The BBC have one of their marvellous "Have Your Say" debates on "Party funding row: Your views", they try to remind us of the George Osborne claims and so conflate them by setting the question thus:
"Gordon Brown has backed Peter Hain in the row over funding of his deputy leadership campaign, but says his fate will depend on the official inquiry. Send us your reaction. The work and pensions secretary said he was "more than happy" for inquiries into the £103,000 donations to "take their course". Shadow chancellor George Osborne is also facing questions after reportedly accepting £487,000 from donors last year without fully declaring the sum to the Register of Members' Interests. He said the Conservative Party had taken advice from House of Commons authorities. What do you make of these new developments? Should Peter Hain resign or do you support his decision to carry on? What about George Osborne? What action should be taken to reform political funding?"
The comments made are interesting. Page 1 of the reader's recommended comments currently has 15 comments, none of which even mention George Osborne (much to the BBC's dismay the public aren't buying the comparison). Every single one of the 15 is antagonistic to Peter Hain and/or the Labour government. In case these comments "disappear" I reproduce them direct from the BBC website (but with the inbetween comments messages deleted) below: (The comments do not necessarily represent my opinions)
"Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:23 GMT 12:23 UK
Peter Hain was one of the noisiest MP's when announcing the sleazy tories.
He is nothing but a hypocrite, and should resign immediately. If he cant be trusted to keep his own affairs in order, how do we as a country trust him with our state pensions system.
Bob, Cambridge
Recommended by 346 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:19 GMT 12:19 UK
I wonder what would happen if I failed to declare £100,000 income to the inland revenue: "Ooops, sorry, I meant to but I forgot" and they then reply: "Never mind, we understand".
Why are politicians above the law? Doesn't the any party have accountants to take care of these things?
And how many others are there that also don't declare contributions until someone discovers them?
B D
Recommended by 307 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:54 GMT 12:54 UK
No, he should not resign....he should be sacked immediately and never again allowed to hold any form of public office as should any other MP adjudged to be guilty of same.
We put them there so we should also expect them to be removed from office when they betray our confidence.
Tom McLaughlan, Western Isles, United Kingdom
Recommended by 282 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:33 GMT 12:33 UK
Is this the Labour Party who got into power by attacking "Tory sleaze"? This party is a a joke and the guy should resign now.
John Reynolds, Kettering, United Kingdom
Recommended by 244 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:27 GMT 12:27 UK
If Peter Hain had any sense of honour, he would have resigned already. Sadly he is following the arrogant example of Wendy Alexander in Scotland and brassing it out, thinking somehow that the electorate will forget about this through time. Shame on you Peter Hain, one time radical student who has become yet another self-serving careerist with his 'snout in the trough'.
Fergus Forfar, United Kingdom
Recommended by 232 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:24 GMT 12:24 UK
Yes I think Hain should resign. You do not 'forget' to declare over £100,000! I think the whole government should resign. It is incredible that however many times they are caught out, they just give the voters a metaphorical two fingers and brazen it out.
Joanna Jones, Twickenham
Recommended by 212 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:24 GMT 12:24 UK
He is only sorry because he has been found out!
How can anyone who makes such "mistakes" be trusted.
New Labour sleaze makes the old Tories look like saints.
[veryexpongoplod]
Recommended by 186 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:27 GMT 12:27 UK
What is there for the Commissioner to investigate ? Peter Hain has admitted that he did not declare the gifts thereby breaking the rules on MP's conduct.
Why must we wait for people like this to resign? Surely they should be sacked.
[Tim_113]
Recommended by 181 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:22 GMT 12:22 UK
We are not at the bottom of this yet. However, I am amazed that in the present climate anybody could overlook complying with the rules affecting party donations. That fact alone makes Mr Hain unsuitable for high office.
[LondonRoyBoy]
Recommended by 178 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:28 GMT 12:28 UK
Hain must resign to retain any shred of decency.
His excuses match "the dog ate my homework" or " a bigger boy did it".
To fail to register 17 donations is beyond credibilty, especially as 5 of them came from a Foundation where his election Treasurer is a Trustee.
I run a medical charity and if I fail to register just one donation I'd be in trouble.
Cotswoldopinion, Cirencester
Recommended by 167 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:34 GMT 12:34 UK
I wonder why I am not surprised that another New Labour politician is caught breaking the rules? It seems that New Labour care nothing for the rule of law and simply do what they like displaying utter contempt for the British people.
If the Tories were sleazy, and they were, they were amateurs compared with this lot.
[notahopeinhell]
Recommended by 151 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:26 GMT 12:26 UK
I wonder what would happen if I 'forgot' to declare my income on a tax return?
It is amazing what these people can get away with without any accountability.
Just let the rest of us try it!!
Another reason, if one were needed to get this bunch of incompetents out.
Sick of the lot of them
Recommended by 145 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:25 GMT 16:25 UK
The 'Tory sleaze' of the 1990's was nothing compared to the revolting arrogance and large-scale mugging of the public by this lot. The Conservatives had a few 'brown envelopes' of cash and a handful of sex scandals, this government seems intent on ruining the country and making off with the proceeds. Let's see them in the dock, they are criminals.
Andrew Howlett, Manchester
Recommended by 140 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:55 GMT 12:55 UK
Quite why anyone should want to give Hain a single penny is beyond me.
Richard Jenkins, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Recommended by 130 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:24 GMT 12:24 UK
This can only be another whitewash....we havent had the truth from this government yet.
Sidney Rotten, London "
Page 2 contains more of the same, as does page 3
Page 2:
"Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:45 GMT 16:45 UK
Actually - I find the way that these ministers 'forget' or 'overlook' things, break the law and just apologise while hanging onto their jobs, deeply offensive....
david, Cambridge
Recommended by 107 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:24 GMT 16:24 UK
Just how much more of this corrupt criminal rubbish are we supposed to take? Brown, get your disgusting crew of thieves and crooks out NOW!
Dave Fletcher, Westbury Wilts
Recommended by 104 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:54 GMT 12:54 UK
Yet another NuLabourite is caught out. Hardly surprising.
What does surprise me is the fact that come election time, there will be millions who will in effect condone all this, by voting for them again!
Just what does it take?
Francis ap Gruffydd, Wales, United Kingdom
Recommended by 99 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:26 GMT 12:26 UK
The problem is not that funding arrangements need to be reformed - the problem is that some politicians are willing to break the rules.
I am Scottish, Not British
Recommended by 99 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:25 GMT 16:25 UK
Standards in public life would improve dramatically if Hain, Harman, Alexander and co were prosecuted and imprisoned under the existing laws which they appear to have broken.
Sadly that will not happen and the laws will be "reviewed". Meanwhile the country will slide further towards being as corrupt as those African countries we are so fond of looking down our noses at. It's in all our interests to stamp out this corruption. Jail the offenders, that would be a start.
Andrew Dalziel, Aberdeen
Recommended by 85 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:26 GMT 12:26 UK
Yet another nail in NuLabour's coffin.
Do I agree with Mr Llwyd? Is the Pope Roman Catholic?
Should Mr Hain resign? See the answer above!
What action should be taken to reform political funding?
Implement a custodial sentence for liars and cheats, no exceptions.
Watt Tyler jnr
Recommended by 82 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:28 GMT 16:28 UK
MPs have good salaries and pensions - I am happy to accept that - but because they do enjoy good salaries and pensions - I expect them to to be scrupulously honest when it comes to their integrity and trust.
Peter Hain has huge question marks over whether he has either honesty or integrity. Ordinary members of the public living on low salaries are seldom given the benefit of the doubt when claiming benefit, if there appears to be an element of fraud. Mr Hain should be sacked from his post !
John DAKIN, Bristol, United Kingdom
Recommended by 81 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:53 GMT 12:53 UK
A Tory minister used to get caught with his trousers round his ankles with his mistress. That's Tory sleaze.
A Labour minister now gets caught for breaking the very electoral laws that he and his party brought in, and the Prime Minister even admits they broke the law. That's Labour sleaze.
What, I ask you, is worse?
Hain should resign. Now.
Joe, London
Recommended by 80 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:53 GMT 12:53 UK
If Hain genuinly forgot and it was an oversight it just goes to prove how incopetent the man is. He should not be in public office, the man's a disgrace! Having said that I think he fits in quite well with the rest of the government.
g s randall, herts
Recommended by 79 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:32 GMT 12:32 UK
An "innocent" or "honest" mistake is not generally accepted by the authorities when a member of the public breaks the law or fails to disclose income to, say, the Inland Revenue. Rather, the weight of the law and severe penalties follow, regardless. Either allow this as a defense for all, or allow it for none.
Mike, Clevedon
Recommended by 79 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:27 GMT 16:27 UK
If we had honest politicians (some hope!) we wouldn't need to reform political funding.
Hain should go but he shouldn't be given the option of resigning, he should be kicked out. He is unfit for public office.
Denise V, Kent
Recommended by 74 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:55 GMT 12:55 UK
When your leaders (Blair/Brown) flout the rules by selling honours and failing to properly declare loans and gifts, what do you expect the rest of them to do?
It's time for reform. MP's and political parties should not be allowed to accept ANY donation/gift/loan directly. They should ALL be routed via the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, this would make sure that they would not be "forgotten" and would all be accounted for.
Wolf of Badenoch
Recommended by 73 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:26 GMT 16:26 UK
Never did trust the guy...remember the EU constitution being described as a 'Tidying-up exercise' ?
He should do the decent thing and resign - won't happen though.
TheVoiceOfReason, UK
Recommended by 72 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:22 GMT 16:22 UK
Sleezy NuLabour have proven that they are unfit to run this country.
Gordon Blown should resign his whole government, and call a general election.
Gordon's Blown It, London
Recommended by 71 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:52 GMT 12:52 UK
When is this hypocritical weak and shameless government going to fall on its sword and resign, it brings shame on this democratic and once proud nation.
Paul Bennett, Bognor Regis "
Page 3:
"Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:19 GMT 16:19 UK
the arrogance of Hain is breathtaking. It acts as if we should be proud that he has declared this, whereas the reality is he only declared it because he was about to be found out. Rather than behaving with integrity it shows what a grubby little politician he really is!
John, Ipswich
Recommended by 68 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:20 GMT 16:20 UK
What does a New Labour minister have to do to get the sack? I'd really like to know. They came to power on a promise to be whiter than white. What a joke!
Tony English, Rochdale, United Kingdom
Recommended by 66 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:20 GMT 16:20 UK
Well done Labour. Congratulations on showing us that you are the most competent of all politicians in your specialist field - lying, cheating, corruption, theft, cover-ups and sleaze.
Congratulations also to the Bliar for showing us that the slimier the sleaze, the bigger the pay-off. A true role model for us all - especially to children who will be quick to emulate your great 'leadership'.
Fred Hause, London
Recommended by 65 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:19 GMT 16:19 UK
The sleaze just rumbles on and on. Mr Hain said he "regrets" having not declared this money. Of that i have no doubt. You`d be amazed at how many people regret having done things after being caught. This man is in charge of a multi-billion pound department yet fails to keep tabs on £103,000? And as for blaming others is just another case of a politician trying to pass the buck. If a member of the public is caught breaking the law we are told "ignorance is no excuse ". Neither is it in this case.
[mediamogul], United Kingdom
Recommended by 65 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:56 GMT 12:56 UK
Forgetting to declare the said donations to the Electoral Commission is absolutely no excuse. If he is found to be guilty of breaking the Rules then he should of course resign. It would be better for the Labour Party in the long run to get rid of any of its ministers who think they can flout the law.
[dynamicMaureen]
Recommended by 58 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:55 GMT 16:55 UK
But this is such an elementary requirement. There is NOTHING hard or complicated about it and it is a LEGAL requirement.If you just forget to tax your car or pay your TV licence, then you would be in court. Local Political Associations have to report donations, or none, every month or the Electoral commission will take action against them and it is not believable those be involved in Politics would not be aware. New Labour placed huge emphasis on this when they introduced the Act. No Excuse.
[Freedomknight], Rayleigh, United Kingdom
Recommended by 57 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:36 GMT 12:36 UK
How different Hain's actions and attitudes are when the shoe is on the other foot!
I believe he should be made leader of the Labour party, as he embodies all of the hypocrisy and decit that they stand for.
Topsy Turvy, England, United Kingdom
Recommended by 55 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:21 GMT 16:21 UK
If I failed to declare monies to the DWP I would be prosecuted and my benefits stopped.
So whats the diffrence peter Hain? are you above laws and regulations?
[wizmyrddin]
Recommended by 54 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:47 GMT 12:47 UK
There is something quite poetic about Peter Hains predicament.
Hain is one of the most spiteful and venomous polititions of our current crop (and that is up against some stiff competition). He uses all and any excuse to throw mindless accusations of sleaze, racism and much else at his opponents without any grounds. And now he's been caught with his hands in the till. Ha!
Lets hope he's shown as much gentlemanly good grace as he has shown others...absolutely zero!
George Reddan, London, United Kingdom
Recommended by 54 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:59 GMT 16:59 UK
I wonder if our politicians still claim that British politics is remarkably free from corruption? If so, I wonder if anyone else believes that, after all these revelations of "memory lapses"?
David Hazel, Fareham, United Kingdom
Recommended by 53 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:53 GMT 12:53 UK
All politicians are sleazy, greedy & liars, and have only their own interests in mind. However, this Government has even managed to eclipse the Tory Government of the 80's & 90's in this respect, which takes some doing I may add!
Alan Davis
Recommended by 52 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:47 GMT 12:47 UK
I'd be interested to know what other lines of work enable you to break the rules and keep your job without any punishment? I know that if I break rules where I work I'd either be sacked for gross misconduct or at the very least put on a disciplinary where if I make any further errors I can be sacked. It is absolutely obvious that MP's are not only incompetent they are able to maintain positions of power while treating rules and regulations with utter contempt.
Peter W, Manchester, United Kingdom
Recommended by 52 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:27 GMT 12:27 UK
Mr Hain is the latest in a very long line of politicians who has breached the rules on disclosure .
Like our ferral youth , who escape punishment and re-offend , until some sanctions are applied , our leaders will continue to ignore propriety and good practise ....this makes you realise the scale of what is happening within the EU , where noone is watching them..
Arthur Smedley, Carshalton Beeches,Surrey, United Kingdom
Recommended by 51 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:59 GMT 16:59 UK
I fully agree with Mr Llwyd that Mr Hain should resign. Politicians are the nation's lawmakers, and therefore have a primary responsibilty to uphold "their" laws at all times. To profess ignorance is absolutely no excuse and it shows very poor judgement on Mr Hain's part that he does not have the good grace to resign immediately.
George Simnett, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Recommended by 48 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:58 GMT 16:58 UK
For the furtherance of his own career and self-aggrandisement, Hain knowingly accepted the work load of two departments. Therefore, work overload can not mitigate or excuse nreaking the rules to the extent of £100,000. It beggars belief that someone of his experience could make such a mistake. Whether or not the excuse is true, he should resign at once, leaving him and the government once more in abject disgrace.
John Robinson, Barnstaple, United Kingdom "
Page 4:
"Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 07:59 GMT 07:59 UK
This is just another example of the most corrupt government we have ever had. They treat the electorate with contempt, no one resigns whatever the scandal, and they are still trying to blame everyone else for their failure over the last ten years. Hain being supported by Brown is no surprise, Brown needs all the support he can get and if yet another corrupt politician can be kept in office to support Brown, Brown will do all he can to support him
Ray, Bridgnorth
Recommended by 44 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:19 GMT 16:19 UK
How can Peter Hain be trusted to run two government departmenst when he can't run his own election campaign within the rules?
As a business owner and tax payer I have to jump through regulations imposed by these people otherwise I get charged automatically. I can't claim innocent mistakes and get away scot free.
We need some serious penalties imposed on these people (any party) to wake them up to the the fact the rules apply to them as well.
Martin, Beeston
Recommended by 43 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:53 GMT 16:53 UK
He takes full responsibility for what happened. So presumable he expects we should draw a line under the matter and move on las we have with all the other scandals this government has had.
It's going to take a gaol sentence to teach them a lesson.
david, ely
Recommended by 42 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 15:04 GMT 15:04 UK
It defies credibilty that Mr Hain's failure to declare was an "innocent oversight".
In November '07, following extraordinary revelations of irregularities re loans/donations to a number of Labour/Cabinet members, Mr Hain took it upon himself to investigate his 'accounts'. He quickly announced he had omitted to declare £5,000 as a result of an "administrative error".
It appears now that, despite that investigation, he failed to establish that he had a further undeclared £100k. Credible?
d maurer, london
Recommended by 41 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:18 GMT 16:18 UK
One of the most oily, despicable New Labour non-entities around. He's never been slow demanding the head of Conservatives in the past.
What other laws is he too busy to comply with? Speeding? Tax? If his ministerial duties are too onerous for him to comply with the laws of the land then either he's got too much on his plate and he should have the sense to say so or he's too stupid too realise this.
