Poll Tracker (update)

It would seem that the BBC are back to their old tricks as their Poll Tracker has not yet been updated with this weekend's Com Res poll that showed the Conservatives up 2% at 40%, Labour down 2% at 29% and the Lib Dems up 2% at 21%. The BBC are still showing as their latest poll the Populus poll from 8 Feb that showed Labour narrowing the gap and formed the basis of more Labour catching the Tories stories and speculation about hung Parliaments.

I have complained to the BBC again, I wonder if I will receive the same reply that I received the first time I complained "Regrettably this poll was missed, but it has now been added to the polltracker." or the one I received the last time I complained "We have had some minor technical problems with the polltracker which are being rectified this morning. Both polls will shortly appear. Please be assured there is no intent to distort the data in favour of any of the main parties."

I will report back...


Meanwhile it is interesting that Poll Tracker has been moved from its prominent position under "FEATURES, VIEWS, ANALYSIS" just under the headline stories on the Politics news home page to one near the bottom of that page. I wonder if this is in readiness for reporting bad polling news for Labour and if it will return to prominence when a positive for Labour poll appears? I will report back...



Thanks to commentator Llew for the spot that the BBC were up to their old tricks again.

"Can I edit a tweet once I post it? Nope. Once it's out there, you can't edit it."

From Twitter's FAQs:

"Can I edit a tweet once I post it?

Nope. Once it's out there, you can't edit it. You can delete an update by clicking the trash icon on the right end of the update, but you can't make changes."

maybe someone could explain this to the journalists who seem happy to swallow Labour MP (and Minister) David Wright's claims that his Tweet:

"Because you can put lipstick on a scum-sucking pig, but it’s still a scum-sucking pig. And cos they would ruin Britain."

was not posted by him "Somebody has tinkered with my tweet. I never said 'scum sucking'. I said 'you can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig'. I need to find out how this happened."

Is David Wright claiming that someone edited his Tweet as he posted it? He can't be claiming that his account was hacked as when he was originally asked about the Tweet he commented ‘Oh dear, upsetting Tories again. Must’ve hit a nerve’.

Iain Dale has been covering this story all day, keep an eye there for up to the minute updates; some of us have day jobs!


Meanwhile I note that David Wright's Twitter monitor on his website still says:

"* What a commotion today. Looks like my tweets have been tinkered with. I will keep you posted about 22 hours ago"

Any updates for the waiting public Mr Wright?

The International Space Station

That's the Japanese Kibo complex of the International Space Station pictured.

For more take a read of The Mail or NASA.

Never again Labour voters

Following my revelation that Mike 'Maverick" Molloy was now going to vote Conservative after a lifetime of voting Labour, I was interested at the weekend when two long time Labour voting friends announced with no prompting that they could never vote Labour again and would be voting Conservative at the coming general election.

It now seems that the Conservatives have also spotted this trend as

"David Cameron has launched a new poster campaign aimed at attracting people who have never previously voted Conservative. "

The campaign will run posters of the form "I've never voted Tory before, but I like their ... plans"

Do you feel the pressure building Gordon?

‘Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.’

Iain Dale has the story about Labour minister David Wright MP, a government whip.

Oddly David Wright's website stil has this as his last missive to the world:

"* What a commotion today. Looks like my tweets have been tinkered with. I will keep you posted about 15 hours ago"

We are waiting David... Are you still claiming that your tweets were tampered with? Have you answered Eric Pickles' questions yet?

The MPs second home scandal

I read in The Telegraph that:

"MPs could face bills for thousands of pounds after the new parliamentary watchdog, Sir Ian Kennedy, said they should give up some of the profits on taxpayer-funded second homes. "

Good, this was the biggest scandal of the expenses row and one that I am sure many MPs thought had gone away. If MPs are given money by the taxpayer to fund a second home then any profits from the sale of such a home should revert to the taxpayer not the MP. Of course the line at present is just that:

"Sir Christopher said that MPs should forfeit any rise in the value of second homes between the publication of his report last November and the implementation of the new allowances system. "

But hopefully this will be extended backwards to catch all MPs who have made such profits over the last 10 years or maybe more. I do not see why MPs should be able to enrich themselves off of the backs of taxpayers. And I will not be satisfied with them paying tax on the profits, I want all the profits returned to the taxpayer.

The seventy-first weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award goes to the Conservative MP, Mark Pritchard, for his staggering conclusion (as reported by the BBC) that "A £300m government scheme to give free laptops to poor children is open to abuse... Mark Pritchard said constituents had raised concerns about computers given out under the Home Access Programme apparently being sold for cash."

Of course it could be open to abuse, but then what did this Labour government think poor people would do if given a free laptop worth up to £528?

The Sony Ericsson Xperia X10

I think I want one! More at Engadget.


And if you want something a little smaller, how about a Xperis X10 Mini or Mini Pro?

Immigration - a view by Janet Daley

Janet Daley wrote a piece for The Telegraph that I suggest needs to be read.

The piece begins thus:

"So now we know what Labour's immigration policy was really about. The "open door" was not simply held ajar in order to admit a fresh workforce that would help to fill gaps in the growing economy. Nor was it just a gesture of hospitality and goodwill to those who were fleeing from repressive or inhospitable regimes in order to seek a better life. Both of those aims would have been credible – if controversial and not thought-through in all their consequences. And so would the longer-term view that dynamic, cosmopolitan societies are generally healthier and more productive than in-bred, isolated ones, or that immigrants who tend to be ambitious for themselves and their families could help to counter the passivity and defeatism that tend to be endemic in the British class system.

But as it turns out, the policy was motivated by something far more radical and fundamental than any of this. The full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already been made public by a former Labour adviser – was released last week under Freedom of Information rules. Properly understood, it is political dynamite. What it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at least as much for "social objectives" as for economic ones. Migration was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing.

Tony Blair's "forces of conservatism" speech; his improbable presentation of Britain as a "young country"; the advocacy of a multicultural society which would have to reassess its own history, replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country's sense of its own identity."

Read it all and make sure that you spread the word...

"the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London."

Daily Referendum reminds us of Gordon Brown's 2007 Mansion House speech in which the great clunking fool said:

"So I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London."

"And I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created."

We all know how that turned out. It's also how odd how fond of the phrase "New World Order" Gordon Brown is, is there something we should know?

'David Miliband... across the country to answer questions on a wide range of issues, including but not limited to foreign affairs.'

It would seem that David Miliband is on manoeuvres as he is reported to be spending his half term break on a nationwide tour. It seems that the Foreign Secretary will hold a public meeting in Hammersmith, West London, on Friday and is inviting voters to ask him about subjects not just relating to his international brief. I wonder why? Also it is reported that Andrew Slaughter, MP for neighbouring Ealing, is claiming that similar sessions will be held by Mr Miliband in the coming weeks.

Why is Andrew Slaughter speaking for David Miliband, does Gordon Brown know that the arch-Blairite David Miliband is on the stump, will Gordon Brown and David Miliband have a banana fight over it and where does this leave Ed Balls?

In case you are wondering how impartial an interviewer of Gordon Brown was Piers Morgan...

Nice of ITV to give Gordon Brown a free extra long party political broadcast, will they do the same for David Cameron? The trouble is I can't think of a loyal Conservative working in the broadcast media, which tells you a lot about the institutional pro-Labour outlook of much of the UK broadcast media.

'Only a very small minority of people receive such high rates of housing benefit. The average payment is £81 a week.'

