC article on Alan Greenspan here or look around the web for better articles, I can't do everything for you!
Listening to Alistair Darling this morning on the Today programme, I think he knows that the game is up.
You can read the BBC article on Alan Greenspan here or look around the web for better articles, I can't do everything for you!
Listening to Alistair Darling this morning on the Today programme, I think he knows that the game is up.
I take my hat off to Dave
I don't know Dave's surname, I don't know where Dave lives, in fact I know next to nothing about Dave. What I do know is that having listened to his girlfriend, Lisa, talk practically non-stop for over two hours to her friends on a flight back from a Mediterranean break, Dave deserves a medal. This young woman talked at her friends about cooking, including recipes for roasted vegetables with or without potatoes or cheese and tortilla, how happy she was with Dave and how stable their relationship was. It was a two hour flight that left me with a headache that took hours to dissipate. How Dave manages to keep his head together when with Lisa is beyond me; so Dave wherever you are - you are a hero, pat yourself on the back.
Saturday, 15 September 2007
BBC continue to mislead over Climate Change
I read on the BBC's web site that "The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says." I was seriously scared until I read further down the article that records didn't begin in 1878 or even 1928 but in 1978. This is typical BBC, a scaremongering headline about "Climate Change" with a few paragraphs of detail to fuel the scare and then put the qualifier where most people wont bother reading to. The BBC may have had to cancel their Planet Relief day but that doesn't mean that they wont keep ramming this sort of cr*p down our collective throats as often as possible.
The economy is FUBAR
I have blogged before that the UK economy was nearing the edge of the precipice beyond which lies economic meltdown, the events of the past few days show that the edge is now within sight. The economy is FUBAR (younger readers may need to look that acronym up) and we are set for a very bumpy downward spiralling ride. It's a real return to Labour boom and bust and our dear leader will have to be held to account. Hold onto your hats, it wont be fun and there will be many casualties - I will expand upon this theory very soon.
Friday, 14 September 2007
The Grand Unified Explanation of Everything
At 04:50 I awoke from a rather odd dream and had a moment of clarity; I could explain everything in one article on this blog, everything made sense, I composed the article in my head and satisfied with the finished article I went back to sleep. Unfortunately when I awoke again at 08:10 it was gone, I can remember nothing, oh well...
Thursday, 13 September 2007
Darling goes forth
I have just read that our Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, "has urged Britain's banks to take a more cautious approach to lending". I am sorry, I am getting terribly forgetful recently, can anyone remind me of the name of the previous Chancellor whose policies encouraged this build-up of personal debt and the even more dangerous (to the country) government debt - both on the books and off the books (in the form of PFI) of which I will write more soon.
I do hope that our new Chancellor Darling is not "pooh-poohing" the previous Chancellor, after all "never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cos it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!"
I do hope that our new Chancellor Darling is not "pooh-poohing" the previous Chancellor, after all "never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cos it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!"
Does anyone believe that Gordon Brown is a fan or Margaret Thatcher?
I saw the TV footage of Gordon Brown posing for photos outside Number 10 with Lady Thatcher and then ushering her in to share tea. Apart from noticing that the "clunking fist" has put on weight and looked as dishevelled as ever; has there ever been a worse dressed Prime Minister of this country? I also wondered if anyone believes that Gordon Brown has any respect for Lady Thatcher, has he ever made any positive comments on Lady Thatcher in the past? Apart from trying to get up the collective nose of the Conservative Party, incidentally it's nice to see Gordon Brown getting up someone else's rather than his own for a change, I believe that he has annoyed more existing Labour voters than fooled Conservative ones.
The sheer brass necked, pathetic nerve of this man is beyond belief.
Foot and Mouth returns
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
I blogged last week about the BBC's planned Planet Relief programme. It now seems that the BBC have decided to cancel the event. The BBC report on this is quite funny in tone (my comments in italics)
"The BBC has scrapped plans for Planet Relief, a TV special on climate change, the BBC News website has learned."
"has learned", it's the same organisation; surely "has been told" would be closer to the truth or are we to believe that there was some investigative journalism involved?
"The decision comes after some senior executives expressed concern that the programme concept might breach impartiality guidelines."
Might! Maybe we bloggers had an effect on the BBC?
"Environmental campaigners slammed the decision as "cowardice".
It would presumably have been braver to bow to the usual "green agenda"
""This decision shows a real poverty of understanding among senior BBC executives about the gravity of the situation we face," said activist and writer Mark Lynas."
Says you
""The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance.""