As for the PM having complete confidence in Hain...... heaven help us
Jock, Shrewsbury
Recommended by 39 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:43 GMT 12:43 UK
Like many, I'm cynical about this. I don't buy the "Sorry I forgot" line and he should not only be sacked as a minister, but also forced to go to his constituents and let them decide whether he should keep his MPs job or not. This equally applies to all polititians caught lying, cheating etc, they should all have to be re-elected as MPs!
[Anthony_rat], England
Recommended by 39 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:24 GMT 16:24 UK
what is worse?
That he "forgot" to declare the donations to his dep leader fund?
or that at least 2 of the donations were to the party and the donors did not know (despite claims they consented) that the monies were transferred to hains dep leader campaign?
if the donors are telling the truth then Hain stole the money from the party.
john davis, Motherwell, United Kingdom
Recommended by 38 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 14:47 GMT 14:47 UK
The arrogance of this government astounds me. Time & time again they are found out with irregular financial dealings or worse and everytime they say "I've done nothing wrong".
It would appear that they are not cases of "did not know better" so much as "did not care either way and will brazen it out if caught anyway".
Paul Warren, Barking
Recommended by 38 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:40 GMT 12:40 UK
Why is so much money needed for an internal party election? Surely a mail shot to party members setting out your aims and values and a few train fares to address meetings would leave you a lot of change from £100K.
It's difficult not to be suspicious that it is all about buying influence.
[frankln], Erehwon, United Kingdom
Recommended by 37 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 15:50 GMT 15:50 UK
We now live in a society where people are getting criminal records for small infringements eg feeding birds, dog fouling, placing refuse in the wrong bin etc etc. The list is endless and as mere citizens we are offered no leeway, it's put up or shut up. We are certainly not allowed to say it was just a mistake.
Why then are politicians the only one's in our society to plead ignorance and get away with it?? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"!!
sandra todd, wakefield
Recommended by 36 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:17 GMT 16:17 UK
How many Labour MP's have been caught out doing this sort of thing, numerous.
How many have resigned..........................NONE.
Says it all really about the Labour Party.
Even their own back benchers don't demand resignations.
Mind you, i'd like to thank NuLabour for ensuring this will be their last term in office for the next 50 years.
Mark, Hednesford
Recommended by 34 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 14:37 GMT 14:37 UK
Hain, Harman and Jowell have all done something illegal and admitted to doing something illegal, WHY ARENT THEY BEING PROSECUTED?? are all mp's immune from prosecution , they should at least resign. If i did somethjing illegal i wouldnt be exempt from prosecution just because i admitted doing it.
pete humphries, mansfield, United Kingdom
Recommended by 34 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:51 GMT 12:51 UK
The government should be beyond and above any misdoing or scam, but time and time again these incidents come to light, make you wonder whatever next?. and also makes you wonder about the other things that have not come to light. I now think this party is unworthy of anybodies trust.
[peterlondon], croydon, United Kingdom
Recommended by 33 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 21:23 GMT 21:23 UK
I believe this is a law not just rules, if so he should face the courts like anyone else and if found guilty face the full force of the law.
Pez Man, Eastleigh, United Kingdom
Recommended by 32 people
Added: Sunday, 13 January, 2008, 12:38 GMT 12:38 UK
I failed to declare the donations because I was too busy doing my two jobs and trying to get another.I don't think he's up to any job in Government and will not be voting Labour.
Kiki, UK"
Page 5:
"Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:24 GMT 16:24 UK
First have a look at some of the Standards Board for England rulings. A toothless tiger. It seems that you can get away with blue murder and, the further up the political ladder you are, the more you can get away with. Save the money - he's going to be found innocent but the taxpayer's bill for the decision will be more than the £103,000 he didn't declare.
[jurassicflood], Seaton, United Kingdom
Recommended by 31 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 15:49 GMT 15:49 UK
If Hain has the slighest integrity he will resign.
If he doesn't, he won't.
He won't.
[Posted yesterday, and listed as '"unpublished because the debate has closed". It clearly hadn't: many comments have since appeared. The comment was thus censored by the BBC -- the political party funded by the licence fee. Reject if you will, BBC, but please don't lie!]
Don Simpson, UK, United Kingdom
Recommended by 30 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:13 GMT 16:13 UK
NuLabour is THE party of Sleeze.
NuLabour brought down the previous tory government with claims of sleeze, yet NuLabour are far worse.
If I failed to declare £100,000 of income, I would be prosecuted.
Since NuLabour came to power, they have had a continual stream of illegal and immoral funding issues.
NuLabour do not deserve to remain in power any Longer.
Gordon's Blown It, London
Recommended by 30 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 11:13 GMT 11:13 UK
Sack him !
ATTACK_HAMSTER, Leeds
Recommended by 29 people
Added: Monday, 14 January, 2008, 08:20 GMT 08:20 UK
Politicians like Peter Hain and Wendy Alexander should stop making excuses. They make the laws, so they should have no trouble understanding them. And if the break the rules they, themselves have made they should be sacked immediately.
This is yet another instance of the "snouts in the trough" culture endemic in British politics !
Sea Wolf, Dundee
Recommended by 28 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 15:54 GMT 15:54 UK
How about a visit from the fraud squad? It's time Hain and this Labour Government went, they are all corrupt.
Mark, Romford
Recommended by 28 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 15:51 GMT 15:51 UK
This so-called Think Tank was nothing more than a front, a dummy organisation created to channel money in a covert way to Hain.
There are hundreds of these in the USA, designed to hide the source of campaign contributions, or to circumvent spending limits.
What kind of Think Tank does no research, holds no meetings, employs no staff and has no website? And collects money only to hand it on to a single politcian?
The Peter Hain kind, clearly!
Ed Richards
Recommended by 28 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 11:06 GMT 11:06 UK
Well he always struck me as being even slimier than the rest of them, of course he should resign, in fact why hasn't he been sacked?
King Alfred, Wessex
Recommended by 28 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:50 GMT 12:50 UK
Here we go again, another Labour sleaze issue. Like all their other mistakes before, "lessons will be learnt" and absolutely nothing will change.
It's not Hain that should resign, the whole party should go. They are not fit to govern.
Llew G, Newbury, United Kingdom
Recommended by 28 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 13:28 GMT 13:28 UK
From what I read in the Times Mr Hain spent £60,000 in one day on his own publicity campaign. Now I don't know but that seems like an awful lot of money for the average man in the street to earn through hard work but peanuts for a Labour politician to squander on themselves. This in itself demonstrates that Hain is not fit to hold office.
Graham, Salisbury
Recommended by 26 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:16 GMT 16:16 UK
What we need to remember that these are rules imposed by LABOUR to tackle sleeze and prove they are whiter than white (the real reason was to limit donations to the tories).
For ministers to deny knowledge of the rules or to say they were too busy to check that the rules are being observed is incredible.
The problem with so many Lawers as MPs is that they try to stretch the letter of the law and care not about the spirit.
john davis, Motherwell, United Kingdom
Recommended by 26 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:51 GMT 12:51 UK
Hain should resign.
However if he does not, and tries to hang on to office in the same way as Harriet Harman, then Brown should show some real leadership and take the initiative by sacking both of them.
However Brown does not have the courage and I think pigs will fly first!!!!
kim potter, hungerford
Recommended by 26 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:50 GMT 12:50 UK
Oh dear another hundred grand I forgot about, well is anyone surprised that the British electorate have lost all faith in the political elite. Oh and next week they will be voting themselves an inflation busting increase and no doubt a top up to their Gold Plated pension funds, isn't high time we reduced their number and saved the country a fortune!!!
John, Birmingham
Recommended by 26 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 10:57 GMT 10:57 UK
HAIN.
Your the only person in this country who does`nt know you`re a CROOK, is that simple enough for you?. Now naf of.
pat, medway
Recommended by 25 people
Added: Sunday, 13 January, 2008, 12:26 GMT 12:26 UK
In the UK all men are not equal. Arrogant politicians can cheat, steal, swindle and lie to millions of people.
Why is this allowed? I it not time politics changed from being a breeding ground for legalised thieves.
Strategos Pericles "
Page 6:
"Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 15:26 GMT 15:26 UK
If Hain was not aware of irregularities, sack him for incompetence.
If he was aware, sack him for dishonesty.
It seems to boil down to SACK HIM!.
[spanner345], Hull
Recommended by 24 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:52 GMT 12:52 UK
Sack Peter Hain and force a bi-election, with the local Labour Party deciding who the Labour Candidate will be.
Jonathan, Romford
Recommended by 24 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:42 GMT 12:42 UK
Once upon a time in a land called Britain there used to be this thing called honour. If a minister was naughty, there was this sword that they used to fall upon and withdraw to this place called the backbenches where they lamented the fact they blew their chance in the government. Then in the late 90's there was this thing called Labour who lost the sword and now if a minister is naughty they get promoted.
This stinks
Mr Hain, resign as you have broken the law. Mr Brown, sort your lot out
Dan, London
Recommended by 24 people
Added: Sunday, 13 January, 2008, 12:32 GMT 12:32 UK
Despite being caught up in a $candal, Peter Hain vows to carry on? Does this mean corruption as usual?
Guy Fox, Key West/Tampa Bay, United States
Recommended by 23 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 22:28 GMT 22:28 UK
After todays statement I can safely say that Labour has out slimed the tories. Did you ever in your life here such tale. So much fabric was spun in Hains statement he should open a curtain shop or something. Between him, Kelly 'asthma for your kids' BAA deputy Chair and Gordon tax and spend we have without doubt the most untrustworthy bunch of politicians EVER!! It scares me to death.
[FuroraNormanum], London, United Kingdom
Recommended by 23 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 11:12 GMT 11:12 UK
Hain has been caught orange handed.
He should go.
Tim, UK
Recommended by 23 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 07:18 GMT 07:18 UK
Poor Peter Hain.
Should we really be surprised that he didn't know? He certainly isn't the first member of this government to recieve a large sum of cash, and know nothing.
Husband pays off massive mortguage. Wife doesn't know about the payment, or where the money came from. Then seperates from husband to keep post in government.
Two people sacked over cash questions. Both end up with higher paying jobs.
Lets be honest. This government isn't.
Pete, Leeds
Recommended by 23 people
Added: Sunday, 13 January, 2008, 15:44 GMT 15:44 UK
He has broken the law, the police should (again) be called in.
[Brainman1967], Sutton Coldfield, United Kingdom
Recommended by 22 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 11:04 GMT 11:04 UK
Oh dear, yet another "honest mistake". NuLabour is very good at these but as usual, it's either incompetence or lies.
Hain should go, and NOT sideways to another well-paid position.
[WavingAnt], London(ish), United Kingdom
Recommended by 22 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 21:21 GMT 21:21 UK
Dont tell me...another oversight, the honorouble gentleman is mistaken, we were not aware of the full facts....spin spin,lie,deceive...When are we going to get rid of this corrupt, unrepresentative shower of dross from parliament. This is just outrageous and another piece of disgraceful behaviour from someone who should be beyond reproach. Is it any wonder the electorate want rid of the party, led by a man who was not elected to office in the first place....
[davedemocrat], Swaffham
Recommended by 22 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:15 GMT 16:15 UK
I’ve figured it out ! I know what Labour is doing !. You know the expression ‘Hidden in plain sight” yes, well, Labour want to make this type of thing so normal that nobody will blink an eye when it happens for the umpteenth time.
Smart eh ?. That’s your Labour for you, enjoy.
Bob Biryani, London, UK
Recommended by 22 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:50 GMT 12:50 UK
If I make an "innocent mistake" in filling out my tax return, the goverment would want their pound of flesh from me.
If I manage to £103,156, I hate to think what would happen
David Potts, Grayswood, United Kingdom
Recommended by 22 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 22:26 GMT 22:26 UK
It is absurd to suggest that Haine's arrogant apologies will be accepted by anybody with an IQ above 1.
The electorate will not forget, Mr Haines. Your days in office are numbered.
Gareth Wheeler, Breda
Recommended by 21 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 11:04 GMT 11:04 UK
The Department for Work and Pensions fund huge publicity campaigns about benefit fraud. Surely what Hain is doing is also fraud - but he no doubt will face no procecution for what he has done. One rule for him another for us?
Andy Kitchen, Cheltanham
Recommended by 21 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 14:13 GMT 14:13 UK
You know, I getting fed up with this being called sleaze. Hain has committed a crime, he broke the law and should therefore be arrested forthwith!
Bonnie Scotland, Glasgow, United Kingdom "
Page 7:
"Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:40 GMT 12:40 UK
Hain has been proven incompetent or dishonest – either of these is a good enough reason to relieve him of his cabinet post.
Matt F, Chester
Recommended by 21 people
Added: Sunday, 13 January, 2008, 15:44 GMT 15:44 UK
If I break the law, can I simply apologise and carry on as if nothing had happened.
No, I thought not, but then I'm not a sleazy Labour MP like Peter Hain or Wendy Alexander who seem to think that the law is for the little people to obey and not meant for them.
The time is coming when Labour MPs and their cheerleaders in the BBC will feel a much colder wind blowing.
It can't come soon enough.
[alistair_j]
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 22:25 GMT 22:25 UK
Is there no legal body out there that have the wherewithall to prosecute these politicians in a court of law. They all need locking up.
sue, knowsley
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:16 GMT 16:16 UK
I am a labour supporter but Gordon should act now today sack Peter Hain. If it is true that he wants to show that he wants a up front no nonsense government, which reflects down the labour party and country no faffing about remove him to-day save any more embarrassment
yendys davies, plymouth, United Kingdom
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:17 GMT 16:17 UK
Smoke and FIRE, an example is now needed. Peter Hain's career is over if Labour accepts change is needed.
[Cloggy1960]
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 15:38 GMT 15:38 UK
Yet again the sins of Hamilton and Mellor are made to look small beer, yet will the BBC be as forenisc in its examination of Labour as it was of the Tories? Of course not.
Andy, York
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 14:34 GMT 14:34 UK
Nu Labour Nu Slease Nu Excuse !
£100,000 and he knew nothing about it? What do these campaigns run on?- fresh air?
He is just a chip off the old Blairite and Brownite block!
Only being sorry for being found out - if he was that sorry he would not have done it in the first place!!
They should make this a criminal charge - as Labour Consitantly keep doing this and they get away with it with a slap on the wrist!
DISGUSTING !!
[POLARIS69], Kent, United Kingdom
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 14:32 GMT 14:32 UK
just what is someone who is capable of "forgetting" he was given £100,000 doing in any position of authority? What else has this cronie "forgotten" about?
More labour pigs at the trough just biding their time before they give themselves over inflated pay rises.
ashley, chelsmford
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:55 GMT 12:55 UK
I am afraid this is yet another example of one rule for one and a different set of rules for another - read Labour politicans. Please, please explain to me how these guys are continually able to do this with absolutely no come back - oh and coupled with the 'confidence' of the Prime Minister. So much for the election promises when Labour came to power!! A basic breach of rules - incompetance or negligence?? Gordon, do the right thing, replace him before it is too late!
Alan Bennett, London
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 12:50 GMT 12:50 UK
I really cant quite believe what im reading, do these idiots have no clue whatsoever.
And tomorrow it will be business as usual, lies and corruption. Why are they not arrested as any of us would be.
Get out now Labour, and hang your heads in shame
(had to leave out alot of expletives)
tired tom, london, United Kingdom
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Monday, 14 January, 2008, 07:22 GMT 07:22 UK
Why is it that illegal acts involving £100,000 and the impartiality of parliament, where the person involved has access to a battery of advisors can be written of as a mistake. Where a single mother who makes a mistake costing a fraction of that and without a single advisor is not offered the same excuse.
Sould we not expect a higher standard from our politicians perhaps like that we require of our police officers, rather than the lover level, of behaviour we appear to get at the moment.
Stephen Butcher, Hayes
Recommended by 19 people
Added: Sunday, 13 January, 2008, 16:13 GMT 16:13 UK
It must be difficult to notice the odd £100,000 or so missing when your snout is buried so deeply in the trough.
Tim Knight, Brecon
Recommended by 19 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 11:05 GMT 11:05 UK
Please BBC expose what exactly these donors hope to gain by funding these politicians! Lets have an expose of all these underhand rich. Surely they are not all concerned about the politics or have deep political convicitons? What favours or foot in the door are they hoping to gain?
Socialists are always the most arrogant when in power. Like the religious they adopt a holier than thou stance and they escape criticism from the left wing who would be howling for blood if Tories were involved.
April Showers
Recommended by 19 people
Added: Saturday, 12 January, 2008, 10:57 GMT 10:57 UK
No-one, but no-one gives money away like that without expecting something in return.
No wonder the number one rule is SECRECY.
What was the deal Mr. Hain?
judith sheraton
Recommended by 19 people
Added: Friday, 11 January, 2008, 16:16 GMT 16:16 UK
He should resign or be sacked. Trouble is - he will be replaced by someone even less competent. That's the problem with most Labour MPs - they cannot manage and are simply promoted union activists or ideologists - not proved themselves in the real world of work.