The words of a Department for Work and Pensions spokesman reacting to The Mail story that:

"A single mother-of-six is getting more than £80,000 a year from the taxpayer to live in a £2million mansion in an exclusive London suburb.

Essma Marjam, 34, is given almost £7,000 a month in housing benefits to pay the rent on the five-bedroom villa just yards from Sir Paul McCartney's house and Lord's cricket ground.

She also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, such as child benefit, to help look after her children, aged from five months to 14.

The four-storey house in Maida Vale has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double living room, large fitted kitchen-diner with French doors on to the landscaped garden and a state-of-the art buzzer entry system.

Astonishingly, it is understood Miss Marjam found the house on the internet through a private letting agency, rather than waiting for Westminster council to give her a vacant property on their books.

She then applied to the council for the £1,600-a-week benefit - the maximum amount the council allows."

The key line comes a bit further down the article (my emphasis):

"Miss Marjam said: 'I moved here at the beginning of the month as I'm entitled to a five-bedroom house."

That's Labour Britain in two words - "I'm entitled".

Of course Miss Marjam does not work, as she spends all day looking after her children - Zekia, 14, Abdulhakim, 13, Jihad, 11, Hamza, ten, Ayman, two, and five-month-old Nasir, but according to The Mail she does have

"two large flat-screen televisions and several leather sofas, plus a large amount of children's toys scattered over the wooden floorboards.

During the week, vans from Argos and other home stores dropped off large purchases."

So that's £95,000 a year income (I presume not taxable) paid to a woman who seemingly chooses to have six babies and live off of the State; bloody marvellous.

The BBC test the 'troofer' meme

I see that the BBC are trying a little 'troofer' coverage of the upcoming explanation for the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center. The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers and has been the subject of much 'troofer' claims ever since. Helpfully the BBC repeat some of these claims:

"There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.

* Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
* The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.
* The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.
* In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed. "

I wonder how hard the BBC had to try not to include George Bush, the Saudi Royal family and the 'fact' that 4,000 Jewish employees in the WTC were told to take 9/11 off work in this coverage?

If lack of snow was a warning sign of global warming, then what about the blizzards this year?

So lack of snow proved Global Warming was a fact, so too much snow proves what?

A question of trust?

The news that a male contraceptive jab is being trialled has lead to the usual suspects declaring that women cannot 'trust' men to have the injection as it the woman who ends up carrying the baby. Oddly these women, for they are usually women, do not ever ask if men can trust women to take the contraceptive pill. It is as if these people have never heard of men being 'oopsed' and tricked into fatherhood. If a couple don't want to have children then I would say that both using reliable contraception can only be a good idea.

ClimateGate update and more on the IPCC's fading credibility

The BBC has a soft interview by the 'warmist' Roger Harribin of the CRU's Phil Jones, take a read.

The Mail report on this interview and take a sceptical view with the headline "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"

Meanwhile James Delingpole in The Telegraph writes about the “independent inquiry” into the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) scandal.


Moving away from the CRU and onto the IPCC, Christopher Booker in The Telegraph reports another factual error in the IPCC report:

"One of the most widely quoted and most alarmist passages in the main 2007 report was a warning that, by 2020, global warming could reduce crop yields in some countries in Africa by 50 per cent. Dr Pachauri not only allowed this claim to be included in the short Synthesis Report, of which he was co-editor, but has publicly repeated it many times since.

The origin of this claim was a report written for a Canadian advocacy group by Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan academic who draws part of his current income from advising on how to make applications for "carbon credits". As his primary sources he cited reports for three North African governments. But none of these remotely supported what he wrote. The nearest any got to providing evidence for his claim was one for the Moroccan government, which said that in serious drought years, cereal yields might be reduced by 50 per cent. The report for the Algerian government, on the other hand, predicted that, on current projections, "agricultural production will more than double by 2020". Yet it was Agoumi's claim that climate change could cut yields by 50 per cent that was headlined in the IPCC's Working Group II report in 2007.

What made this even odder, however, was that the group's
co-chairman was a British agricultural expert, Dr Martin Parry, whose consultancy group, Martin Parry Associates, had been paid £75,000 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for two reports which had come to totally different conclusions. Specifically designed to inform the IPCC's 2007 report, these predicted that by 2020 any changes were likely to be insignificant. The worst case they could come up with was that by 2080 climate change might decrease crop yields by "up to 30 per cent".

British taxpayers poured out money for the section of the IPCC report for which Dr Parry was responsible. Defra paid £2.5 million through the Met Office, plus £330,000 for Dr Parry's salary as co-chairman, and a further £75,000 to his consultancy for two more reports on the impact of global warming on world food supplies. Yet when it came to the impact on Africa, all this peer-reviewed work – including further expert reports by Britain's Dr Mike Hulme and Dutch and German teams – was ignored in favour of a prediction from one Moroccan activist at odds with his own cited sources."

Can the 'warmists' keep their credibility long enough for world governance to extend or will the truth manage to emerge? Time will tell.

Is the EU imploding or becoming more powerful?

Nigel Farage's speech last week to the EU Parliament and one that is quite scary in its accusations about Communists running the EU and its predictions that it is Greece today but Spain, Portugal and Ireland tomorrow. "It will fall to pieces and as far as the peoples of Europe are concerned the sooner the better..."

I look forward to Nigel Farage expressing such views at Westminster after the general election, surely he can defeat the increasingly unpleasant Speaker Bercow. If Nigel Farage is elected then I doubt that the BBC and other UK media will find it quite so easy to ignore him and his views.

Thanks to Trixy for the spot.

Dr Who was used to disseminate anti-Thatcher propaganda

The Times reports that:

"Sylvester McCoy, who played the Time Lord during the 1980s, has revealed that he and a cabal of left-wingers used the BBC’s flagship sci-fi series to promote anti-Conservative propaganda.

Andrew Cartmel, who was employed as script editor after telling the show’s producer that he aimed to “overthrow the government”, assembled a number of “angry young writers” to produce plots that would foment anti-Thatcher dissent.

...

“The idea of bringing politics into Dr Who was deliberate, but we had to do it very quietly and certainly didn’t shout about it,” said McCoy, who played Dr Who from 1987-9. “We were young, politically motivated people and it seemed the right thing to do.

“At the time Dr Who used satire to put political messages out there in the way they used to do in places like Czechoslovakia.

“Our feeling was that Margaret Thatcher was far more terrifying than any monster the Doctor had encountered.”

Cartmel recalled John Nathan-Turner, who produced the show throughout the 1980s, asking him during his job interview what he hoped to achieve in the post.

“My exact words were, ‘I’d like to overthrow the Government’,’ said Cartmel. “I was a young firebrand and I wanted to answer honestly. I was very angry about the social injustice in Britain under Thatcher and I’m delighted that came into the show.”

Under Cartmel’s direction, Thatcher was caricatured as Helen A, the wide-eyed tyrannical ruler of a human colony on the planet Terra Alpha.

The extra-terrestrial Iron Lady, played by Sheila Hancock, outlaws unhappiness and remarks, “I like your initiative, your enterprise” as her secret police round up dissident killjoys.

The Doctor persuades “the drones”, who toil in the factories and mines, to down tools and rise up in revolt.

Helen A remains oblivious as close colleagues turn against her and, prophetically, is shown shedding a tear as she realises finally that power is slipping from her grasp. "

The BBC using entertainment programmes as a way of spreading anti-Conservative propaganda; who would have thought it!

Nigel Farage telling how it is and would be a year ago...

Nigel Farage on the coming Greek economic problems and the role of the EU economic straight-jacket a year ago. A shame the EU, and others, didn't pay attention.