The representatives of the political consensus love to brand anyone who disagrees with their cherished policy, "a sceptic"; no disagreement with "the narrative" is allowed.
"A number of right-wing commentators such as the Daily Mail's Keith Waterhouse also criticised the idea."
Do the BBC ever call a commentator from a position on the left of the political spectrum (assuming for a moment that such a spectrum exists) a "left-wing commentator"? Of course not, the left wing is the home of the sane and the correct; the right-wing must be labelled, derided and sidelined.
"However, executives associated with Planet Relief said the aim was not to campaign but to "raise consciousness" about the science of climate change, and to offer them the opportunity to take part in a mass temporary "switch-off" of electrical equipment."
"Raise consciousness", do these people really believe that anyone above the intellectual level of a Big Brother contestant needs their consciousness of Climate Change raised? A mass permanent switch off of televisions might improve the intellectual level of most Britons.
"Many blogs run by climate sceptics groups regularly accuse the BBC of bias, and of ignoring evidence which runs against the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance are raising temperatures around the world."
"climate sceptics" today, "climate deniers" soon. Maybe if the BBC covered the scientific evidence against Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) in a considered way then maybe they wouldn't be accused of bias. Maybe if the BBC covered the way that temperature data is fiddled and manipulated to give the results that the MMCC industry want then maybe they wouldn't be accused of bias. Read my earlier articles on MMCC here and follow the links therein; if nothing else, visit here and here.
"The BBC has scrapped plans for Planet Relief, a TV special on climate change, the BBC News website has learned."
"has learned", it's the same organisation; surely "has been told" would be closer to the truth or are we to believe that there was some investigative journalism involved?
"The decision comes after some senior executives expressed concern that the programme concept might breach impartiality guidelines."
Might! Maybe we bloggers had an effect on the BBC?
"Environmental campaigners slammed the decision as "cowardice".
It would presumably have been braver to bow to the usual "green agenda"
""This decision shows a real poverty of understanding among senior BBC executives about the gravity of the situation we face," said activist and writer Mark Lynas."
Says you
""The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance.""
The representatives of the political consensus love to brand anyone who disagrees with their cherished policy, "a sceptic"; no disagreement with "the narrative" is allowed.
"A number of right-wing commentators such as the Daily Mail's Keith Waterhouse also criticised the idea."
Do the BBC ever call a commentator from a position on the left of the political spectrum (assuming for a moment that such a spectrum exists) a "left-wing commentator"? Of course not, the left wing is the home of the sane and the correct; the right-wing must be labelled, derided and sidelined.
"However, executives associated with Planet Relief said the aim was not to campaign but to "raise consciousness" about the science of climate change, and to offer them the opportunity to take part in a mass temporary "switch-off" of electrical equipment."
"Raise consciousness", do these people really believe that anyone above the intellectual level of a Big Brother contestant needs their consciousness of Climate Change raised? A mass permanent switch off of televisions might improve the intellectual level of most Britons.
"Many blogs run by climate sceptics groups regularly accuse the BBC of bias, and of ignoring evidence which runs against the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance are raising temperatures around the world."
"climate sceptics" today, "climate deniers" soon. Maybe if the BBC covered the scientific evidence against Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) in a considered way then maybe they wouldn't be accused of bias. Maybe if the BBC covered the way that temperature data is fiddled and manipulated to give the results that the MMCC industry want then maybe they wouldn't be accused of bias. Read my earlier articles on MMCC here and follow the links therein; if nothing else, visit here and here.
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Press Freedom
You might want to take a look at the Reporters Without Borders website, it has some decent articles about restrictions on press freedom and associated matters.
I was especially interested in the table here which shows their index of press freedom for the year to 1 September 2006 - I await the 2007 version with interest. The countries with the most press freedom are unsurprisingly overwhelmingly from the democratic west. The best 16 countries are all European and it is not until Benin in 23rd place that we see an African country. The much criticized Israel places 50th with a score of 12. You will not be surprised that the bottom 20 countries with massively high scores, are in one way or another, almost without exception, run by despots or anti-democratic governments and are that is also where you will find the less enlightened Muslim countries as well as Singapore (but that is a whole other story).
I was especially interested in the table here which shows their index of press freedom for the year to 1 September 2006 - I await the 2007 version with interest. The countries with the most press freedom are unsurprisingly overwhelmingly from the democratic west. The best 16 countries are all European and it is not until Benin in 23rd place that we see an African country. The much criticized Israel places 50th with a score of 12. You will not be surprised that the bottom 20 countries with massively high scores, are in one way or another, almost without exception, run by despots or anti-democratic governments and are that is also where you will find the less enlightened Muslim countries as well as Singapore (but that is a whole other story).