Daily Mail Reader "
That's around 100 of the most recommended comments all anti-Peter Hain. The public are speaking but will our lords and masters listen?
Monday, 14 January 2008
The George Osborne "affair"
The BBC are still trying to equate George Osborne's question over double disclosure with Peter Hain's non-disclosure.
Guido Fakes has the emails that were sent between George Osborne's office and Alda Barry (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards). These seem to show that George Osborne's team were trying to ensure they were complying with the law. The one remaining area that is being forensically questioned is that of timing, the money was received 10 months before this set of emails. It seems clear to me that what happened was this:
1. Money received for Osborne's office in January 2007.
2. Receipt notified to the Electoral Commission.
3. Labour funding scandal breaks in November 2007.
4. Conservative Central Office ask all MPs to make sure their funding has been 100% reported and that there are no open questions.
5. George Osborne's office look through all receipts and think "umm this one is tricky, I wonder how the rules apply to this sort of donation". They email Alda Barry to cover their backs.
6. The answer comes back from Alda Barry that all has been done correctly.
What then happened was that the Peter Hain funding horror story breaks and the Labour party need to muddy the waters a bit. So they get the BBC to start the investigation into George Osborne donations and to conflate the two entirely different stories into one. This is having some effect as some people are thinking "they are all as bad as each other", rather than "my the Labour party is full of duplicitous liars".
Peter Hain is hoping that if he can ride this storm out for a few more days, maybe a week, and the BBC keep the equivalence story running that he may be able to keep his jobs. I am torn between wanting Peter Hain out on his well upholstered orange back-side and wanting Gordon Brown to keep him in position so as to show the public just what levels of amorality Gordon Brown will accept in order to keep a minister in position.
Even Tony Blair was man enough to make the tough decisions and get rid of embarrassing ministers; albeit in the cases of Peter Mandelson and David Blunkett
he then took them back into cabinet again, only to have a parting of the ways a second time.
Guido Fakes has the emails that were sent between George Osborne's office and Alda Barry (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards). These seem to show that George Osborne's team were trying to ensure they were complying with the law. The one remaining area that is being forensically questioned is that of timing, the money was received 10 months before this set of emails. It seems clear to me that what happened was this:
1. Money received for Osborne's office in January 2007.
2. Receipt notified to the Electoral Commission.
3. Labour funding scandal breaks in November 2007.
4. Conservative Central Office ask all MPs to make sure their funding has been 100% reported and that there are no open questions.
5. George Osborne's office look through all receipts and think "umm this one is tricky, I wonder how the rules apply to this sort of donation". They email Alda Barry to cover their backs.
6. The answer comes back from Alda Barry that all has been done correctly.
What then happened was that the Peter Hain funding horror story breaks and the Labour party need to muddy the waters a bit. So they get the BBC to start the investigation into George Osborne donations and to conflate the two entirely different stories into one. This is having some effect as some people are thinking "they are all as bad as each other", rather than "my the Labour party is full of duplicitous liars".
Peter Hain is hoping that if he can ride this storm out for a few more days, maybe a week, and the BBC keep the equivalence story running that he may be able to keep his jobs. I am torn between wanting Peter Hain out on his well upholstered orange back-side and wanting Gordon Brown to keep him in position so as to show the public just what levels of amorality Gordon Brown will accept in order to keep a minister in position.
Even Tony Blair was man enough to make the tough decisions and get rid of embarrassing ministers; albeit in the cases of Peter Mandelson and David Blunkett
he then took them back into cabinet again, only to have a parting of the ways a second time.
Andrew Marr's interview of David Cameron
I have just sat through this interview and was impressed by David Cameron's confidence under fire, he was hardly even flustered by Andrew Marr's questions. I think that Andrew Marr's following of the BBC/NuLab line that Peter Hain's and George Osborne's funding reporting actions were comparable was so transparently mud-slinging that even he seemed a little embarrassed to be seen following this line of questioning.
You can read the whole transcript from the "The Andrew Marr Show" here or watch it from the link on that page.
You can read the whole transcript from the "The Andrew Marr Show" here or watch it from the link on that page.
Bizarre phrase used by Andrew Marr in his interview with David Cameron on Sunday morning
From the Andrew Marr show transcript:
"ANDREW MARR: I'll look forward to that. Let's turn to nuclear power. Are you basically on all fours with the government when they, after their announcement about private companies being given the go-ahead to build more nuclear power stations? "
"Are you basically on all fours with the government...?"
What does that mean? Have you ever heard that expression before?
"ANDREW MARR: I'll look forward to that. Let's turn to nuclear power. Are you basically on all fours with the government when they, after their announcement about private companies being given the go-ahead to build more nuclear power stations? "
"Are you basically on all fours with the government...?"
What does that mean? Have you ever heard that expression before?
Sunday, 13 January 2008
The Progressive Policies Forum
If you Google "progressive policies forum", you get 980 results. If you add "-Hain" so as to look for results that presumably predate the current Peter Hain scandal then you get just 5 results, none of which are documents produced by this "think tank", how odd...
Red becomes green
I have long argued that the former communist sympathisers from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s mutated into eco-warriors in the 1990s. I see in the Sunday Times that Jeremy Clarkson agrees "I’ve argued time and again that the old trade unionists and CND lesbians didn’t go away. They just morphed into environmentalists. The red’s become green but the goals remain the same. And there’s no better way of achieving those goals than turning the lights out and therefore winding the clock back to the Stone Age. Only when we’re all eating leaves under a hammer and sickle will they be happy."
So read the rest of the article about "eco-mentalists" opposing a new cleaner coal power station and nuclear power stations.
So read the rest of the article about "eco-mentalists" opposing a new cleaner coal power station and nuclear power stations.
Odd goings on in New Hampshire?
A strange report in the Daily Mail which informs us that "Hillary Clinton is facing an embarrassing recount after her win in the New Hampshire primary - because a rival claims there were "serious and credible" concerns about the poll.
Fringe Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich demanded the move after polling data revealed Mrs Clinton did much better in areas where votes were counted electronically than in those counted by hand...
Officials will check votes on Wednesday amid claims that computer voting machines were hacked into.
Mr Kucinich, congressman for Ohio, said: "Serious and credible reports, allegations and rumour have surfaced. It is imperative these questions are addressed."
An election official said the results merely revealed that Mr Obama was strongest in rural areas - where most votes were hand-counted - and Mrs Clinton strongest in the cities, where machines were principally used."
So probably a non-story, but wouldn't it be great if Hilary Clinton or her team had been this stupid.
Fringe Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich demanded the move after polling data revealed Mrs Clinton did much better in areas where votes were counted electronically than in those counted by hand...
Officials will check votes on Wednesday amid claims that computer voting machines were hacked into.
Mr Kucinich, congressman for Ohio, said: "Serious and credible reports, allegations and rumour have surfaced. It is imperative these questions are addressed."
An election official said the results merely revealed that Mr Obama was strongest in rural areas - where most votes were hand-counted - and Mrs Clinton strongest in the cities, where machines were principally used."
So probably a non-story, but wouldn't it be great if Hilary Clinton or her team had been this stupid.
George Soros
From The Times.
"A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead...
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003."
Too late, the damage to the reputation of the US was done - which was of course the aim.
"A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead...
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003."
Too late, the damage to the reputation of the US was done - which was of course the aim.
The next Labour government proposal?
Maybe the Labour government's next proposal will be to introduce "presumed voting" where you are deemed to have voted for the incumbent government (Labour) unless you actually vote for another party.
This change to electoral law could be proposed on the grounds that surely the fact that people don't bother to vote at the moment is an indication that they are happy with the way the country is being run and therefore would vote Labour if they weren't so satisfied.
This change to electoral law could be proposed on the grounds that surely the fact that people don't bother to vote at the moment is an indication that they are happy with the way the country is being run and therefore would vote Labour if they weren't so satisfied.
"Brown wants to nationalise our bodies"
Take a read of Iain Dale on this story and Gordon Brown's inconsistencies.
Not too surprising Gordon Brown needed positive headlines and he needed them quick, he got the BBC to soften us up (read Biased-BBC for details of this story) and then released the "news".
This "idea" of Gordon Brown's seems at first site to be laudable, after all many people need donated organs. However when you think more deeply the proposals are actually quiet disquieting. My body belongs to me, albeit that Mrs NotaSheep has a fair interest in it, not the state and I don't trust the whole opting out idea. Will I have to carry an opt-out card and rely on that being found when I die or will there be a National Donors Database? If there is a National Donors Database then how reliable will the information held on it be? If it lives up to the standards of other Labour Government IT projects, then the answer will probably be - not very reliable.
Not too surprising Gordon Brown needed positive headlines and he needed them quick, he got the BBC to soften us up (read Biased-BBC for details of this story) and then released the "news".
This "idea" of Gordon Brown's seems at first site to be laudable, after all many people need donated organs. However when you think more deeply the proposals are actually quiet disquieting. My body belongs to me, albeit that Mrs NotaSheep has a fair interest in it, not the state and I don't trust the whole opting out idea. Will I have to carry an opt-out card and rely on that being found when I die or will there be a National Donors Database? If there is a National Donors Database then how reliable will the information held on it be? If it lives up to the standards of other Labour Government IT projects, then the answer will probably be - not very reliable.
More Gordon Brown sleaze?
An interesting piece on Dizzy Thinks which raises some interesting questions about Gordon Brown and Silverfish. Take a read, I have no idea whether this story is true; maybe we will find out.
The BBC and the Peter Hain story
I see that the BBC have mover the Peter Hain sleaze story. The main news is now that Gordon Brown has "called for a national debate" on changing the organ donation system to one of opting out rather than opting in. Lots of cuddly film of people this change would help, no mention of the Alder Hay affair though.
The second story is on George Bush and his description of Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terror. More of the usual disparaging of George Bush included.
The Peter Hain story is number three in the running order but being the BBC it is being linked to the somewhat different matter of the allegations being made about George Osborne's office's financing.
The BBC always happy to muddy the waters in order to support their beloved Labour government.
That Labour party shit, Stephen "Steve" Pound, was shown doing his usual bit of mud throwing on behalf of his Lords and masters. He supported Hazel Blears for the position of deputy leader of the Labour party but his main loyalty is to himself and his career, albeit that career stalled when he resigned his position as PPS to the afore mentioned Hazel Blears over the decision to replace Trident; maybe he is trying to resurrect it and the BBC are trying to help him do that, but why? My favourite Stephen Pound story is reported in Wikipedia thus: "In 2003 BBC’s Today Programme asked its listeners to suggest a law that they would like to see put onto the statute books. The BBC received 10,000 nominations and five were short-listed, from which listeners then voted to select their preferred choice. Stephen Pound agreed to sponsor in parliament whichever idea eventually won the final vote. On 1 January 2004 it was announced on air that first place with 37% of the vote had gone to the proposal to authorise homeowners to use any means to defend their home from intruders. (The controversial farmer Tony Martin was still very much in the news.) Stephen Pound’s on-air reaction to the result was that, "The people have spoken - the bastards"."
It's called democracy Steve, something Labour politicians really don't like, unless it gives them the result they want.
The second story is on George Bush and his description of Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terror. More of the usual disparaging of George Bush included.
The Peter Hain story is number three in the running order but being the BBC it is being linked to the somewhat different matter of the allegations being made about George Osborne's office's financing.
The BBC always happy to muddy the waters in order to support their beloved Labour government.
That Labour party shit, Stephen "Steve" Pound, was shown doing his usual bit of mud throwing on behalf of his Lords and masters. He supported Hazel Blears for the position of deputy leader of the Labour party but his main loyalty is to himself and his career, albeit that career stalled when he resigned his position as PPS to the afore mentioned Hazel Blears over the decision to replace Trident; maybe he is trying to resurrect it and the BBC are trying to help him do that, but why? My favourite Stephen Pound story is reported in Wikipedia thus: "In 2003 BBC’s Today Programme asked its listeners to suggest a law that they would like to see put onto the statute books. The BBC received 10,000 nominations and five were short-listed, from which listeners then voted to select their preferred choice. Stephen Pound agreed to sponsor in parliament whichever idea eventually won the final vote. On 1 January 2004 it was announced on air that first place with 37% of the vote had gone to the proposal to authorise homeowners to use any means to defend their home from intruders. (The controversial farmer Tony Martin was still very much in the news.) Stephen Pound’s on-air reaction to the result was that, "The people have spoken - the bastards"."
It's called democracy Steve, something Labour politicians really don't like, unless it gives them the result they want.
More reaction to The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali's comments
I see from The Times that The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali's comments on Muslim only areas has another supporter, this time a former senior member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Mr Shiraz Maher. He records how Muslims growing up in Muslim dominated areas Have "their feelings of separation ... further reinforced by the advent of digital broadcasting, which has swelled the number of foreign language television stations in Britain, creating digital ghettos. Islamist movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir ... have been quick to spot the opportunities this affords them. In 2004 the group launched a campaign aimed at undermining President Pervez Mush-arraf by broadcasting adverts on Asian satellite channels, calling on the Pakistani community in Britain to “stop Busharraf”.
Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Leicester-based Muslim Forum, is unequivocal about the dangers such Islamification poses. “We have a cultural and social apartheid which fun-damentalists thrive off,” he says."
Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Leicester-based Muslim Forum, is unequivocal about the dangers such Islamification poses. “We have a cultural and social apartheid which fun-damentalists thrive off,” he says."
More Gordon Brown related sleaze
The revelations just keep on coming, today we can claims that "GORDON BROWN’S most senior aide has been accused of deceiving thousands of shareholders during his former business career, according to court documents.
Stephen Carter, who was last week appointed the prime minister’s chief of strategy and principal adviser, is said in the documents to have told a fellow executive who feared he had misled shareholders: “What I tell them is nine-tenths bullshit and one-tenth selected facts.” "
If that statement is true then Stephen Carter is the ideal man to be Gordon Brown's chief of strategy, although he may have to up the percentage of bullshit from 90%.
Stephen Carter, who was last week appointed the prime minister’s chief of strategy and principal adviser, is said in the documents to have told a fellow executive who feared he had misled shareholders: “What I tell them is nine-tenths bullshit and one-tenth selected facts.” "
If that statement is true then Stephen Carter is the ideal man to be Gordon Brown's chief of strategy, although he may have to up the percentage of bullshit from 90%.
"You're right on target"
The advertisement for "Just for Men" still tickles my fancy whenever I see it. It's cheesy and badly dubbed from the original American English BUT that last bedroom scene that ends with a shot from outside the room, the sound of a womanly pleased giggle and then "You're right on target". Makes Mrs NotaSheep and I laugh every time.
And if you want to see the advertisement here it is.
And if you want to see the advertisement here it is.
Saturday, 12 January 2008
The Clintons and an incredible quote from Hilary Clinton?
An incredible article about Bill and Hilary Clinton in today's Daily Mail. What a lovely pair they make, read it and ask yourself "is that the best the US Democratic Party can vote for?"
Several quotes from the article stick out but the best I save for the end of this piece...
"Said Ann McCoy, a friend from Arkansas: "You get a hug from Bill and a solution from Hillary."
Her powers of concentration and rigorous self-discipline are legendary. "You can see her sometimes almost censoring the first and second and third thing that comes into her head," said her longtime friend Diane Blair.
Even Hillary has acknowledged having an "obsessive personality." ...
Nor does Hillary ever feel compelled to explain her certainties - or much else about her thoughts and emotions. This defiantly closed nature has fuelled a perception that she was withholding information during numerous official investigations into the Clintons' affairs.
In fact, playing the role of "hidden hand" is one she enjoys.
"She was extremely Machiavellian, a master of doing things that could not be traced back to her," recalled one close colleague. "She would say: 'Do this, but don't leave any fingerprints.'"
Hillary's own mother once observed: "She just does everything she has to do to get along and get ahead." "
***********************************************************************************
The line that caught my eye, because I have never, ever, heard it mentioned before was this (my emphasis):
"On January 21, 1993, Bill's first full day in office, she and Bill shook some 1,800 hands in three hours. "We just screwed all these people," she whispered to her husband - a comment heard on network television."
Is this true? Can anyone find the video of it?
Several quotes from the article stick out but the best I save for the end of this piece...
"Said Ann McCoy, a friend from Arkansas: "You get a hug from Bill and a solution from Hillary."
Her powers of concentration and rigorous self-discipline are legendary. "You can see her sometimes almost censoring the first and second and third thing that comes into her head," said her longtime friend Diane Blair.
Even Hillary has acknowledged having an "obsessive personality." ...
Nor does Hillary ever feel compelled to explain her certainties - or much else about her thoughts and emotions. This defiantly closed nature has fuelled a perception that she was withholding information during numerous official investigations into the Clintons' affairs.
In fact, playing the role of "hidden hand" is one she enjoys.
"She was extremely Machiavellian, a master of doing things that could not be traced back to her," recalled one close colleague. "She would say: 'Do this, but don't leave any fingerprints.'"