Thanks to Trixy for the spot.

Is this history repeating itself

We may be on the cusp of a Conservative government as we witness the dying twitches of a failed Labour government, just as we did in 1979 and so should we surprised that once again Argentina are laying claim to The Falklands? This time the complication is the possibility of oil off of The Falklands, maybe 60 billion barrels of it. The Argentinians want that oil and are blocked a ship carrying drilling equipment from leaving an Argentine port last week.

Keep an eye on this story and after 13 years of Labour's mismanagement of our armed forces could the UK retake the Falklands if we had to again?

BBC minimising a bad news story

Back in the early 1980s 364 economists wrote an open letter to The Times decrying Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, this was a massive news story and I seem to remember the BBC news ran with it as their main lead for days. Today 20 economics experts wrote to The Sunday Times saying that the government must act more quickly to cut Britain's huge budget deficit and that the lack of a credible plan threatens to push up interest rates and undermine the recovery. A big story on its own but since one of the signatories is the Labour Lord Desai, surely a political embarrassment. However by mid-afternoon today the story was the last piece on the BBC 5Live news and on the website it appears as a minor link from the front page under Business News with the deliberately dull headline "Economists push for deficit cut".

Maybe there is an innocent explanation for the discrepancy in coverage but I'll be damned if I can think what it might be.

The Thick Of It came to life

The Mail seem shocked that:

"Lance Price, who worked for Tony Blair, has disclosed that Lord Mandelson was behind a groundless BBC report alleging that ex-Hong Kong governor Lord Patten faced being prosecuted for leaking state secrets.

Mr Price was a BBC political reporter when Lord Mandelson told him 'off the record' that the story was true - prompting the BBC to broadcast the claims to millions of people.

But it turned out to be a crude attempt to deflect attention from the row over former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's affair with secretary Gaynor Regan."

A Labour spin doctor using misdirection to divert the public's attention now where have wee seen that before? Take a look at The Thick of it, Season 2, Episode 1.

The Mail report continues:

"Once the BBC had run the story, Lord Mandelson went on the record to confirm the matter was being investigated.

But Mr Price's book is the first time it has been established that Lord Mandelson was instrumental in the Corporation's decision to report it in the first place.

Mr Price goes on to reveal his - and the BBC's - fury when they found out the allegations suggesting Lord Patten had handed classified documents to journalist Jonathan Dimbleby were groundless.

'The strategy was cack-handed and counter-productive,' says Mr Price. 'By Monday it was clear that neither story had any foundation and many of us realised we had been taken for a ride.'

Lord Patten, now Chancellor of Oxford University, was officially cleared of any wrongdoing months later. He said yesterday: 'This is just another example of Labour spin teetering over the brink into mendacity.

'I was really cross at the time. My family were genuinely hurt at having these ridiculous allegations plastered all over the papers. It is exactly the kind of thing we can look forward to from Lord Mandelson in the coming Election campaign.

'I have always believed that when people say Mandelson is simply telling things as they are, that it is time to count the spoons.'"

Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - what a delightful quartet that was/is.

'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

Under this Labour government it seems that death will mean an extra incurring of taxation as The Telegraph reports that:

"The Tories have accused ministers of secretly planning a 10 per cent “death tax” to help pay for long-term care for the elderly and infirm.

They said the tax would be levied on estates in addition to inheritance tax, penalising families with large homes or other substantial assets.

The Conservatives ratcheted up the pressure after it emerged that Ipsos-Mori, the polling company, was testing public opinion on the option. "

Tax, tax, tax; that's what Labour do best and now it looks as though they will be implementing at least one new tax on the dead's estate, in addition to inheritance tax.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change”

Not my words but those of former lead author of the IPCC, John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The Times reports that:

"The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said."

I've reported before on the scandal that is the way weather stations are sited and you can take a trip to Surface Stations for even more detail.

The real face of Gordon Brown

I will not be watching Piers Morgan's interview with Gordon Brown tonight; I have better things to do on Valentines Day, I presume most other people will too. Why anyone would think that a soft lens interview of Gordon Brown by one of his and his wife's friends would be anything other than an attempt to portray Gordon Brown as a normal human being is beyond me. The transcript of the interview has been available online for a few days and so I was interested to read this exchange (and commentary) at Red Rag online:

"What do you think was the first thing he did when he heard that his friend and party leader John Smith had died? Well its obvious isn't it? Surely he would do what any human being would do, he would contact Elizabeth, John's wife of twenty seven years and offer his heart felt condolences.

So did he? No he bloody didn't, his first thought, by his own mouth, was to go after his dead friends job and his first action was to call Tony Blair to pick over the bones. Here is what he told Piers Morgan when asked if he believed he would be Labour leader after Mr Smith's death.

"I thought that would be possible and the first person I phoned when I heard John had died was Tony.

"And I said: 'Look, Tony, you may not know this but despite the fact it's not been announced, John unfortunately has, has died.' So I was talking to Tony, I said, 'Look, we've got to sort this out,' And so we started a conversation."

"I believed I could do the job, I believed that I'd got the experience and built up the experience to do it."

What an utter arse the man is, despite coaching from Alastair Campbell and being given a prime time TV show by his old friend Piers Morgan to show his 'human side' what does Gordon Brown do? He reveals he is a vulture whose first thought at the loss of a friend and colleague was what was in it for him."

As I have said for a long time, Gordon Brown is a deeply unpleasant man who cannot see an event without thinking what might be in it for him. I feel nothing but contempt for the man who has done more to destroy the UK than anyone in recent history. The sooner he is ejected from Downing Street and made to account for his crimes against the Country the happier I will be.

Islamic terrorist update

CBS News report that:

"CBS News has learned that U.S. Intelligence officials are seeing a marked increase in terror-related Internet chatter with a frightening focus: Jihadists bent on finding gaps in airport security - all linked to al Qaeda in Yemen, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian.

On one radical website, a writer invites fellow members to post information on how to bypass airport screening.

Another member asks about explosive detection devices, writing: "We have that system in place in Algiers...does anyone know if it's capable of detecting [the flammable gas] butane?"

On another Jihadist site, a visitor questions security involving 3D scanners at British airports asking: "Can I refuse [to pass through] for religious reasons?"


Before long comes this answer: "...advise those who wish to avoid the Heathrow scanners to take the train to Paris... and then board a plane from there."

Perhaps most disturbing -- the recent discovery of a confidential TSA document on a Yemeni Web site discussing the rules for searching passengers."

Meanwhile in the West Islamic groups are stating that airport body scanners violate teachings of Islam and in the US groups are reported to have advised that:

"a general and public use of such scanners is against the teachings of Islam, natural law and all religions and cultures that stand for decency and modesty,"...

"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," FCNA explained. The group noted that Islam emphasizes modesty, considering it part of the faith. "The Qur'an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts" and to be modest in their dress.

While exceptions can be made in cases of "extreme necessity," FCNA indicated that passenger body scans do not rise to that level.

FCNA is asking for changes in scanner software so the machines will produce only body outlines. In the meantime, the group says Muslim travelers should choose pat-down searches over scanner images - in cases where searches are necessary."

I see conflict coming when the first Muslim refuses to pass through a UK body scanner and is so denied access to their flight. The human rights industry will no doubt support their rights over those of the general public and before long the only people being scanned will be non-Muslims and all be well; iuntil the next bomb goes off killing hundreds.