Gordon Brown and the BBC
You might want to take a look at the Heath cartoon in the current issue of The Spectator (1 September 2007) on page 8. It's a "Heath after W.H. Heath Robinson" and I think might appeal to my readers.
"Lurching to the right"?
What is it with the BBC and the phrase "lurching to the right"? Whenever a Conservative talks outside of the liberal consensus then the BBC do like to say that the Tory party is "lurching to the right". They never describe the Labour party as "lurching to the left" or "lurching to the middle ground". The reason is obvious, the BBC feel that they must protect the country from ever having to suffer a Conservative government again. In order to do this, they will build up the more centrist candidates for Conservative leader and then attack them for any perceived "lurch to the right" and use the scare phrase "lurch to the right" to scare the public away from voting Conservative.
The BBC political bias is so blatant that it is becoming harder and harder for the general public to ignore. Sites such as mine (in a small way) and the more widely read Biased BBC & USS Neverdock must keep up the pressure and keep the articles coming, the public are getting more interested in this subject so keep at it.
The BBC political bias is so blatant that it is becoming harder and harder for the general public to ignore. Sites such as mine (in a small way) and the more widely read Biased BBC & USS Neverdock must keep up the pressure and keep the articles coming, the public are getting more interested in this subject so keep at it.
Conspiracy theory or scary truth - you be the judge
I am not a great believer in conspiracy theories, when it comes to a choice between conspiracy theory or cock-up I tend to believe in the cock-up explanation. However there are some conspiracy theories that do have a certain ring to them. Norman Baker MP has been investigating the death of Dr David Kelly for quite a while now. Take a read of the Wikipedia article (above linked) and also of this article from The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) which is an independent research and media group of writers, scholars journalists and activists based in Montreal. It is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada.
Interesting...
You might also want to take a visit it this blog to read some more and listen to Norman Baker speak about his research and also take part in an interesting Question and Answer session.
You might also want to read some of these articles from - The Guardian, The Daily Mail (written by Melanie Phillips) and The Guardian again. You might also want to read up on "Operation Mason" on the Internet.
Very interesting...
Interesting...
You might also want to take a visit it this blog to read some more and listen to Norman Baker speak about his research and also take part in an interesting Question and Answer session.
You might also want to read some of these articles from - The Guardian, The Daily Mail (written by Melanie Phillips) and The Guardian again. You might also want to read up on "Operation Mason" on the Internet.
Very interesting...
The BBC and their love for GB
Don't worry GB refers to Gordon Brown not Great Britain!
The BBC managed to cover Gordon Brown's important anouncements yesterday on a "A new type of politics" by reporting on his plans "to involve opposition MPs, citizens' juries and a citizens' summit in government". Strange how all of this coverage didn't query how Gordon Brown reconciled this new found passion for citizen involvement in policy and decision making with his refusal to hold a referendum of the EU treaty.
BBC bias - so obvious if you look for it but to be honest it's actually pretty bloody obvious even if you don't look for it...
BC bias over coverage Patrick Mercer compared with coverage of Keith Vaz
Contrast the coverage of Patrick Mercer's agreement to work with Gordon Brown with Keith Vaz's joining the call for an EU referendum. Both stories are important and both have been covered by the BBC. The Patrick Mercer story has had much comment on the "back story" re his comments on racism (or lack of it) in the army that led to his demise from the shadow cabinet; fair or not, relevant or not - you decide. The Keith Vaz story has had no mention of why he fell from grace, the Hinduja passport affair and the subsequent investigation. Why the difference BBC?
To redress the balance, read about the Elizabeth Filkin's report on Keith Vaz and other inquires into his "activities" here, here are some extracts from the Wikipedia article - "In February 2000 the Parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin was requested to investigate allegations of undisclosed payments to Vaz from businessmen in his constituency.The following year... members of the opposition began to question what role Vaz may have played in helping the billionaire Indian Hinduja brothers - linked with a corruption probe in India - to secure UK passports. In March 2001, the Filkin report cleared Vaz of nine of the 28 allegations of various financial wrongdoings, but Elizabeth Filkin accused Mr Vaz of blocking her investigation into eighteen of the allegations. He was also censured for one allegation - that he failed to register two payments worth £4,500 in total from Sarosh Zaiwalla, a solicitor whom he recommended for a peerage several years later. Mrs Filkin announced in the same month a new inquiry which would focus on whether or not a company connected to Vaz received a donation from a charitable foundation run by the Hinduja brothers. The results of the inquiry were published in 2002 and it was concluded that Vaz had "committed serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and a contempt of the House" and it was recommended that he be suspended from the House of Commons for one month which gave him plenty of time to concentrate on his profitable sidelines. Keith Vaz was also a director of the company General Mediterranean Holdings' owned by the Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, who had in the past hired British politicians Lords Steel and Lamont as directors. Vaz resigned his post as director when he became Minister for Europe, but it was later discovered that he had remained in contact with Auchi and had made enquiries on his behalf over a French extradition warrant, Auchi even calling Vaz at home to ask the minister for advice."