Hillary's own mother once observed: "She just does everything she has to do to get along and get ahead." "
***********************************************************************************
The line that caught my eye, because I have never, ever, heard it mentioned before was this (my emphasis):
"On January 21, 1993, Bill's first full day in office, she and Bill shook some 1,800 hands in three hours. "We just screwed all these people," she whispered to her husband - a comment heard on network television."
Is this true? Can anyone find the video of it?
How is Hilary Clinton qualified to be President?
"In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.
Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State.
When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef". "
Thanks to Last of the Few for that...
Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State.
When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef". "
Thanks to Last of the Few for that...
Research finds
Apparently "Britons believe too many people, especially immigrants and asylum seekers, take advantage of the Human Rights Act (HRA), a poll has suggested.
The survey for the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), which dates from 2004 but has only just been published, says 57% believe the law is being exploited."
The Labour government responded by launching a full investigation into whether the HRA was working as intended. Sorry, back to reality - in fact "It called for more work to correct public misunderstandings about the HRA."
The survey for the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), which dates from 2004 but has only just been published, says 57% believe the law is being exploited."
The Labour government responded by launching a full investigation into whether the HRA was working as intended. Sorry, back to reality - in fact "It called for more work to correct public misunderstandings about the HRA."
Another stealth tax
The BBC report that "New parking rules coming into force in England on 31 March will cause "some chaos" for drivers and see the number of fines soar, the AA has warned."
The phrase in this report that caught my eye was this "Councils will also be able to penalise actions such as parking next to a dropped kerb or parking too far away from the kerb."
How long before "parking a car with an engine larger than 1 litre in a town centre between 09:00 and 19:00" also makes you liable to a fine?
The phrase in this report that caught my eye was this "Councils will also be able to penalise actions such as parking next to a dropped kerb or parking too far away from the kerb."
How long before "parking a car with an engine larger than 1 litre in a town centre between 09:00 and 19:00" also makes you liable to a fine?
"Slightly arrogant"?
According to the BBC, "Tory MP David Davies called Mr Hain's statement "slightly arrogant"."
Slightly?!?
"Mr Hain said he was also "now making immediate arrangements" to repay the £25,000 interest-free loan from the PPF."
I presume that the paperwork showing that these were "interest-free loans" will be made available.
The BBC article finishes with two nice quotes.
1. "Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg told the BBC he could not "distinguish between what appears to be either utter incompetence in the way his campaign was run, or deliberate obfuscation"."
You and me both, Nick.
2. "A Downing Street spokesman confirmed that the prime minister retained confidence in Mr Hain."
Just "confidence", not "full confidence", oh dear Peter. Mind you Peter Hain has been around long enough to know enough that Gordon would be very wary of sacking him.
Slightly?!?
"Mr Hain said he was also "now making immediate arrangements" to repay the £25,000 interest-free loan from the PPF."
I presume that the paperwork showing that these were "interest-free loans" will be made available.
The BBC article finishes with two nice quotes.
1. "Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg told the BBC he could not "distinguish between what appears to be either utter incompetence in the way his campaign was run, or deliberate obfuscation"."
You and me both, Nick.
2. "A Downing Street spokesman confirmed that the prime minister retained confidence in Mr Hain."
Just "confidence", not "full confidence", oh dear Peter. Mind you Peter Hain has been around long enough to know enough that Gordon would be very wary of sacking him.
More Peter Hain and now some Gordon Brown
The sleaze just keeps on spreading. Take a read of Hain's story is unravelling and Gordon Brown's own labour leadership, both over on Guido Fawkes's site. I just cannot keep up with documenting every new piece of sleaze...
Friday, 11 January 2008
Coincidence or the mark of the Devil?
Archbishop Cranmer reports that "In a delightful ‘coincidence’ which will please theological numerologists, the House of Commons’ order paper listing motions for debate has allocated 666 to a motion calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England.
Bob Russell, Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester, one of the signatories, said: "It is is incredible that a motion like this should have, by chance, acquired this significant number. This number is supposed to be the mark of the Devil. It looks as though God or the Devil have been moving in mysterious ways. What is even stranger is that this motion was tabled last night when MPs were debating blasphemy.""
I would imagine that the tabling of this Early Day Motion was timed so as to obtain the number 666; that would appeal to many people's sense of humour. Whether this is a matter for levity is a completely different matter.
Bob Russell, Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester, one of the signatories, said: "It is is incredible that a motion like this should have, by chance, acquired this significant number. This number is supposed to be the mark of the Devil. It looks as though God or the Devil have been moving in mysterious ways. What is even stranger is that this motion was tabled last night when MPs were debating blasphemy.""
I would imagine that the tabling of this Early Day Motion was timed so as to obtain the number 666; that would appeal to many people's sense of humour. Whether this is a matter for levity is a completely different matter.
Even more on Peter Hain
Further to my previous post where I pointed out that "Peter Hain's website is of course paid for by the taxpayer not Peter Hain, as "This website is funded by the Communications Allowance". The latest way that the Labour government have tried to keep their hands on power."
I see that Lib Dem Voice are now reporting that "Looks like when I said Peter Hain had four problems at the moment, I should have said five. His website - www.peterhain.org - says at the bottom, “This website is funded by the Communications Allowance”. Now that’s ok in itself - MPs are allowed to use the funds they receive to communicate online. However, what they’re not allowed to do is to use the money for party politics. So it’s a bit of a problem, that the site says “please use this site to join the debate about Labour’s future.” That’d be party politics methinks. Oops."
Well spotted Mark Pack.
Incidentally it would appear that Peter Hain's minions are reading sites such as mine as what read:
"The key to this website is dialogue and I have tried to make it possible for you to post your own views, so please use this site to join the debate about Labour's future. I look forward to hearing from you."
Now reads:
"The key to this website is dialogue and I will be keeping you up to date on my activities and you can get in touch with me by clicking here.
I look forward to hearing from you."
Now why would he have dropped mention of "Labour's future"? Worried about being accused of misusing the Communications Allowance perhaps.
I see that Lib Dem Voice are now reporting that "Looks like when I said Peter Hain had four problems at the moment, I should have said five. His website - www.peterhain.org - says at the bottom, “This website is funded by the Communications Allowance”. Now that’s ok in itself - MPs are allowed to use the funds they receive to communicate online. However, what they’re not allowed to do is to use the money for party politics. So it’s a bit of a problem, that the site says “please use this site to join the debate about Labour’s future.” That’d be party politics methinks. Oops."
Well spotted Mark Pack.
Incidentally it would appear that Peter Hain's minions are reading sites such as mine as what read:
"The key to this website is dialogue and I have tried to make it possible for you to post your own views, so please use this site to join the debate about Labour's future. I look forward to hearing from you."
Now reads:
"The key to this website is dialogue and I will be keeping you up to date on my activities and you can get in touch with me by clicking here.
I look forward to hearing from you."
Now why would he have dropped mention of "Labour's future"? Worried about being accused of misusing the Communications Allowance perhaps.
More on Peter Hain
If the following is true then Peter Hain's fall from power should be all but assured, This is London claim today that:
"Half the cash given to the Work and Pensions Secretary was donated via a virtually unknown think-tank created just five months before the contest, fuelling suspicions that it was used as a gobetween to shield a series of 'hidden' donors.
They included Isaac Kaye, 78, who is linked to South Africa's pro-apartheid National Party and was embroiled in a police investigation into a suspected £ 400million fraud against the NHS."
Allegedly receiving money from a someone linked to a pro-apartheid party in South Africa? This would be the same Peter Hain who on his website spends much time detailing his upbringing in South Africa and how he fought back against the horrors of apartheid.
"When Peter was 10, he was awoken in the early hours of the morning with Special Branch Officers searching his room for ‘incriminating evidence’. Peter became accustomed to multicultural meetings taking place in his home and visiting black townships which his white friends never did. Special Branch would regularly park outside the Hain household and would follow them wherever they would go including school...
His parents’ struggle made a lasting impression on Peter who himself took up the fight against injustice. Following his arrival in Britain Peter became involved in anti-Apartheid protestes (sic), disrupting an international Davies Cup Match against Britain with a sit-down. Then at the age of 19 he became chairman of the Stop The Seventy Tour. As Chairman of the STST campaign in 1969-70, Peter scored the first victory for anti-apartheid protests by first heavily disrupting the all white Springbok rugby tour and then finally stopping the all white South African cricket tour of Britain. His mother, father, brother and sisters were all involved in helping him run the STST from his home.
Following his campaign Peter was named as “South Africa’s Public Enemy No 1.” As Desmond Tutu said recently, "Peter was such a stalwart in the Stop the Seventy Tour Campaign...someone we were glad to have on our side"."
Do I hear the word hypocrisy?
Peter Hain's website is of course paid for by the taxpayer not Peter Hain, as "This website is funded by the Communications Allowance". The latest way that the Labour government have tried to keep their hands on power.
As Peter Hain says on his website, "The key to this website is dialogue and I have tried to make it possible for you to post your own views, so please use this site to join the debate about Labour's future.
I look forward to hearing from you."
Let's all keep him up to speed on what we think of him...
"Half the cash given to the Work and Pensions Secretary was donated via a virtually unknown think-tank created just five months before the contest, fuelling suspicions that it was used as a gobetween to shield a series of 'hidden' donors.
They included Isaac Kaye, 78, who is linked to South Africa's pro-apartheid National Party and was embroiled in a police investigation into a suspected £ 400million fraud against the NHS."
Allegedly receiving money from a someone linked to a pro-apartheid party in South Africa? This would be the same Peter Hain who on his website spends much time detailing his upbringing in South Africa and how he fought back against the horrors of apartheid.
"When Peter was 10, he was awoken in the early hours of the morning with Special Branch Officers searching his room for ‘incriminating evidence’. Peter became accustomed to multicultural meetings taking place in his home and visiting black townships which his white friends never did. Special Branch would regularly park outside the Hain household and would follow them wherever they would go including school...
His parents’ struggle made a lasting impression on Peter who himself took up the fight against injustice. Following his arrival in Britain Peter became involved in anti-Apartheid protestes (sic), disrupting an international Davies Cup Match against Britain with a sit-down. Then at the age of 19 he became chairman of the Stop The Seventy Tour. As Chairman of the STST campaign in 1969-70, Peter scored the first victory for anti-apartheid protests by first heavily disrupting the all white Springbok rugby tour and then finally stopping the all white South African cricket tour of Britain. His mother, father, brother and sisters were all involved in helping him run the STST from his home.
Following his campaign Peter was named as “South Africa’s Public Enemy No 1.” As Desmond Tutu said recently, "Peter was such a stalwart in the Stop the Seventy Tour Campaign...someone we were glad to have on our side"."
Do I hear the word hypocrisy?
Peter Hain's website is of course paid for by the taxpayer not Peter Hain, as "This website is funded by the Communications Allowance". The latest way that the Labour government have tried to keep their hands on power.
As Peter Hain says on his website, "The key to this website is dialogue and I have tried to make it possible for you to post your own views, so please use this site to join the debate about Labour's future.
I look forward to hearing from you."
Let's all keep him up to speed on what we think of him...
"Deliberately withholding information that affects your claim is stealing".
"There are NO IFS, NO BUTS when it comes to ... fraud. Deliberately withholding information that affects your claim is stealing." So says the Department for Work & Pensions on its website page devoted to benefit fraud.
Maybe the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Peter Hain, should mull that over whilst he and his team claim that their admitted failing to declare more than £100,000 in donations to his campaign to be Labour deputy leader was due to "administrative failings". Sorry Peter but "There are NO IFS, NO BUTS when it comes to ... fraud"
Iain Dale has a nice piece today that picks up something that I suggested here.
Maybe the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Peter Hain, should mull that over whilst he and his team claim that their admitted failing to declare more than £100,000 in donations to his campaign to be Labour deputy leader was due to "administrative failings". Sorry Peter but "There are NO IFS, NO BUTS when it comes to ... fraud"
Iain Dale has a nice piece today that picks up something that I suggested here.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
So that's how Tony & Cherie knew they could afford the mortgage repayments
Oh what a surprise, Tony Blair "has taken a part-time post with US investment bank JP Morgan.
Mr Blair, who stood down as UK prime minister in June last year, has been employed "in a senior advisory capacity", the bank said. He said he looked forward to advising the bank on the "political and economic changes that globalisation brings". It is not known how much JP Morgan will pay him, but some estimates say more than $1m (£500,000) a year. The bank said he had a "unique perspective"."
Unique perspective, that just about sums it up.
"Mr Blair earlier told the Financial Times he planned to take up "a small handful" of similar roles with other companies in different sectors. "I have always been interested in commerce and the impact of globalisation. "
I think that translates as "I want to earn lots of money".
"In October, Mr Blair was publicly backed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the job of president of the European Council - dubbed "president of Europe" - a role which will be created under the terms of the new EU reform treaty."
I have always believed that was the plan, to quit as Prime Minister and then in time become the first President of Europe; just the job for a strutting popinjay such as Tony Blair. Can you imagine Cherie as the Empress of Europe? My stomach turns at the prospect.
Completely coincidentally in 2003 the New York Times reported that "J. P. Morgan Chase has been selected to operate a bank the United States is creating in Iraq to manage billions of dollars to finance imports and exports. J. P. Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years, said Peter McPherson, the top United States economic adviser in Iraq."
Mr Blair, who stood down as UK prime minister in June last year, has been employed "in a senior advisory capacity", the bank said. He said he looked forward to advising the bank on the "political and economic changes that globalisation brings". It is not known how much JP Morgan will pay him, but some estimates say more than $1m (£500,000) a year. The bank said he had a "unique perspective"."
Unique perspective, that just about sums it up.
"Mr Blair earlier told the Financial Times he planned to take up "a small handful" of similar roles with other companies in different sectors. "I have always been interested in commerce and the impact of globalisation. "
I think that translates as "I want to earn lots of money".
"In October, Mr Blair was publicly backed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the job of president of the European Council - dubbed "president of Europe" - a role which will be created under the terms of the new EU reform treaty."
I have always believed that was the plan, to quit as Prime Minister and then in time become the first President of Europe; just the job for a strutting popinjay such as Tony Blair. Can you imagine Cherie as the Empress of Europe? My stomach turns at the prospect.
Completely coincidentally in 2003 the New York Times reported that "J. P. Morgan Chase has been selected to operate a bank the United States is creating in Iraq to manage billions of dollars to finance imports and exports. J. P. Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years, said Peter McPherson, the top United States economic adviser in Iraq."
Nuclear power in the UK (part 2)
Further to my earlier post on family links between this Labour government and the nuclear industry, in the back of my mind I knew that there was another link and I have found it. One of Gordon Brown's closest advisers is Ed Balls, the current Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who is married to Yvette Cooper, the current Minister of State for Housing and Planning. So far, so what? Well Yvette Cooper's father is Tony Cooper described by Wikipedia as the "former General Secretary of the Union Prospect, a member of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and a former Chairman of the British Nuclear Industry Forum." According to Nuclear Spin "He was also Chairman of the Trade Unions for Safe Nuclear Energy... He is also a member of the Department of Trade and Industry's Energy Advisory Panel, a ministerial appointment for which he receives remuneration of £1,000 a year." This might or might not be out of date as Nuclear Spin is not the most up to date of reference sites.
So there we go Gordon Brown's brother works in the nuclear power industry as does one of his closest adviser's father-in-law. Nothing like keeping it in the family is there - do you think the BBC will cover these links?
So there we go Gordon Brown's brother works in the nuclear power industry as does one of his closest adviser's father-in-law. Nothing like keeping it in the family is there - do you think the BBC will cover these links?
Nose picking
Guido Fawkes does it again.
Nose pickers united... Gordon Brown and Hilary Clinton!
Why do I have doubts that the BBC will show either image?
Nose pickers united... Gordon Brown and Hilary Clinton!
Why do I have doubts that the BBC will show either image?
Nuclear power in the UK
I read that "A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK has been given formal backing by the government. Business Secretary John Hutton told MPs they would give a "safe and affordable" way of securing the UK's future energy supplies while fighting climate change. "
Just remind me of two facts:
1. Who is the Prime Minister and therefore who had to approve this policy?
2. Who is the Director of Communications at EDF Energy, Europe's largest single nuclear energy supplier?
1. That would be James Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. That would be Andrew Brown - any relation or a just coincidental surnames? You cynical person, of course it's not a coincidence Andrew Brown is Gordon's younger brother.
I'm sure there is nothing untoward in this, however do you think the BBC have mentioned this? Of course they haven't.
Do you think they would have mentioned this if it had been a Conservative government?
By the way, which bright spark sold British Nuclear Group off over the past two years? That would be Gordon Brown as well. He sold gold off at the wrong time and also the UK's expertise in nuclear power, what a great clunking **** he is.
Just remind me of two facts:
1. Who is the Prime Minister and therefore who had to approve this policy?
2. Who is the Director of Communications at EDF Energy, Europe's largest single nuclear energy supplier?
1. That would be James Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. That would be Andrew Brown - any relation or a just coincidental surnames? You cynical person, of course it's not a coincidence Andrew Brown is Gordon's younger brother.