Sunday appears to be Bristol 411 day on this blog

Following last week's piece I have found that you can still buy a new Bristol 411. Octane report that:

"Being aware of the popularity of the 411 Toby Silverton has come up with a plan. Being Bristol Cars, this is a very Bristol plan. Whilst buyers of the Blenheim and Fighter keep the order books healthy, enthusiasts still hanker after the 411 of yore. Today, the production facilities at the Bristol factory are still available to be used on the out of production 411 because the cars were largely hand made and many of the craftsmen who built them originally are more than capable of doing so again. Bingo!

'We have developed what you might call a Bristol 411 Series VI,' says Silverton with enthusiasm. 'We basically rebuild a brand new Bristol 411 at the Bristol works, with all the sort of upgrades you expect in a modern car, whilst retaining the classic 411 virtues. The Series VI comes with a new car warranty and will cost you £128,500 including.'

Imagine, a manufacturer building you a classic car to ‘as new’ condition in its original factory and handing over a new car warrant to go with it. A concept that is hard to conjure. And Bristol wants £128.5K for the pleasure? Hmm. But think about it a bit longer and the idea is not that far-fetched, just a little lateral."

If I won the lottery I might even buy one...

BBC reluctant to report the whole story

The BBC report under the headline "India restaurant bomb blast kills nine in Pune " that:

"At least nine people have been killed and 57 others injured in a bomb attack at a restaurant in India's western city of Pune, officials say.

The explosion tore through the German Bakery, which is popular with tourists, in Koregaon Park.

The bombing is the first major strike of its kind in India since the deadly Mumbai attacks in November 2008.

Reports that one of the dead is a foreign national have not yet been confirmed by the Indian authorities.

Several foreigners were said to be among the injured.

The explosion at the restaurant, on North Main Road, happened at about 1900 (1330 GMT), when it was packed with diners.

"It appears that an unattended package was noticed in the bakery by one of the waiters who apparently attempted to open the package when the blast took place," Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

"We heard a big noise and we all rushed out. The impact was so great that there were body parts everywhere," Vinod Dhale, who works at the restaurant, told Reuters. "

That takes you to the end of the first section of the BBC report and beyond the first page of a normal sized web browser and so all that most skimmers of the news will read.

The Times of India report the same story thus:

"9 confirmed dead, 45 injured in blast at Pune bakery
PUNE: Terror struck Pune tonight as a powerful bomb ripped apart a popular bakery near a Jewish prayer house, killing nine people, including five women and a foreigner, and injuring 45 in the first major attack since 26/11 carnage."

A Jewish prayer House, might that not be important to the story as one of these was also one of the targets of the Islamic terrorist attack on Mumbai.

If you read on in the BBC piece they do eventually report that:

"The German Bakery is near the Osho Ashram, a mystic centre popular with visitors to Pune.

The Chabad centre, run by the Jewish Orthodox Chabad-Lubavitch movement, is also in the vicinity.

Members of the Chabad-Lubavitch were targeted in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and in October 2009 the home ministry issued a security alert for the Chabad centre in Pune. "

But this is kept way down the story lest anyone make the link to Islamic terrorism caused by a desire to kill all Jews wherever they may be.

Sunday catchup

Some stories that I read this week and think you should too:

1. An Oxfordshire Geek calls Gordon Brown "Cynical. Loathsome. Detestable. Vile. Despicable. Disgraceful. Nauseating. Abhorrent. Reprehensible." Not a controversial view but it saves me writing about tonight's Piers Morgan/Gordon Brown pre-election love-in.


2. Anna Racoon takes Speaker Bercow to task for his lack of control over PMQs:

"Prime Minister’s Question time has long been a farce, though farce implies something mildly amusing. The past few weeks it has turned into an elongated election broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party and it is anything but amusing.

Every question is turned into an monologue deriding the Conservative party, and the speaker never intervenes to demand an answer from the Prime Minister.

Yesterday there were 10 ‘planted’ questions from Labour MPs, not holding the government to account, but giving the Prime Minister the opportunity to extol the virtues of the Labour party. 3 questions from Conservative MPs, never answered, 3 from Lib-Dems, equally never answered, and 1 from a welsh windbag – Elfred Lewis."

Anna Racoon has a suggestion as to how David Cameron should draw attention to the farce that is PMQs and (in my view harness some of the righteous anger that many have against Gordon Brown and the unpleasant people that support him):

"I long to see Cameron call the Blind Man’s bluff – to ask a serious question, and the moment he is treated to a monologue on the supposed short comings of the Conservative party by way of response, to lead his entire party out of the House of Commons and hold a press conference on the steps of St. Stephens instead.

Provoke a constitutional crisis. Defy the media not to report Cyclops’ wilful refusal to be held to account. Defy Clegg not to follow suit and support him. Kick Bercow out of the Conservative party. Disown him."

3. The Cynical Tendency has an interesting article, but I am not sure what he is talking about!


4. The Sun reports on the Unions who are recruiting for the coming war with a Conservative government:

"UNION chiefs preparing for a battle over public spending cuts have launched a £500,000 RECRUITMENT drive.

Unison are offering salaries of up to £40,000 for at least 15 local and regional organisers to "build the strength" of the public service union."

5. Conservative Home reveal that:

"the unions are holding back money from Labour's election fighting fund and instead choosing to build up a war chest with which to fight the Conservative government that they expect to be elected next year. The relatively benign economic years of the recent past have meant the unions have not had to fund much strike pay and the coffers of the public sector unions, in particular, are overflowing.

A very good source tells ConHome that the unions have as much as £25m to spend on campaigns to oppose cuts in the public sector workforce and in public sector pay."

6. Coincidentally The Telegraph report that:

"David Cameron will move to scrap the automatic union funding of the Labour party if he wins the general election... Currently, unions only need to ask members every 10 years if they want to contribute to their political funds, which also includes spending on campaigning and lobbying.

Around £8million a year is channelled through the political funds to Labour party coffers in this way.

Under the Tory plans, union members would have to choose to contribute to the political fund every time they pay their annual subscription.

Asking individual union members to tick a box supporting Labour every year was a key sticking point in talks to reform party funding which collapsed amid acrimony two years ago.

Mr Cameron has pointed out that many union members are not Labour supporters and yet are often unwilling contributors to the party."

For Valentines Day - "You can't beat a cucumber"

How many kisses?

Is that two kisses, three or four? Kissing etiquette is so complicated.

Sacramone
by bsap11

Demarcation issues

Diary of a Geek in Oxfordshire has also noticed that Police are to pose as burglars in Cheshire and posts a nice piece of satire:

"the move has met strong opposition from the UK's blaggers. Keith Chav, General Larcenist of the Union of Burglars, Thugs and Allied Trades, said, "this is disgusting. It's a matter of demarcation, innit. Distribution of labour. The police should do their job, and we do ours. Why can't they stick to what they do best? They don't do burglaries, and we don't fit up innocent people."

Mr Chav added that the Union of Burglars, Thugs and Allied Trades were considering balloting for strike action, but declined to elaborate as to what form any industrial unrest would take."

Are Western Intelligence Agencies and Media covering up Islamic terrorist successes?

Debka thinks they are and cites the example the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737-800 which 'crashed' after takeoff from Beirut on January 25, killing all 92 aboard. Debka claim this plane was blown up in mid-air. Debka also cite the Egyptian charter flight that blew up after takeoff at Sharm al-Sheikh for Cairo, killing all 148 French citizens aboard on their way back to Paris from a Red Sea vacation six years ago.

An interesting article, do have a read.

Ron Howard's film making explained

So where does Apollo 13 fit into this?

The choice facing the country? “It’s between change or ruin.”