You might also wonder why the BBC have paid so little attention to the way that Keith Vaz became a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee of which he is now chairman, the polite expression would be that the procedure to get him onto the committee was unorthodox. Just like the almost complete lack of coverage of the break in tradition that lead to Michael Martin becoming Speaker in 1997 rather than a Conservative MP, the BBC really cannot bear to investigate their beloved Labour party except over Iraq.
To redress the balance, read about the Elizabeth Filkin's report on Keith Vaz and other inquires into his "activities" here, here are some extracts from the Wikipedia article - "In February 2000 the Parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin was requested to investigate allegations of undisclosed payments to Vaz from businessmen in his constituency.The following year... members of the opposition began to question what role Vaz may have played in helping the billionaire Indian Hinduja brothers - linked with a corruption probe in India - to secure UK passports. In March 2001, the Filkin report cleared Vaz of nine of the 28 allegations of various financial wrongdoings, but Elizabeth Filkin accused Mr Vaz of blocking her investigation into eighteen of the allegations. He was also censured for one allegation - that he failed to register two payments worth £4,500 in total from Sarosh Zaiwalla, a solicitor whom he recommended for a peerage several years later. Mrs Filkin announced in the same month a new inquiry which would focus on whether or not a company connected to Vaz received a donation from a charitable foundation run by the Hinduja brothers. The results of the inquiry were published in 2002 and it was concluded that Vaz had "committed serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and a contempt of the House" and it was recommended that he be suspended from the House of Commons for one month which gave him plenty of time to concentrate on his profitable sidelines. Keith Vaz was also a director of the company General Mediterranean Holdings' owned by the Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, who had in the past hired British politicians Lords Steel and Lamont as directors. Vaz resigned his post as director when he became Minister for Europe, but it was later discovered that he had remained in contact with Auchi and had made enquiries on his behalf over a French extradition warrant, Auchi even calling Vaz at home to ask the minister for advice."
You might also wonder why the BBC have paid so little attention to the way that Keith Vaz became a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee of which he is now chairman, the polite expression would be that the procedure to get him onto the committee was unorthodox. Just like the almost complete lack of coverage of the break in tradition that lead to Michael Martin becoming Speaker in 1997 rather than a Conservative MP, the BBC really cannot bear to investigate their beloved Labour party except over Iraq.
More BBC bias re Israel - another omission
Once again the BBC show bias by omitting news.
How much coverage would there have been if Israel had yesterday launched 7 rockets against a town in the Palestinian territories? How much sneering by a BBC reporter would the BBC have broadcast? How many "why oh why" opinion pieces would we have heard?
On Monday 7 Kassam rockets were launched by Islamic Jihad from Gaza, one landing near a day care centre. Islamic Jihad said that the rocket attack was "a present for the start of the new school year," so it appears that the targeting of schools and day care centers was deliberate. You can see video of the reaction to the attack here -
Have you seen anything about this on the BBC? This is not an isolated rocket attack, thousands of rockets have been fired, just at Sderot, over the last seven years and the BBC fail to report this because the narrative is that the Israelis are the aggressor and the Palestinians the victims.
The attack has been reported on other news outlets including Iranian TV but not on the BBC. A contributor, David Preiser, to Biased BBC comments that "Clearly the latest rocket hit at S'derot does not meet BBC criteria for a news event. Not enough Israelis died. In fact, no Jews died this time, so it qualifies as a non-incident. Over 100 attacks per week happen in the area, all coming from Gaza, and this is almost never mentioned in any reports about the region. This is because not enough Jews are killed to qualify as a story that the BBC feels like telling. I think pounce has made similar observations. It's almost enough to make one suspect that the BBC has a tacit minimum body count requirement before they can report on an incident. Naturally, this is rationalized by repeating to themselves and anyone that will listen that this is down to the imbalance in the total number of deaths between Israelis and Palestinians since the last Intifada or in whatever time frame works for them. For example, let's say that X number of Palestinians have died in the last week versus Y number of Israelis. X is greater than Y, so the ratio X:Y is unfair. Ergo, it's not an incident unless enough Israelis died to balance it out. Nobody died this time, no story. Not enough die per week, so no trend to report, either." A very good set of points, maybe the BBC would like to comment...