I'm sure there is nothing untoward in this, however do you think the BBC have mentioned this? Of course they haven't.
Do you think they would have mentioned this if it had been a Conservative government?
By the way, which bright spark sold British Nuclear Group off over the past two years? That would be Gordon Brown as well. He sold gold off at the wrong time and also the UK's expertise in nuclear power, what a great clunking **** he is.
Hilary Clinton
Not my favourite politician, not by a long way. I do like this article by Andrew Sullivan on Hilary's reaction to the Iowa caucus result.
"From a Clinton campaign email list:
The Iowa caucus process is a broken and flawed process. It was designed to allow for the active party Dems generally known to one another to assign delegates and was not designed to handle a flood of students and independents. It was a system designed to give more power to Dem party loyalists. In the tension over whether the candidates should be chosen by the party or by the general public, the Iowa caucus was designed to give the party the advantage. For this reason, the Iowa system failed on Thursday."
As Sullivan writes, "Translation: we couldn't control it. So it sucks."
Ah democracy...
"From a Clinton campaign email list:
The Iowa caucus process is a broken and flawed process. It was designed to allow for the active party Dems generally known to one another to assign delegates and was not designed to handle a flood of students and independents. It was a system designed to give more power to Dem party loyalists. In the tension over whether the candidates should be chosen by the party or by the general public, the Iowa caucus was designed to give the party the advantage. For this reason, the Iowa system failed on Thursday."
As Sullivan writes, "Translation: we couldn't control it. So it sucks."
Ah democracy...
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - third reading
I was preparing an expose of the sheer lack of respect for Parliament shown by this Labour government yesterday when they crammed the whole of the report stage and the third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill into just one day of debate, then I came across John Redwood's piece and suddenly I lost the will to wade through Hansard. So go and read John Redwood's article instead and wonder at how Gordon Brown is turning out to be even less of a fan of democracy in the UK than Tony Blair was.
As John Redwood concludes his article: "Mr Brown said all the right things at the beginning of his term as PM, claiming he wanted to rebuild trust in Parliament and politicians, and wanted parliament to have a more central role. This week, yet, again, by his actions in stopping debate on what we want to talk about and inviting debate on what he wants to talk about he has shown he does not want a stronger Parliament, but a poodle Parliament."
As John Redwood concludes his article: "Mr Brown said all the right things at the beginning of his term as PM, claiming he wanted to rebuild trust in Parliament and politicians, and wanted parliament to have a more central role. This week, yet, again, by his actions in stopping debate on what we want to talk about and inviting debate on what he wants to talk about he has shown he does not want a stronger Parliament, but a poodle Parliament."
Eric Pickles states "the bleedin' obvious"
Take a read of this from 24dash:
"The Conservatives say new answers to Parliamentary Questions have revealed today that the price of buying a first home has tripled over the last ten years.
Stamp duty thresholds have not kept pace, which the Tories claim means that Gordon Brown’s tax take has soared, and more and more first time buyers are liable for this housing tax.
Eric Pickles MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government, said: "One of the most damning indictments of Gordon Brown’s record is that the number of first time buyers has plummeted to its lowest level for decades.
"His stealth tax of stamp duty is pushing more and more buyers into over-extending themselves on their mortgages, meaning higher interest rates as well as the risk of negative equity if house prices stumble.
"If Ministers really wanted to help people onto the housing ladder, they would adopt the Conservatives' proposals to abolish stamp duty for first time buyers up to £250,000.
"Affordable homes are the bedrock of stable and safe communities. We need to make it easier to get on, and move up, the housing ladder.” "
Two thoughts come to mind: first - well obviously Eric, what did you expect from the master of stealth taxes? Gordon Brown is a complete ****, an absolute **** and you and the rest of the Conservative party let him get away with his multiple thefts from the taxpayer and pensioner far too easily, second - any news organisation that can't be bothered to spell check their headings or even proof read them deserves my derision - the title of 24post's piece is entitled "Tories cliam soaring house prices show need for tax cuts" CLIAM, good grief... Their home page includes this proud boast "This website is currently at Beta stage, but we're so excited about the way it looks we wanted to let people start using it as soon as possible." They ask for comments, I really can't be bothered...
"The Conservatives say new answers to Parliamentary Questions have revealed today that the price of buying a first home has tripled over the last ten years.
Stamp duty thresholds have not kept pace, which the Tories claim means that Gordon Brown’s tax take has soared, and more and more first time buyers are liable for this housing tax.
Eric Pickles MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government, said: "One of the most damning indictments of Gordon Brown’s record is that the number of first time buyers has plummeted to its lowest level for decades.
"His stealth tax of stamp duty is pushing more and more buyers into over-extending themselves on their mortgages, meaning higher interest rates as well as the risk of negative equity if house prices stumble.
"If Ministers really wanted to help people onto the housing ladder, they would adopt the Conservatives' proposals to abolish stamp duty for first time buyers up to £250,000.
"Affordable homes are the bedrock of stable and safe communities. We need to make it easier to get on, and move up, the housing ladder.” "
Two thoughts come to mind: first - well obviously Eric, what did you expect from the master of stealth taxes? Gordon Brown is a complete ****, an absolute **** and you and the rest of the Conservative party let him get away with his multiple thefts from the taxpayer and pensioner far too easily, second - any news organisation that can't be bothered to spell check their headings or even proof read them deserves my derision - the title of 24post's piece is entitled "Tories cliam soaring house prices show need for tax cuts" CLIAM, good grief... Their home page includes this proud boast "This website is currently at Beta stage, but we're so excited about the way it looks we wanted to let people start using it as soon as possible." They ask for comments, I really can't be bothered...
Freedom of Information
This Labour government's implementation of the Freedom of Information Act must be one of the most cynical acts since they came to power. Here is the speech Tony Blair made at the Campaign for Freedom of Information's annual Awards ceremony, 25 March 1996. It includes these passages (my emphasis):
"And before I go on to talk about Labour's commitment to the area of freedom of information I would like if I might just to set this argument in context, because it is not some isolated constitutional reform that we are proposing with a Freedom of Information Act. It is a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years. We did a press conference this morning, myself and Gordon Brown about insecurities...
As I said information is power and any government's attitude about sharing information with the people actually says a great deal about how it views power itself and how it views the relationship between itself and the people who elected it. I want to say two things about this, one of which is very obvious, and one of which is less obvious.
The crucial question is does the government regard people's involvement in politics as being restricted to periodic elections? Or, does it regard itself as in some sense in a genuine partnership with people? And the government's attitude to what it is prepared to tell people and the knowledge it will share with them says a great deal about where it stands on that matter.
My argument is that if a government is genuine about wanting a partnership with the people who it is governing, then the act of government itself must be seen in some sense as a shared responsibility and the government has to empower the people and give them a say in how that politics is conducted.
Now that is an obvious point, familiar to any one who supports a Freedom of Information Act. I think less obvious is the second point, that in today's world, I believe that there is a limit to what government can do, and the power of society or community to act and to influence the lives of the individuals within it depends on a far more diverse and diffuse set of relationships than, if you like, a concept of government that would have been more natural or more easily explicable forty or fifty years ago. I don't believe it is possible for government to govern effectively now, unless it governs in some sense in a relationship of partnership with the people whom it is governing. It is one of the reasons why decentralisation of power is actually in the interests of government. People often say to me today: everyone says this before they get into power, then, after they get into power you start to read the words of the government on the screen and they don't seem so silly after all. You can see the point of them and all the rest of it.
I actually believe that if we want to make government effective in the modern world it simply is not possible to do that on the basis of government just handing down tablets of stone. In fact, you can see, in my view, both with Scott and BSE it would have been far better if government had been more open, far better actually for the proper conduct of government....
Our commitment to a Freedom of Information Act is clear, and I reaffirm it here tonight. We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity and make government information available to the public unless there are good reasons not to do so. So the presumption is that information should be, rather than should not be, released. In fact, we want to open up the quango state and the appointed bodies, which will of course exist under any government, but which should operate in a manner which exposes their actions to proper public scrutiny.
Freedom of information legislation exists in many other countries, including the United States and Canada and Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and France. The countries have sensible exemptions which the public here would understand and support. Information relating to national security, to law enforcement, to commercial confidentiality, to personal privacy, should of course be subject to exemption, as should the policy advice given by civil servants to ministers. But even with these kinds of exemption, there would still be vast swathes of government activity which would be exposed to public examination and to public debate.
And the Act would also be of practical use to individuals. In recent years we have finally been allowed to have access to our medical records, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Why should we stop there? Why should what is held on other personal files not also be available for us to see? At present we have a mish-mash of rules which allows us to see some files and not others, partly dependent on whether they are held on computer or held manually. But I believe there is a strong case for taking a consistent approach to giving people access to what is held on file about them subject of course to those obvious exemptions.
It is not a question of absolutes, but it is a question of balance, and the present balance is surely wrong. It is wrong not merely in relation to the public sector. It is, as we have seen from the Awards that have been given, wrong in relation to the private sector as well. Of course, there will be elements which are so confidential, commercially for example, they cannot or should not be disclosed. But that would not obtain in the vast bulk of area and very often there will be a direct public interest in having information disclosed rather than actually concealed. A Freedom of Information Act would entitle the public to government information and would leave it to government to justify why information should not be released. I don't believe that its impact would simply be in the pure matter of legislation, in the detail of the legislation. It would also signal a culture change that would make a dramatic difference to the way that Britain is governed. The very fact of its introduction will signal a new relationship between government and people: a relationship which sees the public as legitimate stakeholders in the running of the country and sees election to serve the public as being given on trust.
That is my view of how government should be. I believe in the programme of constitutional change that the Labour Party has outlined. I think that a Freedom of Information Act is an important and essential part of that.
I hope you understand from what I have said this evening that I regard it not merely as simply a list of commitments that we give because at some point in time, someone got up and agitated for it and party conference passed a resolution. It is genuinely about changing the relationship in politics today.
There is so much disaffection from politics, so much disillusion with it, and one of the very clear and simple reasons is that we live in a modern and far better educated and far more open and far more assertive democracy and country - and it is good that people feel in that way. The irony is that the system of government is about fifty, sixty, seventy years behind the actual feelings and sentiments of the broad majority of people. A Freedom of Information Act is not just important in itself. It is part of bringing our politics up to date, of letting politics catch up with the aspirations of people and delivering not just more open government but more effective, more efficient, government for the future."
Ah what a hopeful, happy time that was. Everyone knew that Tony Blair was just months away from becoming Prime Minister and ushering in a new era of joy, light and happiness for all . Of course the truth was somewhat different, things could also get worse...
Moving to the present day and after nearly 11 years of labour rule the lie of the land looks somewhat different and the Freedom of Information Act is now being used by this Labour government to block the release of information. I am sure that you remember the "non-doms" affair back in the Autumn. At their October party conference, the Conservatives outlined a £25,000 charge for non-doms to pay for raising the IHT threshold to £1m. A week later Alistair Darling announced IHT changes and a £30,000 charge for non-doms. Coincidence was the claim by the Labour government, everybody else smelt a rat. A FOI request by The Telegraph to the Treasury regarding IHT produced the information/claim that the Treasury had been working on proposals for an overhaul of inheritance tax before the Tories had. A similar request to revel when the Treasury first proposed its £30,000 charge on non-doms has not been answered.
As the shadow chief secretary to the treasury Philip Hammond said: ‘When it suited Gordon Brown, the Treasury responded to an FOI request on the origins of their Inheritance Tax policy with amazing speed. Those documents showed that the IHT idea was only advanced by government after the Conservatives raised it. ‘People will draw their own conclusions about where Labour got the non-doms idea from.’"
Indeed we will Philip, indeed we will.
"And before I go on to talk about Labour's commitment to the area of freedom of information I would like if I might just to set this argument in context, because it is not some isolated constitutional reform that we are proposing with a Freedom of Information Act. It is a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years. We did a press conference this morning, myself and Gordon Brown about insecurities...
As I said information is power and any government's attitude about sharing information with the people actually says a great deal about how it views power itself and how it views the relationship between itself and the people who elected it. I want to say two things about this, one of which is very obvious, and one of which is less obvious.
The crucial question is does the government regard people's involvement in politics as being restricted to periodic elections? Or, does it regard itself as in some sense in a genuine partnership with people? And the government's attitude to what it is prepared to tell people and the knowledge it will share with them says a great deal about where it stands on that matter.
My argument is that if a government is genuine about wanting a partnership with the people who it is governing, then the act of government itself must be seen in some sense as a shared responsibility and the government has to empower the people and give them a say in how that politics is conducted.
Now that is an obvious point, familiar to any one who supports a Freedom of Information Act. I think less obvious is the second point, that in today's world, I believe that there is a limit to what government can do, and the power of society or community to act and to influence the lives of the individuals within it depends on a far more diverse and diffuse set of relationships than, if you like, a concept of government that would have been more natural or more easily explicable forty or fifty years ago. I don't believe it is possible for government to govern effectively now, unless it governs in some sense in a relationship of partnership with the people whom it is governing. It is one of the reasons why decentralisation of power is actually in the interests of government. People often say to me today: everyone says this before they get into power, then, after they get into power you start to read the words of the government on the screen and they don't seem so silly after all. You can see the point of them and all the rest of it.
I actually believe that if we want to make government effective in the modern world it simply is not possible to do that on the basis of government just handing down tablets of stone. In fact, you can see, in my view, both with Scott and BSE it would have been far better if government had been more open, far better actually for the proper conduct of government....
Our commitment to a Freedom of Information Act is clear, and I reaffirm it here tonight. We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity and make government information available to the public unless there are good reasons not to do so. So the presumption is that information should be, rather than should not be, released. In fact, we want to open up the quango state and the appointed bodies, which will of course exist under any government, but which should operate in a manner which exposes their actions to proper public scrutiny.
Freedom of information legislation exists in many other countries, including the United States and Canada and Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and France. The countries have sensible exemptions which the public here would understand and support. Information relating to national security, to law enforcement, to commercial confidentiality, to personal privacy, should of course be subject to exemption, as should the policy advice given by civil servants to ministers. But even with these kinds of exemption, there would still be vast swathes of government activity which would be exposed to public examination and to public debate.
And the Act would also be of practical use to individuals. In recent years we have finally been allowed to have access to our medical records, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Why should we stop there? Why should what is held on other personal files not also be available for us to see? At present we have a mish-mash of rules which allows us to see some files and not others, partly dependent on whether they are held on computer or held manually. But I believe there is a strong case for taking a consistent approach to giving people access to what is held on file about them subject of course to those obvious exemptions.
It is not a question of absolutes, but it is a question of balance, and the present balance is surely wrong. It is wrong not merely in relation to the public sector. It is, as we have seen from the Awards that have been given, wrong in relation to the private sector as well. Of course, there will be elements which are so confidential, commercially for example, they cannot or should not be disclosed. But that would not obtain in the vast bulk of area and very often there will be a direct public interest in having information disclosed rather than actually concealed. A Freedom of Information Act would entitle the public to government information and would leave it to government to justify why information should not be released. I don't believe that its impact would simply be in the pure matter of legislation, in the detail of the legislation. It would also signal a culture change that would make a dramatic difference to the way that Britain is governed. The very fact of its introduction will signal a new relationship between government and people: a relationship which sees the public as legitimate stakeholders in the running of the country and sees election to serve the public as being given on trust.
That is my view of how government should be. I believe in the programme of constitutional change that the Labour Party has outlined. I think that a Freedom of Information Act is an important and essential part of that.
I hope you understand from what I have said this evening that I regard it not merely as simply a list of commitments that we give because at some point in time, someone got up and agitated for it and party conference passed a resolution. It is genuinely about changing the relationship in politics today.
There is so much disaffection from politics, so much disillusion with it, and one of the very clear and simple reasons is that we live in a modern and far better educated and far more open and far more assertive democracy and country - and it is good that people feel in that way. The irony is that the system of government is about fifty, sixty, seventy years behind the actual feelings and sentiments of the broad majority of people. A Freedom of Information Act is not just important in itself. It is part of bringing our politics up to date, of letting politics catch up with the aspirations of people and delivering not just more open government but more effective, more efficient, government for the future."
Ah what a hopeful, happy time that was. Everyone knew that Tony Blair was just months away from becoming Prime Minister and ushering in a new era of joy, light and happiness for all . Of course the truth was somewhat different, things could also get worse...
Moving to the present day and after nearly 11 years of labour rule the lie of the land looks somewhat different and the Freedom of Information Act is now being used by this Labour government to block the release of information. I am sure that you remember the "non-doms" affair back in the Autumn. At their October party conference, the Conservatives outlined a £25,000 charge for non-doms to pay for raising the IHT threshold to £1m. A week later Alistair Darling announced IHT changes and a £30,000 charge for non-doms. Coincidence was the claim by the Labour government, everybody else smelt a rat. A FOI request by The Telegraph to the Treasury regarding IHT produced the information/claim that the Treasury had been working on proposals for an overhaul of inheritance tax before the Tories had. A similar request to revel when the Treasury first proposed its £30,000 charge on non-doms has not been answered.