A very interesting interview with William Hague in today's Telegraph. In it William Hague describes the choice at the upcoming general election as "... between change or ruin."

The contrast between William Hague's description of David Cameron and other's descriptions of Gordon Brown is stark:

""There are no sharp ups or downs. If things are going well he doesn’t get excited. If they are going badly he doesn’t get depressed,” he says. “If we are elected, he’s got the steel to govern the country through some very difficult times. He’s not put off by a bit of flak or a sudden turn of events.”

“He’s the sanest person to have led the party in a long time, including me. He has no phobias or obsessions.” And he will be decisive. He won’t suffer people in a job when they are not up to it.” Ominously, he adds: “He’s got a very clear view of who is doing well and who is doing badly.” "

So that's the choice at the general election: change or ruin, sanity or depression, decisiveness or indecision.

So to all you people that are thinking of voting UKIP because of your worries over David Cameron's EU policy, or BNP to send a message about immigration or abstain from voting because George Osborne has not satisfies you over his taxation policies; think on, UKIP will not win the election, the only choice is between five more years of Labour misrule and guaranteed ruin for the UK and a chance, just a chance of recovery.

"I wasn't concentrating"

Dean Windass match reports- 30/1/10 (Soccer Saturday)

So you're not interested in th Winter Olympics? Maybe you should have a look.

Guyism have some compelling reasons why the 2010 Winter Olympics may be worth a look, here's one...

That's Gretchen Bleiler who will compete for the USA in the Snowboard-Halfpipe on 18 Feb; I have no idea what the Snowboard-Halfpipe is but suddenly I am interested...

Friday night Country music

Bobbie Gentry - "Ode to Billie Joe"


For some background take a read of Sean Linnane

"A panel of independent experts"

The BBC report that:

"A panel of independent experts has officially begun its inquiry into the "Climategate" affair.

The experts, headed by Sir Muir Russell, will investigate how e-mails from the UK's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) appeared on the web.

They will also consider if the e-mail exchanges between researchers show an attempt to manipulate or suppress data "at odds" with scientific practice. "

But then immediately have to admit that:

"even before the panel could start work, one of its members resigned.

Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief for Nature journal, stood down late on Thursday because of remarks he had made last year in the Chinese media in which he said the scientists mentioned in the e-mails had "behaved as researchers should". "

So if Dr Philip Campbell had not resigned would the BBC still have described him as unbiased?


Here's the original list of the 'independent experts' per the BBC:
* Geoffrey Boulton, general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Professor of Geology)
* Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief for Nature journal
* Professor Peter Clarke of the University of Edinburgh (a particle physicist by background, he now heads the e-Science Centre at Edinburgh)
* David Eyton, head of research and technology at BP
* Professor Jim Norton, vice president for the Chartered Institute for IT

So what do we know about these five figures, sorry four as Dr Campbell has already resigned. Surely the other four must be impeccably unbiased? After all the Russell Review website states this:

"Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at."

Hmm, the excellent Bishop Hill reports that: "Geoffrey Boulton is an ex-UEA School of Environment man." So that makes him really 'independent' to investigate alleged wrongdoing at an associated body based at the UEA! Here's Geoffrey Boulton discussing climate change:

"We have the evidence, we have a consensus on scientific interpretation, we have the investment, we know (Stern) that mitigation now rather than later is cheaper. But, we have not sorted out the politics and started to adapt behaviour to minimize risks. We cannot do this without public support. If we fail, we will be risking the consequences of catastrophic climate changes."

He sounds like someone with an open mind about Climate Change, does he not?


How about David Eyton of BP? That would be the same BP who helped set up the CRU would it? The same BP who state that

"BP is a strong supporter of cap and trade emissions trading, participating in the EU scheme and looking forward to the day when regional schemes are knitted together into a global system."

and who wrote

"The challenge of climate change requires policy development at all levels: global, national and local. Our work with Princeton is an example of BP's commitment to collaborative research, and has already provided a vital contribution to the pace of policy development. We trust that governments will be successful in reaching a consensus for significant action, and we are working to inform their actions based on our experience of low-carbon technologies and businesses.""

Bishop Hill also helpfully points out that "issues for examination" by the committee explicitly include this:

"The Team stresses that its remit does not involve re-evaluation of the scientific conclusions of the CRU work"

Finally Bishop Hill reveals some more about Professor Boulton:

"* spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
* works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team
* says the argument over climate change is over
* tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change
* believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050
* signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity
* could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger
* is quite happy to discuss "denial" in the context of the climate debate.*

The idea that this man has no preconception of global warming science and has no connections with the CRU is clearly risible.

Daniel Hannan showing he's not anti-European just anti-EU

Better French than Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Baroness Ashton, not to mention me.


Thanks to Raedwald for the spot.

The IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri denying errors in his organisation's report

So 'peer review' is not as important as 'warmists' used to claim and the only error related to the Himalayan glaciers? Do wait for the supplementary question and the non-answer.

How has Gordon Brown done as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister?

Jeff Randall in The Telegraph has the answer:

"Let’s kick off with the pound: after all, when Mr Brown was in Opposition, he taunted the Tories with the allegation: “A weak currency arises from a weak economy, which in turn is the result of weak government.”

Since March 17, 1998, sterling has lost about 14 per cent of its value against the Swedish krona, 24 per cent against the Chinese yuan, 33 per cent against the Swiss franc and 35 per cent against the Japanese yen.

The euro was not a currency, as such, in 1998, but the website x-rates.com calculates that against a basket of currencies forming the euro, sterling has shed about 27 per cent of its value over the past 12 years. In that time, even the enfeebled American dollar has dipped less sharply than the pound.

I am sure if one looks hard enough (try sub-Saharan Africa), there will be a handful of currencies against which sterling is now stronger than it was on Mr Brown’s big day; but not at the top table. As a result, when buying in overseas markets, the Great British consumer is a six-stone weakling.

Yes, Mr Brown kept us out of the euro. Well done. But in doing so, he has allowed us to see what traders think of the UK’s prospects. Verdict: thumbs down.

Turn now to the London stock market, where much of what’s left of our pensions, ie long-term savings, tends to be invested. How have we fared?

On March 17, 1998, the FTSE-100 index was 5,834. At close of play on February 10, the day on which I based these calculations, it had fallen to 5,132, a drop of 12 per cent.

Ah, says Mr Brown, this is a global crisis. All industrialised countries have been affected by recession. In which case, what has happened to their stock markets? In France, the CAC index is down, but by less than one per cent. In Germany, the DAX index is up by 12 per cent. In America, where all the trouble began (Mr Brown’s words, not mine), the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up by 15 per cent. In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng index is up by 77 per cent. Of the world’s big players, only Tokyo’s main market has fared worse than London’s.

In a report for the Centre for Policy Studies, John Littlewood, a former group director at S G Warburg, concludes: “The London stock market has always performed poorly under Labour governments… its performance under this [one] has been even worse than during previous Labour governments.”

Hard to believe, I know, but true. Under Labour 1964-70, the stock market’s real return (adjusted for inflation) went down by 13 per cent. Under Labour 1974-79 (which included Denis Healey’s grovelling to the IMF), it went down by 11.5 per cent. Under Mr Brown, the London stock market’s decline in real return is more than 20 per cent.

On March 17, 1998, he talked much about Britain’s “deficit reduction plan”, “an unshakeable commitment to prudent monetary and fiscal rules” and, get this, addressing the “structural weakness” of unemployment. These were the yardsticks by which he chose to be judged. What happened?