How much coverage would there have been if Israel had yesterday launched 7 rockets against a town in the Palestinian territories? How much sneering by a BBC reporter would the BBC have broadcast? How many "why oh why" opinion pieces would we have heard?
On Monday 7 Kassam rockets were launched by Islamic Jihad from Gaza, one landing near a day care centre. Islamic Jihad said that the rocket attack was "a present for the start of the new school year," so it appears that the targeting of schools and day care centers was deliberate. You can see video of the reaction to the attack here -
Have you seen anything about this on the BBC? This is not an isolated rocket attack, thousands of rockets have been fired, just at Sderot, over the last seven years and the BBC fail to report this because the narrative is that the Israelis are the aggressor and the Palestinians the victims.
The attack has been reported on other news outlets including Iranian TV but not on the BBC. A contributor, David Preiser, to Biased BBC comments that "Clearly the latest rocket hit at S'derot does not meet BBC criteria for a news event. Not enough Israelis died. In fact, no Jews died this time, so it qualifies as a non-incident. Over 100 attacks per week happen in the area, all coming from Gaza, and this is almost never mentioned in any reports about the region. This is because not enough Jews are killed to qualify as a story that the BBC feels like telling. I think pounce has made similar observations. It's almost enough to make one suspect that the BBC has a tacit minimum body count requirement before they can report on an incident. Naturally, this is rationalized by repeating to themselves and anyone that will listen that this is down to the imbalance in the total number of deaths between Israelis and Palestinians since the last Intifada or in whatever time frame works for them. For example, let's say that X number of Palestinians have died in the last week versus Y number of Israelis. X is greater than Y, so the ratio X:Y is unfair. Ergo, it's not an incident unless enough Israelis died to balance it out. Nobody died this time, no story. Not enough die per week, so no trend to report, either." A very good set of points, maybe the BBC would like to comment...
London Mayoral elections
I am not a huge fan of Boris Johnson and I think his accent and image are a dream target for his political opponents in London who will fight even dirtier than they have already. However, Ken Livingstone is one of my top 5 most hated British politicians and the sooner London is rid of him the better. So I am urging you to all Back Boris.
Our glorious leader and his adoring public
Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel went to the England v Germany football friendly at Wembley the other week. I didn't watch the match as I find watching England play football in a friendly too depressing for words. I did hear some cheering news of an off the ball incident. The stadium announcer announced the presence of our and the Germans' glorious leaders - soon to be replaced by an EU uber leader... and the crowd reacted in an appropriate fashion -
Monday, 3 September 2007
If you read nothing else today, read this
Actually I want you to read this article, then re-read it and think about it.
At last some good news
I read that John Prescott has "this weekend lost his official Jaguar, driver and four-strong security team".
This man has been probably the most useless Government Minister in history, his policies have been, almost without exception, either badly thought out, ineptly implemented or massively over budget and often all three. John Prescott is not a lovable rogue as Tony Blair intimated when he said "John is John" after John Prescott assaulted a member of the public. John Prescott is a thug with a massive class war chip on his shoulder who was promoted to wield power way above his ability to do so and kept this important role in Government because he was Tony Blair's link to the grassroots of the Labour Party and because of what he knew.
This man has been probably the most useless Government Minister in history, his policies have been, almost without exception, either badly thought out, ineptly implemented or massively over budget and often all three. John Prescott is not a lovable rogue as Tony Blair intimated when he said "John is John" after John Prescott assaulted a member of the public. John Prescott is a thug with a massive class war chip on his shoulder who was promoted to wield power way above his ability to do so and kept this important role in Government because he was Tony Blair's link to the grassroots of the Labour Party and because of what he knew.
The BBC yet again
I really wonder if the BBC even care about trying to appear impartial. After years of pumping out anti-Israel propaganda I find that the BBC have started advertising for a "“Project Director, Palestinian Territories” to advise Palestinian journalists". The job specification reads "The Project Director will be responsible for managing and co-ordinating delivery of the Trust’s EIDHR-Dutch co-funded project in Palestine titled: ‘Support for the Palestinian Media Sector with Focus on Building Sustainable Mechanisms for Professional Development of Journalists and Media Professionals’. The project aims to increase the level of networking and dialogue between media professionals in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
Improving links between Hamas and the BBC, is that possible? The BBC already broadcast pro Hamas "news" as a matter of course, even more noticeable since the "release" of Alan Johnston. Maybe this is part of the "price" that the BBC agreed to pay for this "release".