As the shadow chief secretary to the treasury Philip Hammond said: ‘When it suited Gordon Brown, the Treasury responded to an FOI request on the origins of their Inheritance Tax policy with amazing speed. Those documents showed that the IHT idea was only advanced by government after the Conservatives raised it. ‘People will draw their own conclusions about where Labour got the non-doms idea from.’"
Indeed we will Philip, indeed we will.
A seriously good point from Dr Madsen Pirie on the balance of power and responsibility between individuals and the state
From The Adam Smith Institute comes a serious of articles entitled "Common Error No ...". Devils Kitchen draws my attention to Number 2 in the series - entitled "When the state gives us rights, we have responsibilities to it in return." It is so good that I repeat it in full:
"The state doesn't give us any rights; we give the state some powers. The rights we enjoy are not political ones given to us by some gracious authority; they are ones we owe to each other as human beings. Each right has its corresponding duty. One person's right to life corresponds to the obligation upon others not to take that life. One's right to property translates into another's duty not to steal.
We choose governments for our convenience, although some less fortunate people have them imposed by violence. They derive from our rights rather than constituting the source of them. In a free society, for our convenience we might choose to delegate our right to justice to an impartial authority of our peers. We might choose to band together for our joint defence against hostile intrusion. This is how the powers which government wields come about.
We owe responsibilities to each other. Most importantly we owe to others the obligation to respect their rights. But we do not owe responsibilities to the state; it owes to us the responsibility to carry our fairly and properly the tasks we have assigned to it. Government is not our master, to keep us in line and occasionally give us some rights for ourselves. It is our servant, employed by us to perform as instructed.
The English common law tradition recognizes that people can do whatever the law does not specifically forbid, but in the continental Napoleonic Code tradition, people can only do what the law specifically allows. This leads people falsely to suppose that the state is giving them these rights, when it would be more accurate to say that the state is recognizing those rights. Our responsibility to behave fairly and decently is something we owe to other people, not to government."
Think about that, it is almost exactly the opposite of how government portrays the situation. The government wants us to believe that we have responsibilities to the state because that makes us subservient to it and so justifiably controllable by it.
"The state doesn't give us any rights; we give the state some powers. The rights we enjoy are not political ones given to us by some gracious authority; they are ones we owe to each other as human beings. Each right has its corresponding duty. One person's right to life corresponds to the obligation upon others not to take that life. One's right to property translates into another's duty not to steal.
We choose governments for our convenience, although some less fortunate people have them imposed by violence. They derive from our rights rather than constituting the source of them. In a free society, for our convenience we might choose to delegate our right to justice to an impartial authority of our peers. We might choose to band together for our joint defence against hostile intrusion. This is how the powers which government wields come about.
We owe responsibilities to each other. Most importantly we owe to others the obligation to respect their rights. But we do not owe responsibilities to the state; it owes to us the responsibility to carry our fairly and properly the tasks we have assigned to it. Government is not our master, to keep us in line and occasionally give us some rights for ourselves. It is our servant, employed by us to perform as instructed.
The English common law tradition recognizes that people can do whatever the law does not specifically forbid, but in the continental Napoleonic Code tradition, people can only do what the law specifically allows. This leads people falsely to suppose that the state is giving them these rights, when it would be more accurate to say that the state is recognizing those rights. Our responsibility to behave fairly and decently is something we owe to other people, not to government."
Think about that, it is almost exactly the opposite of how government portrays the situation. The government wants us to believe that we have responsibilities to the state because that makes us subservient to it and so justifiably controllable by it.
Donorgate update
I read that "Labour donors who were proxies for Abrahams due to be arrested 'imminently'
Two suspects are due to be arrested within days over the latest Labour donations scandal, it emerged last night.
Following discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service, police are ready to move on those linked to the so-called Donorgate affair.
The arrests will overshadow Gordon Brown's attempt to relaunch his premiership after a disastrous last quarter of 2007.
Prosecution lawyers believe there is "clear evidence" that criminal offences have been committed."
I wonder if this time Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner John Yates will be allowed to push for the prosecution of any of this country's ruling Labour (non-military) Junta this time?
Two suspects are due to be arrested within days over the latest Labour donations scandal, it emerged last night.
Following discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service, police are ready to move on those linked to the so-called Donorgate affair.
The arrests will overshadow Gordon Brown's attempt to relaunch his premiership after a disastrous last quarter of 2007.
Prosecution lawyers believe there is "clear evidence" that criminal offences have been committed."
I wonder if this time Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner John Yates will be allowed to push for the prosecution of any of this country's ruling Labour (non-military) Junta this time?
BBC biased coverage on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict
I was prompted to write this article by two events; one was the BBC TV news coverage of George Bush's first visit to Israel as US President, the second was an email I received today. The BBC's coverage was interesting as it linked George Bush's visit to an Israeli attack on Gaza, without any explanation as to why the Israeli's might have taken this action. Unusually I was at home and whilst flicking through the Sky news channels I came across Al Jazeerah's English language service which used the same narrative of an unprovoked Israeli attack timed to coincide with George Bush's visit. Of course there was some context that both Islamic terrorist mouthpieces chose to omit and that was that "Israeli troops entered central Gaza after militants fired a rocket last Thursday into southern Israel." that's was from The Guardian hardly a pro-Israel newspaper. Associated Press reported that "Two rockets fired from Lebanon struck northern Israel overnight, the military said Tuesday, expanding the violence that has erupted on Israel's other borders ahead of President Bush's visit to the region." A shame that the BBC could not bring themselves to do anything other than cast slurs upon Israel.
The email I received was from a contact who subscribes to Honest Reporting's mailings, my subscription seems to cease by itself. Honest Reporting have just completed their analysis for the second six months of 2007 of the BBC news coverage; the analysis of the first six months of 2007 by itself can be found here. The latest report has some fascinating analysis and I suggest you go and read the whole document at the above link, however here are some of the findings...
"BBC Reporting During 2007 - Summary of Findings:
The BBC virtually ceased reporting on Palestinian rocket attacks while detailing numerous Israeli military operations against Gaza. In 2007, there were almost 1,500 rocket and mortar attacks targeting Israeli civilian populations, resulting in on average, one strike every ten hours. The BBC chose to publish only six articles focused on the attacks during the entire year. During the same period, fifty-six articles concerning Israeli military operations against Gaza were published.
The BBC's headline selection for stories focused on combat and terrorist attacks was inconsistent and favored the Palestinian side. This trend continued and even worsened. Stories about Palestinian attacks never directly named the aggressors. Instead, headlines such as "Rocket injures dozens in Israel" were used. On the other hand, in 63% of articles addressing Israeli military operations, the headline was much more clear and direct, regardless of whether the action was a responsive or defensive measure. (e.g.: "Israel strikes kill six in Gaza").
Images accompanying articles of combat or terrorist attacks were heavily sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective by a ratio of three to one. Images of Israelis tended to be of soldiers and attacking armored units. Images of Palestinians were mostly wounded civilians, funerals, or debris from an Israeli strike."
"Balance
In the second half of 2007, the BBC published only two articles in direct response to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza making a total of only six stories on this subject over the entire year. This, despite the fact that the IDF recorded almost 1,500 separate rocket and mortar attacks for the year (30% more than in 2006)....
Headline Style
Editors often create extremely succinct headlines to refer to complicated stories. The headline can take a variety of styles:
An "attack" can name the attacker, the victim, or both;
The headline can utilize a strong, active verb such as "attacks", "kills", "shoots", etc.
The headline can be more subtle i.e.: "man dies after attack."
Six months ago we asked if the BBC's style was consistent. We found that it was not. During the first half of 2007, 60% of articles about Israeli operations named Israel or the IDF directly as the perpetrator while only 15% of stories about Palestinian violence named the perpetrators.
In the second half of 2007, this trend intensified. With a reduction in Israeli military actions and the failure of the BBC to give appropriate coverage to Palestinian attacks, there were only nineteen articles devoted to an attack by one side or the other (as opposed to twenty-six in the first half of the year). In 63% of the stories about Israeli operations, Israel or the IDF were named directly. Typical headlines were: "Israelis kill militants in Gaza" (The "militants" had been firing rockets into Israel), "Children killed in Israeli strike" (the children were playing next to a rocket launcher), and "Israeli strike kills four in Gaza."
On the other hand, of the seven stories concerning Palestinian attacks, none were written in the same style. The headlines took the responsibility for the attacks away from those who instigated them. Rockets, explosions,and clashes became the culprits in typical headlines such as: "Rocket injures dozens in Israel," "Gaza explosion kills two children" (compare with headline above), "Two killed in clash in Gaza Strip," and "West Bank clash leaves three dead." (This one was extremely egregious since it was describing the ambush and murder of Israeli hikers by Palestinian terrorists. Since terrorist groups took responsibility for the attacks, why weren't they named in the headline?)
Selection of Images
During the second half of 2007, we found that images accompanying articles about attacks were three times as likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinian side. In 23 photos, 17 either portrayed the Palestinians as victims or the IDF as the aggressors. Only 6 images could be described in any way as slightly sympathetic to the Israeli perspective. (Note: These statistics do not include a 6 image exhibit showing the aftermath of a Palestinian rocket attack on an IDF base. While this free standing "in pictures" segment should not be included in an analysis of photos which accompanying news stories, it should also not be dismissed.)
Conclusions
In 2007, the BBC showed a greater interest in covering attacks in which Palestinians were the victims than in attacks targeting Israelis. The fact that only six articles were published about specific rocket terror attacks, despite the fact that the number of attacks increased dramatically in 2007, is a glaring omission.
The BBC is hesitant to use headlines that treat Palestinian attacks the same as those from the Israeli Defense Forces. This, despite the fact that Palestinian attacks can clearly be defined as terror attacks against civilians, and the IDF actions are clearly targeting terrorists. There is a great difference between "Israeli Planes Strike Gaza Strip" and "Rocket Injures Dozens in Israel."
Anyone whose knowledge of the Israeli Palestinian conflict was limited to images on the BBC website would come away with the impression that Israel was almost always the aggressor and the Palestinians the victims.
As one of the world's top new sources, the BBC has a tremendous responsibility to report accurately and fairly. The fact that it receives public financing should make it even more accountable for its coverage. Yet every year, the BBC elicits more complaints of bias from our readers than any other news organization. Please contact the BBC here and demand more balanced reporting."
Of course complaining will make no difference as the BBC have their "narrative" of bad Israelis and persecuted Palestinians and nothing will move them from that viewpoint. On Biased BBC a regular contributor on the comments board, who goes by the handle of "John Reith", has defended many times the BBC's refusal to release the Balen Report, the report commissioned by the BBC into "alleged anti-Israel bias in the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". The fact that the BBC have seen fit to spend around £200,000 on legal fees in order to prevent its publication, does seem to indicate that Malcolm Balen's findings do not fit the BBC's standard defence of impartiality. I think it safe to assume that if the Malcolm Balen's report had concluded that there was no anti-Israeli bias then the report would have been published with a great fanfare and cries of "told you so".
Do not forget that it was the BBC who in September 2007 were reported to have advertised for a "“Project Director, Palestinian Territories” to advise Palestinian journalists...“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.”"
The email I received was from a contact who subscribes to Honest Reporting's mailings, my subscription seems to cease by itself. Honest Reporting have just completed their analysis for the second six months of 2007 of the BBC news coverage; the analysis of the first six months of 2007 by itself can be found here. The latest report has some fascinating analysis and I suggest you go and read the whole document at the above link, however here are some of the findings...
"BBC Reporting During 2007 - Summary of Findings:
The BBC virtually ceased reporting on Palestinian rocket attacks while detailing numerous Israeli military operations against Gaza. In 2007, there were almost 1,500 rocket and mortar attacks targeting Israeli civilian populations, resulting in on average, one strike every ten hours. The BBC chose to publish only six articles focused on the attacks during the entire year. During the same period, fifty-six articles concerning Israeli military operations against Gaza were published.
The BBC's headline selection for stories focused on combat and terrorist attacks was inconsistent and favored the Palestinian side. This trend continued and even worsened. Stories about Palestinian attacks never directly named the aggressors. Instead, headlines such as "Rocket injures dozens in Israel" were used. On the other hand, in 63% of articles addressing Israeli military operations, the headline was much more clear and direct, regardless of whether the action was a responsive or defensive measure. (e.g.: "Israel strikes kill six in Gaza").
Images accompanying articles of combat or terrorist attacks were heavily sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective by a ratio of three to one. Images of Israelis tended to be of soldiers and attacking armored units. Images of Palestinians were mostly wounded civilians, funerals, or debris from an Israeli strike."
"Balance
In the second half of 2007, the BBC published only two articles in direct response to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza making a total of only six stories on this subject over the entire year. This, despite the fact that the IDF recorded almost 1,500 separate rocket and mortar attacks for the year (30% more than in 2006)....
Headline Style
Editors often create extremely succinct headlines to refer to complicated stories. The headline can take a variety of styles:
An "attack" can name the attacker, the victim, or both;
The headline can utilize a strong, active verb such as "attacks", "kills", "shoots", etc.
The headline can be more subtle i.e.: "man dies after attack."
Six months ago we asked if the BBC's style was consistent. We found that it was not. During the first half of 2007, 60% of articles about Israeli operations named Israel or the IDF directly as the perpetrator while only 15% of stories about Palestinian violence named the perpetrators.
In the second half of 2007, this trend intensified. With a reduction in Israeli military actions and the failure of the BBC to give appropriate coverage to Palestinian attacks, there were only nineteen articles devoted to an attack by one side or the other (as opposed to twenty-six in the first half of the year). In 63% of the stories about Israeli operations, Israel or the IDF were named directly. Typical headlines were: "Israelis kill militants in Gaza" (The "militants" had been firing rockets into Israel), "Children killed in Israeli strike" (the children were playing next to a rocket launcher), and "Israeli strike kills four in Gaza."
On the other hand, of the seven stories concerning Palestinian attacks, none were written in the same style. The headlines took the responsibility for the attacks away from those who instigated them. Rockets, explosions,and clashes became the culprits in typical headlines such as: "Rocket injures dozens in Israel," "Gaza explosion kills two children" (compare with headline above), "Two killed in clash in Gaza Strip," and "West Bank clash leaves three dead." (This one was extremely egregious since it was describing the ambush and murder of Israeli hikers by Palestinian terrorists. Since terrorist groups took responsibility for the attacks, why weren't they named in the headline?)
Selection of Images
During the second half of 2007, we found that images accompanying articles about attacks were three times as likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinian side. In 23 photos, 17 either portrayed the Palestinians as victims or the IDF as the aggressors. Only 6 images could be described in any way as slightly sympathetic to the Israeli perspective. (Note: These statistics do not include a 6 image exhibit showing the aftermath of a Palestinian rocket attack on an IDF base. While this free standing "in pictures" segment should not be included in an analysis of photos which accompanying news stories, it should also not be dismissed.)
Conclusions
In 2007, the BBC showed a greater interest in covering attacks in which Palestinians were the victims than in attacks targeting Israelis. The fact that only six articles were published about specific rocket terror attacks, despite the fact that the number of attacks increased dramatically in 2007, is a glaring omission.
The BBC is hesitant to use headlines that treat Palestinian attacks the same as those from the Israeli Defense Forces. This, despite the fact that Palestinian attacks can clearly be defined as terror attacks against civilians, and the IDF actions are clearly targeting terrorists. There is a great difference between "Israeli Planes Strike Gaza Strip" and "Rocket Injures Dozens in Israel."
Anyone whose knowledge of the Israeli Palestinian conflict was limited to images on the BBC website would come away with the impression that Israel was almost always the aggressor and the Palestinians the victims.
As one of the world's top new sources, the BBC has a tremendous responsibility to report accurately and fairly. The fact that it receives public financing should make it even more accountable for its coverage. Yet every year, the BBC elicits more complaints of bias from our readers than any other news organization. Please contact the BBC here and demand more balanced reporting."
Of course complaining will make no difference as the BBC have their "narrative" of bad Israelis and persecuted Palestinians and nothing will move them from that viewpoint. On Biased BBC a regular contributor on the comments board, who goes by the handle of "John Reith", has defended many times the BBC's refusal to release the Balen Report, the report commissioned by the BBC into "alleged anti-Israel bias in the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". The fact that the BBC have seen fit to spend around £200,000 on legal fees in order to prevent its publication, does seem to indicate that Malcolm Balen's findings do not fit the BBC's standard defence of impartiality. I think it safe to assume that if the Malcolm Balen's report had concluded that there was no anti-Israeli bias then the report would have been published with a great fanfare and cries of "told you so".
Do not forget that it was the BBC who in September 2007 were reported to have advertised for a "“Project Director, Palestinian Territories” to advise Palestinian journalists...“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.”"