Well, Britain’s budget deficit, as a percentage of GDP, is running at 14 per cent, the worst among G20 nations, and higher even than in Greece (13 per cent), which is about to be rescued by an EU bail-out. We are borrowing about £180 billion a year, and our stock of debt is heading for £1 trillion.

Monetary rules, prudent or otherwise, were ripped up, after the Bank of England printed £200 billion and pumped it into the economy (inflation, here we come). As for unemployment, there was no figure I could find for March 17, 1998, but for the spring quarter of that year it was 6.3 per cent. Today, it is 7.8 per cent. For those lucky enough to be in work, real wages are under relentless pressure from millions of economic migrants.

In short, sterling is in the toilet, our pensions have been slaughtered, cash savings yield almost nothing, the country is up to its neck in unprecedented debt, the banking system is awash with funny money, our gold reserves were sold off at rock-bottom prices, and Britain’s dole queue is considerably longer than before Crash Gordon began cooking the books.

Apart from that, it’s not too bad. "

Well done Gordon Brown; if he wanted to destroy the UK economy then he has succeeded brilliantly, if he was trying to manage the economy 'prudently' then he has been an unqualified failure. Gordon Brown's crowning glory is that he has actually proved to be a worse custodian of the Country's finances than Harold Wilson and Dennis Healey; well done Gordon.

Michael Crick questioning David Cameron again

Michael Crick is at it again, under the title "Ask the audience. Who was flanking Cameron at UEL?" Michael Crick writes: "Who were those students seen behind David Cameron on Monday while he made his speech on constitutional matters at the University of East London (UEL)?

"They weren't our students," my source at UEL tells me.

"We were puzzled when we saw the pictures on TV because there were so many white faces. Whereas the population of UEL is much more black and Asian."

And I'm also told that when the Student Union President Joseph Bitrus was asked on LBC radio today why the student audience looked so bored with the speech, Mr Bitrus too expressed puzzlement, and said that they weren't his students.

So did the Conservatives bus their students in from somewhere else just to be sure that Mr Cameron's speech got a good reception and there weren't any embarrassing protests?

Indeed, were the audience students at all?

I think we should be told. After all, one of the themes of Mr Cameron's speech was "transparency"."

A good question but has Michael Crick ever queried the make-up of audiences for a Labour leader's speech or appearance? Did Michael Crick ever comment on how Labour bussed in cheering crowds to acclaim Tony Blair becoming Prime Minister in 1997, or was he too busy quaffing champagne in Broadcasting House?

The new House of Lords definition of a 'main home' (update)

Further to my piece about the disgusting ruling that the House of Lords definition of a 'main home' is now one where the noble Lord spends at least one night a month during the time Parliament is sitting. I see on Letters From A Tory that Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, has commented :

"If you want to see what whitewashed ermine looks like, this is it. This ruling has more holes in it than a colander."

Excellent sound-bite...

What is going on in some of London's Universities?

Harry's Place has two very interesting pieces up this week. This piece relates how:

"University College London Union has defied calls to cancel a provocative talk organised by the Ahlul Bayt Islamic Society, stoking up anger from students and the Iranian ex-patriot community who accuse the University of fermenting Islamic extremism and implicitly condoning the brutal actions of the regime in Iran.

Entitled, 1979 – The Revolution that Shook the World, the event takes place on the 11th of February, coinciding with expected protests and possible fatalities in Iran on the penultimate day of the 11 Days of Dawn, which mark the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the 1979 revolution.

Attending, the guest speakers include Islamic convert Yvonne Ridley from the controversial Iranian state-owned 24-hour broadcaster Press TV, which is currently under an Ofcom investigation for breaching the code of conduct.

More controversially still, the event has earmarked a seat for Dr Mohammad Marandi from Tehran University. Marandi has stated his support for the execution of protesters, and recently condoned the execution of Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour who was aged as young as 19, saying on Al Jazeera “there isn’t much sympathy for these two people.”

...

Revelations of this latest controversy come hot on the heels of damaging allegations that UCL is rife with Islamic extremism, following the failed terrorist bombing on Christmas Day by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who studied at UCL and was the president of the Islamic Society in 2006-2007, the second Islamic society at UCL alongside Ahlul Bayt.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph in January disclosed the number of radical Islamic preachers who’ve attended talks held in the Darwin Lecture theatre, which ironically include “Muslim radicals who have challenged the theory of evolution”.

Of the keynote speakers invited, one had “suggested that homosexuals and opponents of Islam should be killed”, reports The Telegraph. Abu Usamah, a preacher at Birmingham’s Green Lane mosque had been filmed in a 2007 Channel Four documentary, where he praised Osama bin Laden and said: “If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that’s my freedom of speech, isn’t it?”"

And this piece relates how:

"earlier this week ... two SOAS academics were pictured receiving awards from President Ahmadinejad. SOAS is one of those universities that have also previously accepted cash from the Iranian government...

One of those academics who met Ahmadinejad recently was Mohammad Abdel Haleem, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the Department of the Languages and Cultures of Near and Middle East, and Director of the Centre of Islamic Studies at SOAS. This Centre was set up following a £1m donation from the Saudi government, specifically from King Fahd himself.

Haleem’s appointment at SOAS in June 1995 was a controversial one, coming in the context of thirty SOAS employees protesting the £1m donation that the university had received from King Fahd. One academic said at the time that ‘Saudi Arabia is known to have a certain agenda on Islam and there could be implications about accepting money from such a source’. However, according to Arabic newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi, the academics were also angry that Haleem – who had been a lecturer at SOAS for several years – had been appointed to a professorship at the Centre without the post being advertised inside or outside the university. The reaction to the donations within SOAS led to the establishment of a working party in order to ‘codify the principles on working with sponsors’.

Haleem’s links to King Fahd go even further – he is also one of seven trustees at the Saudi-run King Fahd Academy, which offers primary and secondary school education and operates ‘under the support and supervision of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in London’. This academy got itself into a spot of bother in 2007 after admitting that it used textbooks that called Jews ‘apes’ and Christians ‘pigs’. Perhaps he was unaware of the content of the textbooks – yet his willingness to accept patronage from Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly a black mark on his record.

Equally culpable are those universities who accept donations from such regimes in the first place, of which SOAS is a clear example. In correspondence with them last year, SOAS told me that their donation from Iran came with ‘no strings attached’ and that ‘The donations from Iran and Saudi Arabia have had no detrimental impact on the University’. Yet this week, Durham University – who have recently accepted cash from Iran themselves – admitted that they have ‘taken steps…to sever all financial ties with…any representatives of the Iranian regime’, as ‘Iranian money comes with strings attached’.

SOAS has obviously managed to retain a better working relationship with the Islamic Republic than Durham. It will be interesting to see how the other British universities that Iran tells us it has been in negotiations with – specifically to fund Islamic studies programmes – gets on."

All is obviously well at SOAS and UCL and there is absolutely no way that Saudi Arabia or Iran could possibly be influencing policy at these two institutes of learning.

"Police to pose as burglars in the middle of the night in bid to cut break-ins"

I cannot be bothered to point out the stupidity of this policy as reported in The Mail that:

"Police officers are going to pose as burglars in a bid to get householders to properly secure their homes.

People whose residences are an easy target could be woken in the middle of the night by officers trying windows and doors.

The initiative, code-named Operation Golden, is being launched in a bid to cut break-ins.

It is being trialled by Cheshire Police, who say residents who fall foul of their checks will be roused with a lecture from officers on what they could have lost."