I was about to write that "I don't expect the BBC to be impartial in its coverage of the Middle East" and then I realised that I bloody well should expect the BBC to be impartial and the fact that I am not surprised by this sort of thing shows how far the BBC have lost the trust of the UK public. I don't think we need the BBC to release the Balen report, if it said anything other than that the BBC is biased against Israel in its coverage then the BBC would have released it.
they have now decided to set-up a
Improving links between Hamas and the BBC, is that possible? The BBC already broadcast pro Hamas "news" as a matter of course, even more noticeable since the "release" of Alan Johnston. Maybe this is part of the "price" that the BBC agreed to pay for this "release".
I was about to write that "I don't expect the BBC to be impartial in its coverage of the Middle East" and then I realised that I bloody well should expect the BBC to be impartial and the fact that I am not surprised by this sort of thing shows how far the BBC have lost the trust of the UK public. I don't think we need the BBC to release the Balen report, if it said anything other than that the BBC is biased against Israel in its coverage then the BBC would have released it.
they have now decided to set-up a
Sunday, 2 September 2007
The breakup of the "United Kingdom"
The Scottish Executive has been "rebranded" as the Scottish Government, you can read more on the BBC here. What is this about? It hasn't been renamed because that would require an Act of Parliament so it has just been "rebranded". How much has this rebranding cost? Who is paying for it?
"The new name will be used on all documents, letters, publicity material and signs outside government buildings."
How much has this rebranding cost? Who is paying for it?
"The move came after research suggested the term 'executive' was meaningless to many people."
Many people probably find Secretary for State meaningless as the person with that title is not a secretary. Many people may find National Convener meaningless, many people may find lots of terms meaningless, this is often because many people are thick; if they don't understand these sort of terms then they shouldn't be allowed the vote.
"First Minister Alex Salmond said the time was right for a change, but Labour said the SNP had acted "unilaterally and without consultation"."
Poor Labour, that's how the rest of us feel when you f**k about with the running of this country.
"The administration's legal name will still be the Scottish Executive."
How much has this rebranding cost? Who is paying for it?
"A saltire will replace the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom on the Scottish government's official documents."
If you don't want the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom on official documents then we don't want to keep subsidizing your economy.
"The rebranding is expected to cost about £100,000."
Ha, ha, ha, expected - I doubt it; it will cost a lot more, I am sure.
"Mr Salmond said Northern Ireland was the only other country in the world where the word 'executive' was used to describe a layer of government."
Really, take a look at Wikipedia Mr Salmond - "the executive is the branch of government responsible for the day-to-day management of the state".
I also commend to you Devils Kitchen for their take on this. "'Scotland' has no government - the only entity with a government in these parts is the United Kingdom. But apart from being subprime student antics, a typically infantile and insolent Salmondesque infraction on non-devolved power of the sort that, 200 years ago, would have resulted in the despatch of gunboats, it doesn't really deal with the great big intellectual hole at the heart of his ministry - his Unionism.
Not his British Unionism, for sure - his European Unionism. There just doesn't seem to be any point in leading the nation from the grasping clutch of one Empire right into the arms of another - don't you think?"
"The new name will be used on all documents, letters, publicity material and signs outside government buildings."
How much has this rebranding cost? Who is paying for it?
"The move came after research suggested the term 'executive' was meaningless to many people."
Many people probably find Secretary for State meaningless as the person with that title is not a secretary. Many people may find National Convener meaningless, many people may find lots of terms meaningless, this is often because many people are thick; if they don't understand these sort of terms then they shouldn't be allowed the vote.
"First Minister Alex Salmond said the time was right for a change, but Labour said the SNP had acted "unilaterally and without consultation"."
Poor Labour, that's how the rest of us feel when you f**k about with the running of this country.
"The administration's legal name will still be the Scottish Executive."
How much has this rebranding cost? Who is paying for it?
"A saltire will replace the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom on the Scottish government's official documents."
If you don't want the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom on official documents then we don't want to keep subsidizing your economy.
"The rebranding is expected to cost about £100,000."
Ha, ha, ha, expected - I doubt it; it will cost a lot more, I am sure.
"Mr Salmond said Northern Ireland was the only other country in the world where the word 'executive' was used to describe a layer of government."