Blinky cocks it up again
I see that Ed Balls's incompetence knows no limit. Today we read that "Schools Secretary Ed Balls made a schoolboy error in the Commons when he failed to correctly list the colours of the rainbow. Describing the cover of a departmental paper with a picture of a rainbow, he said: "Isn't it red, yellow, pink and green, purple and orange and blue?" He admitted relying on the song "I Can Sing A Rainbow" which wrongly includes pink and mixes up the order of colours. As MPs laughed he smiled saying: "I was thinking of the song". "
The man's a fool and heaven knows why Gordon Brown keeps him in position.
The man's a fool and heaven knows why Gordon Brown keeps him in position.
Even more on Peter Hain's accounting problems
Further to this article, I now read that "Peter Hain is preparing to admit to the Electoral Commission that he has failed to declare more than £100,000 in donations to his campaign for Labour's deputy leadership.
It is understood that there are almost 20 donations that his team failed to declare, in breach of the rules for party political elections.
The scale of the under-reporting - more than half the total income received by the Hain campaign - will shock many party members and raise questions as to how such a massive apparent oversight occurred.
He has reported to the commission only £82,000 in donations, suggesting he spent nearly £200,000 in total on his campaign, considerably more than his five opponents for the deputy leadership.
The work and pensions secretary will face testing questions over whether the non-disclosure is simply a reflection of the chaos inside his camp or an attempt to conceal the sums raised and where they came from.
His critics will suggest that he was reluctant to give details of some of the donations because he did not want to reveal that his left-leaning campaign was dependent on business support. He will also be asked whether some of the donors thought their identities would be kept private...
Nearly half the donations appear to relate to the period after the closure of the campaign and half to the period after Steve Morgan, a lobbyist, was brought in by Hain to run the operation in a switch of tactics in the summer.
Hain and his supporters accept he is legally responsible for reporting donations to his campaign, but other people on his team were charged with sending details of cheques to the commission.
There is no evidence that Hain sought to break the law and he has already admitted "deeply regrettable" administrative failings"
Just imagine if this had been a Conservative candidate in a Conservative leadership election in the 1990s, do you think this would just be a news item or would it be the lead in every BBC bulletin until the minister was forced to resign? The BBC are so biased towards Labour that it just isn't funny any more, they are a threat to democracy in the UK, something that I will discuss soon.
It is understood that there are almost 20 donations that his team failed to declare, in breach of the rules for party political elections.
The scale of the under-reporting - more than half the total income received by the Hain campaign - will shock many party members and raise questions as to how such a massive apparent oversight occurred.
He has reported to the commission only £82,000 in donations, suggesting he spent nearly £200,000 in total on his campaign, considerably more than his five opponents for the deputy leadership.
The work and pensions secretary will face testing questions over whether the non-disclosure is simply a reflection of the chaos inside his camp or an attempt to conceal the sums raised and where they came from.
His critics will suggest that he was reluctant to give details of some of the donations because he did not want to reveal that his left-leaning campaign was dependent on business support. He will also be asked whether some of the donors thought their identities would be kept private...
Nearly half the donations appear to relate to the period after the closure of the campaign and half to the period after Steve Morgan, a lobbyist, was brought in by Hain to run the operation in a switch of tactics in the summer.
Hain and his supporters accept he is legally responsible for reporting donations to his campaign, but other people on his team were charged with sending details of cheques to the commission.
There is no evidence that Hain sought to break the law and he has already admitted "deeply regrettable" administrative failings"
Just imagine if this had been a Conservative candidate in a Conservative leadership election in the 1990s, do you think this would just be a news item or would it be the lead in every BBC bulletin until the minister was forced to resign? The BBC are so biased towards Labour that it just isn't funny any more, they are a threat to democracy in the UK, something that I will discuss soon.
The most amazing video I have seen for a long while
I heard about this video a while back but forgot to look it up. Having now seen it, I think it well worth passing on.
It is a piece of amateur footage taken at a water hole in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, and shows an amazing confrontation that takes place there. Do watch it right to the end, well worth it.
There you go, nature red in claw as they say. Buffalo, lions and crocodiles in one video; what more do you want?
It is a piece of amateur footage taken at a water hole in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, and shows an amazing confrontation that takes place there. Do watch it right to the end, well worth it.
There you go, nature red in claw as they say. Buffalo, lions and crocodiles in one video; what more do you want?
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
More on Michael Nazir-Ali
I have blogged quite a bit about, The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester's saying that people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology, the first article of mine being this one. The attacks came in fast and furious; some such as Hazel Blears denied these areas existed whilst others including BBC commentators wanted to know where these areas were.
Thanks to Pub Philosopher we do now have some examples.
1. This from the BBC themselves where "Asian gang members who boasted they had killed a white man have been found guilty of murder...Sajid Zulfiqar, 25, Zahid Bashir, 23, and Imran Maqsood, 21, of Ilford, east London, will be sentenced on Thursday. The court heard that after the attack Zulfiqar shouted, in Urdu: "We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business."" These delightful men were given life with a minimum tariff of 15 years.
2. Maybe this document written by Bradford's Principal Race Relations Officer from 1984-90 might be of interest. "There are three other areas for concern. They cannot be definitely proven but there are growing indications that they are real. They are the desire for Muslim only areas, the change in attitude from immigrant to colonist and the apparent collapse of family control over their young men...there is a drive amongst the mosque-attending older generation who would like sharia areas. There is also the minority of highly disaffected young men who want to control their patches. These two opposite ends of the spectrum desire the same thing albeit for different reasons and it is likely that they will support each other in order to attain their goals...There are significant groups of young men who are heavily involved in drug dealing and abuse, gang activities and crime. They are often abusive and threatening to white people in their areas and appear in significant and intimidating groups in the town centre area. No-one within their own communities seem prepared to challenge them or call them to order. However, these same young men, for the most part, profess their belief in Islam, do not drink alcohol and the vast majority will accept the arranged marriage. Their parents claim to have no control over them yet these young men do not kick against certain fundamentals. I believe that the parents do have some control, that they have a tacit agreement with their young men which basically requires them to accept the strictures on drinking and the arranged marriage in return for no interference in other aspects of their young men’s lives. This simply reflects their priorities:- the commitment to Islam, the prohibition on drink and the arranged marriage are more important than other aspects. There is a parental fear, no doubt well-founded, that if they exert pressure in other areas then they will lose their sons’ commitments in those three vital areas. It works for them but is a recipe for chaos in the rest of the community."
3. Maybe this article from the Daily Mail might provide some illumination. "Three Asian racists were convicted at the Old Bailey today of shattering a man's skull because he was white. Sodrul Islam, 23, Delwar Hussain, 21, and Mamoon Hussain, 20, were found guilty of attempted murder for the attack on John Payne, 33. Up to 30 Asians set upon the victim and his friends for drinking in a pub on the Clichy estate in Stepney, which the gang considered to be their turf. They shouted insults including "white honkies" at the five people who dared to walk through. Mr Payne was then felled with a machete and the gang repeatedly punched and kicked him as he lay helpless on the ground. The gang continued as Mr Payne's sobbing girlfriend tried to shield him. He suffered a severe fracture of his head and bone fragments penetrated his brain. Surgeons at the Royal London Hospital battled to save him. He continues to require constant medication and suffers severe epilepsy, nightmares and flashbacks." I have been unable to find out what sentences these "men" received for their vicious attack.
I wish that there were no such no-go areas, but wishing something doesn't make it true. Maybe Hazel Blears and people like her should wake-up to what is happening in this country before it is too late for the country.
Thanks to Pub Philosopher we do now have some examples.
1. This from the BBC themselves where "Asian gang members who boasted they had killed a white man have been found guilty of murder...Sajid Zulfiqar, 25, Zahid Bashir, 23, and Imran Maqsood, 21, of Ilford, east London, will be sentenced on Thursday. The court heard that after the attack Zulfiqar shouted, in Urdu: "We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business."" These delightful men were given life with a minimum tariff of 15 years.
2. Maybe this document written by Bradford's Principal Race Relations Officer from 1984-90 might be of interest. "There are three other areas for concern. They cannot be definitely proven but there are growing indications that they are real. They are the desire for Muslim only areas, the change in attitude from immigrant to colonist and the apparent collapse of family control over their young men...there is a drive amongst the mosque-attending older generation who would like sharia areas. There is also the minority of highly disaffected young men who want to control their patches. These two opposite ends of the spectrum desire the same thing albeit for different reasons and it is likely that they will support each other in order to attain their goals...There are significant groups of young men who are heavily involved in drug dealing and abuse, gang activities and crime. They are often abusive and threatening to white people in their areas and appear in significant and intimidating groups in the town centre area. No-one within their own communities seem prepared to challenge them or call them to order. However, these same young men, for the most part, profess their belief in Islam, do not drink alcohol and the vast majority will accept the arranged marriage. Their parents claim to have no control over them yet these young men do not kick against certain fundamentals. I believe that the parents do have some control, that they have a tacit agreement with their young men which basically requires them to accept the strictures on drinking and the arranged marriage in return for no interference in other aspects of their young men’s lives. This simply reflects their priorities:- the commitment to Islam, the prohibition on drink and the arranged marriage are more important than other aspects. There is a parental fear, no doubt well-founded, that if they exert pressure in other areas then they will lose their sons’ commitments in those three vital areas. It works for them but is a recipe for chaos in the rest of the community."
3. Maybe this article from the Daily Mail might provide some illumination. "Three Asian racists were convicted at the Old Bailey today of shattering a man's skull because he was white. Sodrul Islam, 23, Delwar Hussain, 21, and Mamoon Hussain, 20, were found guilty of attempted murder for the attack on John Payne, 33. Up to 30 Asians set upon the victim and his friends for drinking in a pub on the Clichy estate in Stepney, which the gang considered to be their turf. They shouted insults including "white honkies" at the five people who dared to walk through. Mr Payne was then felled with a machete and the gang repeatedly punched and kicked him as he lay helpless on the ground. The gang continued as Mr Payne's sobbing girlfriend tried to shield him. He suffered a severe fracture of his head and bone fragments penetrated his brain. Surgeons at the Royal London Hospital battled to save him. He continues to require constant medication and suffers severe epilepsy, nightmares and flashbacks." I have been unable to find out what sentences these "men" received for their vicious attack.
I wish that there were no such no-go areas, but wishing something doesn't make it true. Maybe Hazel Blears and people like her should wake-up to what is happening in this country before it is too late for the country.
How things have changed
Here is a post from someone on growing up in the 70s and 80s in the US. Not all will be relevant to UK readers but it rang a few bells with me.
You must follow this link
If you read no other blog entry today, you must go and read John Redwood on Alistair Darling's mendacity.
"The Chancellor today sounded like a old cracked record that no-one wants to hear any more. Listening to him on the Today programme, I was left wondering does he really believe what he is saying or does he think we are stupid?"
Go and read the rest...
"The Chancellor today sounded like a old cracked record that no-one wants to hear any more. Listening to him on the Today programme, I was left wondering does he really believe what he is saying or does he think we are stupid?"
Go and read the rest...
Such language
Follow this link only if you are not offended by swearing. I'm not easily offended by swearing, I just choose to swear sparingly on my blog.
A very British Dude seems to have less self-imposed restrictions. I like his post.
A very British Dude seems to have less self-imposed restrictions. I like his post.
Spot what the BBC don't include in their report
I have done this sort of post before and fear that I will have to again, the BBC are incorrigible when it comes to this sort of racism.
From The BBC.
"A schoolboy was hit with a hammer in an attack resembling a Quentin Tarantino film, a court has heard.
Henry Webster, 16, was punched, kicked and hit repeatedly on the head on a tennis court at Ridgeway School in Wroughton, Wiltshire, in 2007.
He suffered three skull fractures, one of which caused brain injury.
Two men aged 19 and 18 and two boys aged 15 and 16 are appearing at Bristol Crown Court charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm.
James Patrick, prosecuting, said: "For those there, it made a sickening sight, the sort of thing which you would expect to see in a Quentin Tarantino film - certainly not at a school in a village in Wiltshire."
Mr Patrick said a fight was arranged in January last year, after Henry had "barged" into a group of boys in a school corridor.
"It was to be a fair fight. A one-on-one - or so Henry thought.
"But he had not reckoned on the fact it was not to be one-on-one. As he came into the playground he was attacked by a group.
"He was knocked to the ground, he was kicked, punched and repeatedly hit over the head with a hammer."
Paramedics described his injuries as life-threatening, the court heard.
The trial continues."
From The Guardian.
"A 15-year-old boy was battered with a claw hammer by a gang in a scene similar to that of a Quentin Tarantino film, a court was told today.
Henry Webster, now 16, sustained "life-threatening" injuries during the attack last January. He was punched, kicked and hit repeatedly on the head with the DIY tool on a tennis court at Ridgeway school in the village of Wroughton in Wiltshire.
He suffered three skull fractures, one of which caused brain injury and needed surgery. Paramedics called his injuries life-threatening, the court heard.
Four teenagers, Wasif Khan, 18, Amjad Qazi, 19, and two boys aged 15 and 16, who cannot be named, are charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The court was told how Webster's head had been struck with such force that an impression of the hammer was left on his skull. He is still suffering from injuries sustained in the attack.
Opening his case at Bristol crown court today, the prosecutor, James Patrick, said: "For those there, it made a sickening sight, the sort of thing which you would expect to see in a Quentin Tarantino film - certainly not at a school in a village in Wiltshire.
"The victim is Henry Webster. He stood out. He is 16 and is distinctive. He was 6ft 2in and a rugby player, with bright red hair."
The attack sparked protests at the school last year by parents who believed the attack was racially motivated. They said a gang called the "Asian Invasion" was behind a campaign of bullying at the school, and demanded security guards to protect pupils.
The 1,450-pupil Ridgeway school has a reputation as one of the top-performing state schools in Wiltshire.
Patrick said a fight had been arranged after Henry "barged" into a group of Asian boys in a school corridor. "There was trouble earlier in the day and a fight had been arranged in the school.
"It was to be a fair fight. A one-on-one, or so Henry thought ... As he came into the playground he was attacked by a group. He was knocked to the ground, he was kicked, punched and repeatedly hit over the head with a hammer."
Webster remained conscious throughout the attack.
Patrick told how a large group of Asian males, from Swindon, travelled to Wroughton for the fight, which had been co-ordinated through a sequence of phone calls and text messages.
A message recorded from a phone call between a witness and one of the suspects said: "There's a big fat ginger kid who wants a fight at the school." Another text message said: "Come to the car park at 3.30."
After the attack, teachers were alerted and ambulances arrived at the scene within minutes. Webster was transferred to a head injuries unit at Frenchay hospital in Bristol for emergency surgery.
Webster, dressed in a dark suit, appeared in court to hear an interview he had given to police, recorded shortly after the attack. He said he could "see stars" as the gang smashed the hammer through his skull.
"I was curled up on the floor but they repeatedly kept hitting me. Then I felt the hammer hit the back of my head. I know it was a hammer because if it was a punch, your vision does not change. As I got hit, my vision turned to stars - it all separated, what I could see, because it was so powerful," he said. In the footage, Webster said doctors told him his brain would never fully recover from the injuries. Before his attack, he used to enjoy playing sports.
He was a prop forward for his school team, enjoyed playing tennis and was an avid Liverpool Football Club fan.
The trial continues."
So what do the BBC omit? The names of the two older teenagers who can be named "Wasif Khan, 18, Amjad Qazi, 19" are omited along with the information that "The attack sparked protests at the school last year by parents who believed the attack was racially motivated. They said a gang called the "Asian Invasion" was behind a campaign of bullying at the school, and demanded security guards to protect pupils." and that "Patrick said a fight had been arranged after Henry "barged" into a group of Asian boys in a school corridor. "There was trouble earlier in the day and a fight had been arranged in the school." and that "Patrick told how a large group of Asian males, from Swindon, travelled to Wroughton for the fight, which had been co-ordinated through a sequence of phone calls and text messages."
A fit young man has been seriously injured to the extent that "his brain would never fully recover from the injuries" and the BBC seem more interested in protecting the identity and the race of the attackers from being known. I fear that if found guilty, and the trial does continue so these youths have not been found guilty of anything, the sentences that would be handed down will be as usual insufficient to act as a deterrent. The streets of this country get more dangerous by the day and the forces of law and order do nothing to stop it.
This gang are accused of using a club hammer to batter this boys skull, of punching and kicking a defenceless man without any concern for his health or even his life. Frankly the fact that the crime may have been racially motivated worries me less than the fact that there are people living in this country who are capable and willing to inflict such injuries on anyone. If the reported facts are true then this was not a playground fight, with fists and shoes, it was far more serious. I do not want to share my streets with boys or men who feel that they can smash a hammer repeatedly onto (or indeed into) a man's skull.
From The BBC.
"A schoolboy was hit with a hammer in an attack resembling a Quentin Tarantino film, a court has heard.
Henry Webster, 16, was punched, kicked and hit repeatedly on the head on a tennis court at Ridgeway School in Wroughton, Wiltshire, in 2007.
He suffered three skull fractures, one of which caused brain injury.
Two men aged 19 and 18 and two boys aged 15 and 16 are appearing at Bristol Crown Court charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm.