So police officers are going to creep around houses checking doors and windows, that sounds a great idea, not!

"He is psychologically and emotionally incapable of leadership of any kind."

Yes, that's another description of Gordon Brown - see The Independent for more details...

A puzzled and angry Richard Bacon

This afternoon I had the great misfortune to be stuck in traffic and found myself listening to 5Live's Richard Bacon, one of the few 5Live presenters to make Victoria Derbyshire sound like an unbiased presenter. Poor Richard Bacon had to interview Lance Price, the former Labour spin doctor whose book and serialisation I commented on earlier today. Richard Bacon was all but apoplectic that a former Labour spin doctor and someone who said they would still vote labour would produce such a book just before a general election. Richard Bacon kept asking the same question; basically 'why you would do this?' over and over again.

Richard Bacon seemed to be saying that rather than report the truth (or people's accounts of the truth) about Gordon Brown's nature before a general election, Lance Price should either have not published anything about Gordon Brown in this book or should have delayed publication until after the general election, as this book and the publicity around it could damage Labour's chances at the general election.

If you get the chance do listen to the whole interview it runs either side of the 3pm news; it's a fantastic window into the brain of a 5Live presenter.

"It's this self-pity thing. There's a pathetic side to him that is really unbecoming."

Yes, that's a description of Gordon Brown - see The Independent for more details...

Michael Crick demonstrating his ignorance or bias (addendum)

Further to my earlier piece regarding Michael Crick's deliberate or otherwise misunderstanding of voting systems. It strikes me that whilst Michael Crick is criticising David Cameron for opposing the Alternative Vote system when he was supposedly elected leader of the Conservative Party by just such a system, he has no word for Gordon Brown who whilst being such a fan of the Alternative Vote system was not elected to the position of Labour leader by such a system. Oh hold on, I think I see why, Gordon Brown and his team bullied and schemed so that there no opponents of Gordon Brown were able to garner enough votes to stand against him; that's so much more democratic...

Michael Crick demonstrating his ignorance or bias

Michael Crick's blog piece entitled "How 'AV' made Cameron Tory leader" demonstrates how Michael Crick doesn't let facts spoil a good anti-Tory story. Michael Crick writes:

"Mischievously, I looked up the voting figures for the Conservative leadership election last time round, in 2005.

Lo and behold, the votes from MPs in the first round were:

David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38

It was only in subsequent ballots, after the weaker candidates, Mr Clarke and Mr Fox, were eliminated, and David Cameron picked up many of their supporters' second or third preferences, that he won through.

If the Conservatives had used "first past the post" in 2005, then David Davis would have won."

The key word here is indeed "Mischievously" as the Conservative Party leadership election was not held under the Alternative Vote system where electors rank candidates in order of preference and votes are redistributed accordingly until one of the leading candidates has more than 50% of the votes. It was a run-off election where after each round of voting one or more candidates drop out, there is more campaigning, another round of one vote per person voting; this process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes. I seem to remember that the French elect Presidents in just such a manner.

Either Michael Crick made an honest mistake, in which case one has to question whether someone with that little understanding of politics should remain as Newsnight's political editor or Michael Crick's anti-Tory views are so entrenched that he just couldn't refrain from 'having a pop' at the leader of the Conservative Party, in which case he is too biased to remain as Newsnight's political editor.

So I hereby call for Michale Crick to either resign from his position as Newsnight's political editor or be sacked by the BBC whether for incompetence or bias.

The BBC just see almost everything from the Labour government's point of view

Listen to the Radio 4 Today programme interview with Lord Krebs this morning, it's a fine example of the sort of built-in bias so prevalent at the BBC. Lord Krebs describes how Jacqui Smith when Home Secretary wrote to the government's Chief Scientific Advisor "I don't care what the advice is, I've already made up my mind". You will hear Evan Davis sniggering in the background during this claim, Jacqui Smith being an expendable, indeed expended, ex-Minister. However when Lord Krebs goes on to state that Gordon Brown had previously done the same thing when the previous chairman of ACMD "had to write to him to say please desist from telling the public what your view is before you've received advice on cannabis." the mood palpably changes and you hear one of Evan Davis's trademark move the interview away from dangerous ground - nervous "right" - and onto the more "fundamental" question of why "you need official science advisers for government?" Yes that's the "fundamental" question Evan, not why this Labour government ignores scientific advice when it is at variance with their prejudices.

"He is psychologically and emotionally incapable of leadership of any kind."

You hardly need me to tell you who is being thus described; yes it's the great clumping fist, Gordon Brown. It seems that yet another former Downing Street insider is spilling the beans about life in the bunker with Gordon and it's not a pretty tale. This time it's Lance Price and his book "Where Power Lies. Prime Ministers v The Media" looks like confirming that which we learnt from Peter Watt a few weeks ago and indeed Tom Bowyer some years back.

The Independent are serialising Lance Price's book today and tomorrow, here's a few extracts form today's Independent article to give you a flavour of the being currently in possession of Number 10:

"the Prime Minister "shouting at staff, jabbing an angry finger, throwing down papers, kicking the furniture".

...

he Prime Minister's treatment of junior staff is "unforgivable". They claim Mr Brown is obsessed with controlling hour-by-hour media coverage and shows "extraordinary flashes of anger" when a news story runs out of control.

...

One staffer describes as an understatement the claim that Mr Brown has "psychological flaws", a phrase attributed to Mr Campbell but denied by him. Insiders accuse Mr Brown of being "pathetic", indulging in "self-pity" when things go wrong. Another who has witnessed his behaviour told Mr Price: "He is psychologically and emotionally incapable of leadership of any kind."

...

He is portrayed as obsessed with short-term tactics. "Nobody knows what the big picture is."

What is fascinating is that even the people put up to defend Gordon Brown, damn him with their comments: "One minister said:

"Gordon has had his tantrums in the past when mistakes have been made, but only because he is ... determined to succeed."

As Goldfinger said to James Bond - "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence but the third time is enemy action". So what is four times? I only ask because this weekend the widely respected journalist Andrew Rawnsley's new book "The End of the Party" will (it is claimed) suggest that Gordon Brown physically attacked his staff during a series of outbursts, pulled a secretary out of her chair and hurled abuse at aides while distraught over that alleged snub by Barack Obama during Gordon Brown's trip to the US last year.

Here comes the usual Labour legacy of INFLATION

The BBC report oh so quietly that:

"The UK's inflation rate will rise above 3% in the coming weeks, the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has predicted.

Presenting the Bank's quarterly inflation report, Mr King said the increase in VAT and higher petrol costs would push up prices.

But, he added, inflation would then quickly fall back below the 2% target.

The governor said that he expected "a gradual recovery" in the UK economy over the coming year.

In December the official rate of inflation reached 2.9%. If inflation moves above 3%, the governor is required to write a letter of explanation to the chancellor. "

Remember a year ago the Bank of England was predicting that would inflation would fall into the range 0 to 1% pa, with a significant risk of outright deflation? I didn't believe them then and I doubt anyone is expecting deflation now. As I have said over and over again this Labour government's legacy will be just like previous Labour government's legacies - inflation; all that is in doubt is how high the inflation rate will rise and how long it will take to tame.

The new House of Lords definition of a 'main home'

This is a joke, a very very bad joke.