Really, take a look at Wikipedia Mr Salmond - "the executive is the branch of government responsible for the day-to-day management of the state".
I also commend to you Devils Kitchen for their take on this. "'Scotland' has no government - the only entity with a government in these parts is the United Kingdom. But apart from being subprime student antics, a typically infantile and insolent Salmondesque infraction on non-devolved power of the sort that, 200 years ago, would have resulted in the despatch of gunboats, it doesn't really deal with the great big intellectual hole at the heart of his ministry - his Unionism.
Not his British Unionism, for sure - his European Unionism. There just doesn't seem to be any point in leading the nation from the grasping clutch of one Empire right into the arms of another - don't you think?"
More Labour corruption?
I am disgusted by the latest revelations about this Labour government. You can read in today's Telegraph about how "Deborah Mattinson, the Prime Minister's favourite pollster" has a business, Opinion Leader Research (OLR), which "has won nearly £3 million worth of contracts across an astonishing array of government departments and agencies...Lucrative contracts were awarded to OLR by the Treasury and other departments overseen by Mr Brown while he was chancellor. The market research firm also received substantial contracts from the Department of Constitutional Affairs when it was led by Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, a close friend of Miss Mattinson...Just months ago, OLR was paid nearly £800,000 by the Department for Work and Pensions to organise a forum to discuss pension policy. The Department for Education and Skills paid OLR £153,000 for a similar event in February..." Read the whole article to get a flavour of how a Labour supporting pollster can do "unpaid" work for the party and coincidentally obtain millions of pounds worth of work from the same government.
Now take a read of Guido Fawkes article on this matter which links this affair to theSith Smith Institute and explains clearly how the arrangement works.
Now take a read of the comments at Guido Fawkes's site and digest some of the anger that this sort of New Labour sleaze is creating.
Now take a look at this previous article from Guido Fawkes on the Sith Institute affair.
So what is to be done?
An anonymous contributor to Guido Fawkes says "Why isn't this a big story? Narrative, I think. It took years, nine or ten, of incompetence and corruption at the heart of the Blairite establishment to hammer into the public (or at least media) consciousness that "sleaze" wasn't just a synonym for "Tory". Gordon Brown is Mr Probity. It will take years, I fear, for the message to get through that "sleaze" isn't just a synonym for "Blair"." I have blogged about the "narrative" before, it is the Main Stream Media that control the "narrative" and that means above all, the BBC. As I have blogged before, so many times, the BBC will support Gordon Brown by all possible means. The "project" must continue and succeed, nothing must be allowed to stand in its way.
Now take a read of Guido Fawkes article on this matter which links this affair to the
Now take a read of the comments at Guido Fawkes's site and digest some of the anger that this sort of New Labour sleaze is creating.
Now take a look at this previous article from Guido Fawkes on the Sith Institute affair.
So what is to be done?
An anonymous contributor to Guido Fawkes says "Why isn't this a big story? Narrative, I think. It took years, nine or ten, of incompetence and corruption at the heart of the Blairite establishment to hammer into the public (or at least media) consciousness that "sleaze" wasn't just a synonym for "Tory". Gordon Brown is Mr Probity. It will take years, I fear, for the message to get through that "sleaze" isn't just a synonym for "Blair"." I have blogged about the "narrative" before, it is the Main Stream Media that control the "narrative" and that means above all, the BBC. As I have blogged before, so many times, the BBC will support Gordon Brown by all possible means. The "project" must continue and succeed, nothing must be allowed to stand in its way.
Two disgusting misuses of the Koran
You may remember the furore when a student in Americaflushed a Koran down a toilet. This was branded a hate crime and the cries about disrespecting the Koran were heard loud and clear.
I read today that customs officials in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, have recovered "huge quantity of heroin and hashish, concealed in the Holy Quran and religious books being parcelled to United Kingdom (UK) through International Mail office, Customs sources told The News...During the search, the raiding party recovered 5.5 kilograms of hashish and 710 grams of heroin concealed in the cavities of the Holy Quran and Tafheem-ul-Quran, the sources said." I expect the protests from Muslims throughout the world at this disgusting misuse of their holy book to be heard loud and clear... OK, maybe not...
I read today that customs officials in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, have recovered "huge quantity of heroin and hashish, concealed in the Holy Quran and religious books being parcelled to United Kingdom (UK) through International Mail office, Customs sources told The News...During the search, the raiding party recovered 5.5 kilograms of hashish and 710 grams of heroin concealed in the cavities of the Holy Quran and Tafheem-ul-Quran, the sources said." I expect the protests from Muslims throughout the world at this disgusting misuse of their holy book to be heard loud and clear... OK, maybe not...