James Patrick, prosecuting, said: "For those there, it made a sickening sight, the sort of thing which you would expect to see in a Quentin Tarantino film - certainly not at a school in a village in Wiltshire."
Mr Patrick said a fight was arranged in January last year, after Henry had "barged" into a group of boys in a school corridor.
"It was to be a fair fight. A one-on-one - or so Henry thought.
"But he had not reckoned on the fact it was not to be one-on-one. As he came into the playground he was attacked by a group.
"He was knocked to the ground, he was kicked, punched and repeatedly hit over the head with a hammer."
Paramedics described his injuries as life-threatening, the court heard.
The trial continues."
From The Guardian.
"A 15-year-old boy was battered with a claw hammer by a gang in a scene similar to that of a Quentin Tarantino film, a court was told today.
Henry Webster, now 16, sustained "life-threatening" injuries during the attack last January. He was punched, kicked and hit repeatedly on the head with the DIY tool on a tennis court at Ridgeway school in the village of Wroughton in Wiltshire.
He suffered three skull fractures, one of which caused brain injury and needed surgery. Paramedics called his injuries life-threatening, the court heard.
Four teenagers, Wasif Khan, 18, Amjad Qazi, 19, and two boys aged 15 and 16, who cannot be named, are charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The court was told how Webster's head had been struck with such force that an impression of the hammer was left on his skull. He is still suffering from injuries sustained in the attack.
Opening his case at Bristol crown court today, the prosecutor, James Patrick, said: "For those there, it made a sickening sight, the sort of thing which you would expect to see in a Quentin Tarantino film - certainly not at a school in a village in Wiltshire.
"The victim is Henry Webster. He stood out. He is 16 and is distinctive. He was 6ft 2in and a rugby player, with bright red hair."
The attack sparked protests at the school last year by parents who believed the attack was racially motivated. They said a gang called the "Asian Invasion" was behind a campaign of bullying at the school, and demanded security guards to protect pupils.
The 1,450-pupil Ridgeway school has a reputation as one of the top-performing state schools in Wiltshire.
Patrick said a fight had been arranged after Henry "barged" into a group of Asian boys in a school corridor. "There was trouble earlier in the day and a fight had been arranged in the school.
"It was to be a fair fight. A one-on-one, or so Henry thought ... As he came into the playground he was attacked by a group. He was knocked to the ground, he was kicked, punched and repeatedly hit over the head with a hammer."
Webster remained conscious throughout the attack.
Patrick told how a large group of Asian males, from Swindon, travelled to Wroughton for the fight, which had been co-ordinated through a sequence of phone calls and text messages.
A message recorded from a phone call between a witness and one of the suspects said: "There's a big fat ginger kid who wants a fight at the school." Another text message said: "Come to the car park at 3.30."
After the attack, teachers were alerted and ambulances arrived at the scene within minutes. Webster was transferred to a head injuries unit at Frenchay hospital in Bristol for emergency surgery.
Webster, dressed in a dark suit, appeared in court to hear an interview he had given to police, recorded shortly after the attack. He said he could "see stars" as the gang smashed the hammer through his skull.
"I was curled up on the floor but they repeatedly kept hitting me. Then I felt the hammer hit the back of my head. I know it was a hammer because if it was a punch, your vision does not change. As I got hit, my vision turned to stars - it all separated, what I could see, because it was so powerful," he said. In the footage, Webster said doctors told him his brain would never fully recover from the injuries. Before his attack, he used to enjoy playing sports.
He was a prop forward for his school team, enjoyed playing tennis and was an avid Liverpool Football Club fan.
The trial continues."
So what do the BBC omit? The names of the two older teenagers who can be named "Wasif Khan, 18, Amjad Qazi, 19" are omited along with the information that "The attack sparked protests at the school last year by parents who believed the attack was racially motivated. They said a gang called the "Asian Invasion" was behind a campaign of bullying at the school, and demanded security guards to protect pupils." and that "Patrick said a fight had been arranged after Henry "barged" into a group of Asian boys in a school corridor. "There was trouble earlier in the day and a fight had been arranged in the school." and that "Patrick told how a large group of Asian males, from Swindon, travelled to Wroughton for the fight, which had been co-ordinated through a sequence of phone calls and text messages."
A fit young man has been seriously injured to the extent that "his brain would never fully recover from the injuries" and the BBC seem more interested in protecting the identity and the race of the attackers from being known. I fear that if found guilty, and the trial does continue so these youths have not been found guilty of anything, the sentences that would be handed down will be as usual insufficient to act as a deterrent. The streets of this country get more dangerous by the day and the forces of law and order do nothing to stop it.
This gang are accused of using a club hammer to batter this boys skull, of punching and kicking a defenceless man without any concern for his health or even his life. Frankly the fact that the crime may have been racially motivated worries me less than the fact that there are people living in this country who are capable and willing to inflict such injuries on anyone. If the reported facts are true then this was not a playground fight, with fists and shoes, it was far more serious. I do not want to share my streets with boys or men who feel that they can smash a hammer repeatedly onto (or indeed into) a man's skull.
Terrorist links
I see that another person has been convicted on terror charges, this time Sohail Qureshi - by the way in the photo the BBC are showing, does that beard look real or as if drawn with a felt tip pen onto the photo.
What is most interesting is that the BBC and various other news organisations (Guardian and Telegraph) are today reporting that Sohail Qureshi used Samina Malik as an inforamtion gatherer at the airport "In an October 2006 email, Qureshi asked Malik for an update on security.
"Is the checking still very harsh? Or have things cooled down a bit - Delete after read!" wrote Qureshi.
Malik replied at 4am detailing the security measures, including searching of shoes and checks on liquids. She signed off with a nom de guerre and the line, "A stranger awaiting martyrdom.""
"Peter Clarke, Assistant Commissioner of Specialist Operations of the Metropolitan Police, said: "Qureshi is a trained and committed terrorist. He was no amateur. He had a cover story. He researched airport security, he tried to cover his tracks.
"Samina Malik was well aware of Qureshi's violent extremist views and was happy to provide him with advice on security measures at the airport. "
In case you have forgoten, Samina Malik was the so called "lyrical terrorist" who was found guilty of of possessing material "likely to be of use" in terrorism in an Old Bailey trial back in November 2007. Samina Malik was acquitted of the more serious charge of having material "for the purpose" of terrorism and received just a nine-month suspended jail sentence. Now that we know that she was assisting someone who admitted preparing to commit an act of terrorism overseas, maybe she could be accused and convicted of a more serious crime and so actually receive a custodial sentence. Whilst on the subject, Sohail Qureshi received a four and a half year custodial sentence for his crime. So as I understand it, he'll be automatically paroled after just over two years. Two years in jail for someone who admitted preparing to commit an act of terrorism overseas; does that seem adequate to you?
What is most interesting is that the BBC and various other news organisations (Guardian and Telegraph) are today reporting that Sohail Qureshi used Samina Malik as an inforamtion gatherer at the airport "In an October 2006 email, Qureshi asked Malik for an update on security.
"Is the checking still very harsh? Or have things cooled down a bit - Delete after read!" wrote Qureshi.
Malik replied at 4am detailing the security measures, including searching of shoes and checks on liquids. She signed off with a nom de guerre and the line, "A stranger awaiting martyrdom.""
"Peter Clarke, Assistant Commissioner of Specialist Operations of the Metropolitan Police, said: "Qureshi is a trained and committed terrorist. He was no amateur. He had a cover story. He researched airport security, he tried to cover his tracks.
"Samina Malik was well aware of Qureshi's violent extremist views and was happy to provide him with advice on security measures at the airport. "
In case you have forgoten, Samina Malik was the so called "lyrical terrorist" who was found guilty of of possessing material "likely to be of use" in terrorism in an Old Bailey trial back in November 2007. Samina Malik was acquitted of the more serious charge of having material "for the purpose" of terrorism and received just a nine-month suspended jail sentence. Now that we know that she was assisting someone who admitted preparing to commit an act of terrorism overseas, maybe she could be accused and convicted of a more serious crime and so actually receive a custodial sentence. Whilst on the subject, Sohail Qureshi received a four and a half year custodial sentence for his crime. So as I understand it, he'll be automatically paroled after just over two years. Two years in jail for someone who admitted preparing to commit an act of terrorism overseas; does that seem adequate to you?
More on Peter Hain's accounting problems
As David Hencke writes "So the disclosure that Peter Hain - seven months after the deadline - still has to file proper accounts for his campaign is a further damning indictment of politicians' behaviour. At the very least, it is an example of political incompetence and ineptitude. If you cannot properly account for some £100,000 of donations to a public authority, how can you claim proper stewardship in running a ministry with over 100,000 people and spending hundreds of billions of pounds every year on benefits?
It is rather ironic that, on the day Mr Hain was going to admit his personal failure to keep proper records of his campaign donations, he issued a speech telling the rest of the country they must take "personal responsibility" for their own savings towards their pensions. A tale of motes and beams, indeed....
Next week, we should know the full story when the final comprehensive list is published. In the meantime, Mr Hain has let down the political process, his party, his cabinet colleagues and the reputations of the donors who gave him money in good faith. The GMB, for example, openly and democratically supported him after hearing a debate of all the contenders at its conference. The union later gave him £10,000 in cash and kind in good faith. They now find out he hasn't officially declared the donation. That looks bad - and the only person to blame, in this case, is Mr Hain himself."
Draw your own conclusions but it doesn't look good for the Orange One.
It is rather ironic that, on the day Mr Hain was going to admit his personal failure to keep proper records of his campaign donations, he issued a speech telling the rest of the country they must take "personal responsibility" for their own savings towards their pensions. A tale of motes and beams, indeed....
Next week, we should know the full story when the final comprehensive list is published. In the meantime, Mr Hain has let down the political process, his party, his cabinet colleagues and the reputations of the donors who gave him money in good faith. The GMB, for example, openly and democratically supported him after hearing a debate of all the contenders at its conference. The union later gave him £10,000 in cash and kind in good faith. They now find out he hasn't officially declared the donation. That looks bad - and the only person to blame, in this case, is Mr Hain himself."
Draw your own conclusions but it doesn't look good for the Orange One.
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali's comments - I recall something
Something was bugging in me about the fuss over The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali's comments. It was the way the media and some "commentators" were saying where are these no-go areas. Then it hit me... Cast your mind back to September 2006 when the then Home Secretary John Reid was making a speech in Leytonstone, East London. He was interrupted by Abu Izzadeen (aka Omar Brooks). You can read the BBC's account of the incident here. What the BBC report does not include is how Abu Izzadeen started his interruption, but you can hear for yourself here ........
"How dare you come to a Muslim area..."
You can see Abu Izzadeen "explaining" himself here .......
You can also the BBC Newsnight piece on Abu Izzadeen here where he calls the 7/7 bombers as "praiseworthy" and his friend tries to put it all into context.....
"How dare you come to a Muslim area..."
You can see Abu Izzadeen "explaining" himself here .......
You can also the BBC Newsnight piece on Abu Izzadeen here where he calls the 7/7 bombers as "praiseworthy" and his friend tries to put it all into context.....
Strange goings on in the Straits of Hormuz
This story is in the American media but not being covered in the UK so far as I can see.
"(CNN) -- Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats "harassed and provoked" three U.S. Navy ships early Sunday in international waters, the U.S. military said Monday, calling the encounter a "significant" confrontation...The U.S. Navy also received a radio transmission that officials believe came from the Iranian boats. The transmission said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the U.S. military officials told CNN. When the U.S. ships heard that radio transmission, they took up their gun positions and officers were "in the process" of giving the order to fire when the Iranians abruptly turned away, the U.S. officials said. After the radio transmission, one of the Iranian boats dropped white boxes into the water in front of the U.S. ships, the officials said. It was not clear what was in the boxes, the officials said."
What was going on? My money is on the Iranians trying to provoke the Americans into firing on their craft so the Iranians could then put their propaganda machine into operation, claiming that the "Great Satan" fired on a retreating ship. Sacrificing a few "martyrs" in a move for domestic and international sympathy, particularly in the Islamic world. Brinkmanship is the word and I think they will try this again, maybe next time they will ramp it up just another notch. The Iranian regime cannot lose; if nothing happens as a result, then so be it; if the US open fire, then the poor Iranians are the victims - and the MSM will promote this view for them.
"(CNN) -- Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats "harassed and provoked" three U.S. Navy ships early Sunday in international waters, the U.S. military said Monday, calling the encounter a "significant" confrontation...The U.S. Navy also received a radio transmission that officials believe came from the Iranian boats. The transmission said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the U.S. military officials told CNN. When the U.S. ships heard that radio transmission, they took up their gun positions and officers were "in the process" of giving the order to fire when the Iranians abruptly turned away, the U.S. officials said. After the radio transmission, one of the Iranian boats dropped white boxes into the water in front of the U.S. ships, the officials said. It was not clear what was in the boxes, the officials said."
What was going on? My money is on the Iranians trying to provoke the Americans into firing on their craft so the Iranians could then put their propaganda machine into operation, claiming that the "Great Satan" fired on a retreating ship. Sacrificing a few "martyrs" in a move for domestic and international sympathy, particularly in the Islamic world. Brinkmanship is the word and I think they will try this again, maybe next time they will ramp it up just another notch. The Iranian regime cannot lose; if nothing happens as a result, then so be it; if the US open fire, then the poor Iranians are the victims - and the MSM will promote this view for them.
Waziristan
I was reading this article in the Guardian about how "Eight tribal leaders attempting to broker a ceasefire in Pakistan's dangerous north-west province have been shot dead by suspected Islamic militants in eight separate killings. The assassinations began late on Sunday night and continued into the early hours of Monday morning, according to a statement from a security official and the military. The eight tribal leaders were scheduled to meet each other on Monday in Wana to discuss plans to achieve peace between between security forces and insurgents." and it reminded me of an auricle that I have neglected to post.
All of these killings happened in "South Waziristan, a mountainous region close to Afghanistan where al-Qaida and Taliban militants are known to operate."
Like you I had heard of Waziristan but I thought it was an area where terrorists lived but that the area was still under Pakistani rule. That was until I read this essay on the Claremont Institute web site. Here is an extract from the article, do read the rest, "Pakistan gave up South Waziristan to the Taliban in Spring 2006, after taking heavy casualties in a failed four-year campaign to consolidate control of this fierce tribal region. By the fall, Pakistan had effectively abandoned North Waziristan. The nominal truce—actually closer to a surrender—was signed in a soccer stadium, beneath al-Qaeda's black flag.
Having recovered the safe haven once denied them by America's invasion of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have gathered the diaspora of the worldwide Islamist revolution into Waziristan. Slipping to safety from Tora Bora, Osama bin Laden himself almost certainly escaped across its border. Now Muslim punjabis who fight the Indian army in Kashmir, Chechen opponents of Russia, and many more Islamist terror groups congregate, recuperate, train, and confer in Waziristan. This past fall's terror plotters in Germany and Denmark allegedly trained in Waziristan, as did those who hoped to highjack transatlantic planes leaving from Britain's Heathrow Airport in 2006. The crimson currents flowing across what Samuel Huntington once famously dubbed "Islam's bloody borders" now seem to emanate from Waziristan."
All of these killings happened in "South Waziristan, a mountainous region close to Afghanistan where al-Qaida and Taliban militants are known to operate."
Like you I had heard of Waziristan but I thought it was an area where terrorists lived but that the area was still under Pakistani rule. That was until I read this essay on the Claremont Institute web site. Here is an extract from the article, do read the rest, "Pakistan gave up South Waziristan to the Taliban in Spring 2006, after taking heavy casualties in a failed four-year campaign to consolidate control of this fierce tribal region. By the fall, Pakistan had effectively abandoned North Waziristan. The nominal truce—actually closer to a surrender—was signed in a soccer stadium, beneath al-Qaeda's black flag.
Having recovered the safe haven once denied them by America's invasion of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have gathered the diaspora of the worldwide Islamist revolution into Waziristan. Slipping to safety from Tora Bora, Osama bin Laden himself almost certainly escaped across its border. Now Muslim punjabis who fight the Indian army in Kashmir, Chechen opponents of Russia, and many more Islamist terror groups congregate, recuperate, train, and confer in Waziristan. This past fall's terror plotters in Germany and Denmark allegedly trained in Waziristan, as did those who hoped to highjack transatlantic planes leaving from Britain's Heathrow Airport in 2006. The crimson currents flowing across what Samuel Huntington once famously dubbed "Islam's bloody borders" now seem to emanate from Waziristan."
Brings a tear to my eye
Hilary Clinton, I didn't like her when she was the President's wife and I like her even less now. That tear I mentioned was a tear of joy that the liar's wife might not get elected. Why do I get the impression that Hilary is trying to appear more human and feminine to appeal to women voters?
US election candidates - who should you support
Since you will get no sensible analysis from the BBC, take a trip to The Electoral Compass and see how your views on 30+ questions compare to the candidates' positions. I seem to be closest to Ron Paul and furthest from Barack Obama, which is odd as my preferred Republican candidate I think is John McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