It appears that the House of Lords Lords authorities have cleared: Baroness Barker, Lord Colwyn, Lord Hayworth, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, Lord Morris of Manchester, Baroness Northover, Baroness Thornton and Baroness Whitaker over their expenses claims. Clerk of the Parliaments, Michael Pownall, has declared that as there was no clear definition as to what constituted a main home in the current expenses scheme, he had asked a Lords committee which rules on peers' allowance to come up with some "essential criteria". This committee had decided that the minimum threshold for visits to a property designated as a "main" home for expenses purposes should be "at least once a month" when Parliament is sitting. Time spent there during recess was "also a relevant factor". So the House of Lords definition of a 'main home' is one where the 'noble Lord' spends at least one night a month during the time Parliament is sitting. So a 'main home' is one where a 'noble Lord' spends as little as 3.23% of their nights during the time Parliament is sitting.

Is this some sort of sick joke. How can a 'main home' be one where someone spends 3.23% of their nights? If a 'noble Lord' spends the remaining 30 nights in one abode elsewhere, that is now acceptable to be called a second home. As Bob "Bulldog" Briscoe would say: "This is total B.S." 'Noble Lords' can now legally claim nightly expenses even if they are not staying at the property that the claim should only arise for.


I also note per the BBC that:

"In Baroness Scotland's case, Mr Pownall said he had not considered the complaint because she was a minister "throughout the period for which we hold records and so not entitled to claim" under the reimbursement scheme."

Did I read that properly, Baroness Scotland was not entitled to claim and so her case was not considered? Does that make sense?

The BBC report continues:

"Under reforms proposed by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body the old allowances system for peers would be replaced.

It favours a £200-a-day attendance allowance for peers, who are not salaried, but says they should have to prove they have been at Parliament.

The plans were criticised by some peers who agreed to back the reforms in principle, but not the detail in a vote in December."

Peers should have to prove that they are where they say there are in order to claim expenses; how iniquitous! Does this infringe their human rights?

“correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”

Last October I wrote about the revelations of Andrew Teather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He claimed that he had proof that Labour's relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

A key passage was that:

"He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.""

At the time the claims of Andrew Teather received less attention than they deserved, the BBC in particular chose to all but ignore them.


Later in October I recorded how Phil Woolas chose to respond to a question posed by Chris Grayling - "I do not know to whom or to which reports the hon. Gentleman refers."


Today the story moves on to another level as The Telegraph reports that following a Freedom Of Information request by MigrationWatch:

"a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims. "

This story needs to be investigated further and the Labour government pursued over it but I fear that David Cameron still thinks that he can become Prime Minister by being nice and not aggressive. Maybe he will change his mind, today's PMQs would be a good place to start, but I don't think he has the stomach for a proper fight with Gordon Brown and his team.

Meanwhile the BBC have once again chosen to ignore the story on their news pages but do have a magazine type piece entitled "Did immigration transform Britain by accident? " that claims precisely the opposite of what has been revealed recently. David Goodhart claims that

"At no point in the last 12 years does there seem to have been a general discussion in cabinet about the country's immigration strategy.

I have discovered that the final decision to open Britain's labour market to Eastern and Central Europeans was taken by a small group of officials and special advisers before an EU Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels.

It is emblematic of the insouciant way in which the great demographic transformation has occurred.

An accumulation of small decisions, all of them perfectly rational and sensible in their own right, has led to a mighty big - and pretty unpopular - outcome. "

David Goodhart also lists the five main reasons that immigration increased:

"What is more, between 1997 and 2003 there were, I think, five significant government decisions.

First, there was the abolition of the primary purpose rule, very unpopular with South Asians in particular, the repeal of which did have the effect of significantly raising the inward flow of spouses.

Second, there was the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which among many other things made it harder to restrict the number of asylum seekers.

Third, there was a liberalisation of student visas which more than doubled to over 130,000 a year. The government has just announced plans to restrict abuse of the system.

Fourth, there was a similar liberalization of work permits.

Fifth, opening the British labour market to people from the new EU states, seven years before any other big EU member. Instead of a few tens of thousands, more than 1 million people came after 2004. "

Oddly I do not recall the BBC reminding people that "there was a liberalisation of student visas which more than doubled to over 130,000 a year" when they reported the Labour government's plans to restrict abuse of this system just last week.


The massive increase in immigration into the UK over the last 13 years is nothing short of scandalous but, if true, the revelations that it was a deliberate policy of the Labour government may take us towards prosecuting leading government ministers for criminal activity.

Iran - this does not bode well

PA via Google reports that:

"Iran has begun enriching uranium to a higher level over the vociferous objections of the US and its allies who fear the process could eventually be used to give the Islamic republic nuclear weapons."

The Telegraph reports that:

"Tehran confirmed it had begun to refine its stocks of low-enriched uranium to a higher-grade at its nuclear plant in the city of Natanz."

The Telegraph reported that:

"Tehran has announced that it successfully launched a research rocket"

And today The Telegraph reports that:

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has said that the country was set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers during this week's 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei, who is also Iran's commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel."

I wonder if Feb 11 might be a good day to avoid public spaces in general and airports in particular.

42% of Britons want to emigrate

The Times reports the findings of a Populus poll for The Times. Key findings include:

"Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
... 70 per cent believe that society is now broken... 68 per cent say people who play by the rules get a raw deal and 82 per cent think it is time for a change... 64 per cent think that Britain is going in the wrong direction and just 31 per cent believe it is on the right track."

13 years since "Things can only get better" and 42% of the British population want to leave the Country; well done Labour.

Ed Balls for Prime Minister?

The BBC and the Alternative Vote system and the missing fact

The BBC's report on Labour's plans to introduce a referendum on the Alternative Vote voting system does manage to include this line

"Labour pledged a referendum on electoral reform in its 1997 election manifesto but the idea was kicked into the long grass by Tony Blair after his landslide victory."

But do not mention the Jenkins Commission which was set-up to look into the various alternatives to the First Past The Post voting system. Here's what The Jenkins Commission concluded re the Alternative Vote system:

"The Commission's conclusions from these and other pieces of evidence about the operation of AV are threefold. First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives. Fairness in representation is a complex concept, as we have seen in paragraph 6, and one to which the upholders of FPTP do not appear to attach great importance. But it is one which, apart from anything else, inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government and presided over by a Liberal Democrat from recommending a solution which at the last election might have left the Conservatives with less than half of their proportional entitlement. We therefore reject the AV as on its own a solution despite what many see as its very considerable advantage of ensuring that every constituency member gains majority acquiescence."

Might this be a pertinent point for an unbiased news agency to recall? Does not recalling this fact lead one to think that the BBC might not be entirely impartial in this as in so many political matters?

Where Tony Blair and Jack Straw have been now Gordon Brown 'must' follow

Gordon Brown declared that he was happy to appear before the Chilcot Inquiry before the General Election and is still expected to do so, although I fully expect him to wriggle out of this commitment as he has done before with other promises...

However the BBC report that:

"Members of the public who want to watch Gordon Brown's much anticipated appearance before the Iraq inquiry will be able to enter a ballot.

There is still is no date fixed for the prime minister to give evidence to the panel, chaired by Sir John Chilcot.

But the inquiry team has confirmed that it will be early in March.

A similar ballot was held when Tony Blair, who was prime minister in the run up and aftermath to the war, was grilled by the committee last month. "

Whilst Tony Blair was smooth and controlled in his giving of evidence, albeit not always answering the question he had been asked and Jack Straw was controlled and convincing even as he contradicted the evidence of other witnesses, Gordon brown is likely to be less convincing. As no witnesses are under oath there is no prospect of getting the 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' from Gordon Brown, just as with Tony Blair and Jack Straw, but Gordon Brown is just not as convincing as the others and prone to inopportune anger. This could be ahot ticket...