Saturday, 1 September 2007
The Prison Officers Association "strike"
I admit that I have not followed the ins and outs of this strike as closely as I should, but a few thoughts came to me tonight. Like most people over the age of 35 my only real knowledge of prisons comes from watching Porridge on television. Being locked up looked so horrible, two to a cell, the doors locked every night whilst it was sometimes still light outside - something about just as the good TV started I seem to remember, I presume 9pm(?), the lack of anything to do when not in the cell other than play cards or table tennis (even if with a cracked ball), or watch TV on a small communal set (if the senior warder approved). It all seems somewhat different now, I read that prison officers are now being instructed to knock before entering a cell (presumably to give the incarcerated time to hide their drugs or porn), to address the prisoners as Mr Fletcher, not Fletcher or Norman, to wear polo shirts not uniforms - so as not to look threatening. I despair of this country's law and order system, I really do.
BBC - absolutely no sense of respect
From today's Times "BBC accused of insulting war hero"
Now what? What new low could the BBC have plumbed?
"A BBC series on British cinema which has been criticised for its “sneery” and “witless” commentary is accused of reaching a new low tonight with an insult to the memory of Douglas Bader."
Insulting a brave war hero who lost his legs in a plane crash and then went on to defend his country, very classy...
"Group Captain Bader performed heroics as a fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain, despite having both his legs amputated after a 1931 flying crash. An instalment of British Film Forever dedicated to war movies discusses Reach for the Sky, the 1956 Bader biopic starring Kenneth More. The voiceover, read by the comedy actress Jessica Hynes, says: “Viewers of this film might’ve thought they were having their legs pulled.”"
Insulting a brave disabled war hero by making a joke of his disability, classy does not even come close...
"Alison Graham, TV editor of Radio Times, said: “It purports to be a serious look at British war films, yet only British Film Forever would come up with that throwaway remark. I wonder who exactly this witless commentary is aimed at?”"
I would imagine it is aimed at the sort of person who just cannot believe that war is ever the answer and that anyone who speaks well is an upper class twat (see BBC view of David Cameron).
"The critics hope that the BBC will reedit tonight’s episode to remove the Bader remark, which appears designed to offend the audience most likely to tune in for a 95-minute special on British war films."
Will the BBC re-edit the show? I really do hope so, if not then the BBC take another turn downwards in my estimation.
Now what? What new low could the BBC have plumbed?
"A BBC series on British cinema which has been criticised for its “sneery” and “witless” commentary is accused of reaching a new low tonight with an insult to the memory of Douglas Bader."
Insulting a brave war hero who lost his legs in a plane crash and then went on to defend his country, very classy...
"Group Captain Bader performed heroics as a fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain, despite having both his legs amputated after a 1931 flying crash. An instalment of British Film Forever dedicated to war movies discusses Reach for the Sky, the 1956 Bader biopic starring Kenneth More. The voiceover, read by the comedy actress Jessica Hynes, says: “Viewers of this film might’ve thought they were having their legs pulled.”"
Insulting a brave disabled war hero by making a joke of his disability, classy does not even come close...
"Alison Graham, TV editor of Radio Times, said: “It purports to be a serious look at British war films, yet only British Film Forever would come up with that throwaway remark. I wonder who exactly this witless commentary is aimed at?”"
I would imagine it is aimed at the sort of person who just cannot believe that war is ever the answer and that anyone who speaks well is an upper class twat (see BBC view of David Cameron).
"The critics hope that the BBC will reedit tonight’s episode to remove the Bader remark, which appears designed to offend the audience most likely to tune in for a 95-minute special on British war films."
Will the BBC re-edit the show? I really do hope so, if not then the BBC take another turn downwards in my estimation.
A rather depressing prediction
I am afraid that the political winds seem to be blowing in the direction of an October election. Gordon Brown needs to call an election quickly, before the already shaky economy collapses under the weight of dodgy credit that his policies have encouraged and exacerbated. He also wants to avoid a referendum on the EU Treaty and calling an election and spinning that as a mandate for signing up is his, he hopes, low risk strategy. The alternative would be to hold a referendum on election day as a way of trying to tie the two issues together. I fear that with the BBC issuing daily propaganda on his behalf, Gordon Brown will win the election to the massive detriment to the UK's future. In fact if Labour win an early October election I think I will carry out my promise to leave this country and Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
