A man of real courage on the man who wrote a book on courage despite having none himself

The Telegraph report that:

'Johnson Beharry, Victoria Cross hero, refuses to shake Gordon Brown's hand.

Johnson Beharry, Britain's highest decorated serving soldier, refused to shake Gordon Brown's hand in a protest during a state ceremony.

The winner of the Victoria Cross said Mr Brown had repeatedly disrespected him, his uniform and the Armed Forces.

The Prime Minister has since written a letter to Lance Corporal Beharry in an attempt to make amends.

But L/Cpl Beharry said it was a personal, rather than political gesture, according to The Sun.

He said that Mr Brown had not looked him or any other servicemen in the eye at a reception in Downing Street in November 2008.

Then in Westminster Abbey during the Remembrance Day service last November he said the Prime Minister was “fidgeting and moving” during the two minute silence.

“I've got head and back injuries that put me back in hospital in a lot of pain quite regularly, so if I could do it there's no reason he couldn't," he said. "It was very rude.

“I was absolutely furious with him. All that was going through my head was to knock him out.

“So on the official line-up that time, I decided I'd get his attention and let him know how I felt.

“When he offered his hand to me I just turned around and walked away. I wanted him to think about his actions and it worked.”

The NCO from the 1st Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment said Sarah Brown, the Prime Minister’s wife spotted his snub and wanted to invite him to No 10 to apologise, but no invitation materialised.

L/Cpl Beharry added: "This is nothing to do with the election, or who I want to be PM. My problem is with him personally, Gordon Brown the man." '

Anyone who has seen Gordon Brown at the Cenotaph or anywhere near real soldiers can see how uncomfortable he is. Gordon Brown has starved the frontline armed forces of resources, action that many believe has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many and serious life-changing injuries to many more.

Thankfully the majority of the British people realise what the truth of the situation is and rate Gordon Brown accordingly. The BBC, who also detest the British military for their generally right of centre views, will no doubt not report this story but maybe someone could raise it with Gordon 'fearty' Brown the next time he is within earshot.

Has Vince Cable really been consistently right on the economy?

If you listen to the BBC you might think that Vince Cable had been right all along and totally consistent in his views on the economy. Of course this is propaganda spread by an organisation desperate to prevent the Conservatives winning the general election. Of course the BBC would prefer a Labour victory but a Labour/Lib Dem alliance is definitely preferable to the 'nasty party' winning. Hence the BBC's boosting of Vince Cable and talk of a hung parliament.

So I was interested today to see that The Sun have turned on Vince Cable:

'LIB DEM deputy leader Vince Cable is today exposed as a hopeless "flip-flopper" who cannot make up his mind on what's best for the economy.

Wobbly Mr Cable - who triumphed with viewers in TV's Ask The Chancellors debate last week - has been caught out making a series of embarrassing U-turns on key policies.

It shatters his image as the wise and cool-headed "recession guru" who voters could trust to put Britain back on course.

Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Mr Cable, 66 - who could still land in the Cabinet if there is a hung Parliament - made these five monster flip-flops:

He slammed the Government in January last year for printing more money in a bid to kick-start the economy. He declared: "This is the Robert Mugabe school of economics."

Nine months later he claimed the plan was RIGHT and said: "There is a Robert Mugabe school but this is not it. If I gave that impression, it clearly was wrong."

Mr Cable said in December 2003, that Britain should not be "panicked" into cutting public spending by the International Monetary Fund.

But last September he claimed: "I argued that there was a problem in relation to asset prices and borrowing...

"I don't think I launched a sustained attack on the IMF."

He said in October 2008: "It is entirely wrong for the Government to stimulate the economy by yet more public spending."

In February last year his message had changed to: "We believe the Government stimulus is right and necessary."

When Mr Cable was asked in 2008 about Gordon Brown's backing for Lloyds TSB's takeover of stricken HBOS, he said: "We have no quarrel with what he did. That seemed the right approach."

Just four months later he said: "It looks increasingly as if Lloyds is being dragged under by the dead weight of HBOS." Mr Cable later admitted: "It's fair to say I did change my position on that issue."

He told the Lib Dem conference in September 2008: "The Government must not compromise the independence of the Bank of England by telling it to slash interest rates."

Only weeks later he said the Chancellor should urge the Governor of the Bank to make "a large cut in interest rates".'

Of course these five flip flops will not affect the BBC's pro-Vince 'narrative' in the slightest, after all there is an election to be affected.

What does John Prescott weigh?

Not a puerile question but one that is becoming quite interesting. Tory Landlord is all over the story that John Prescott claimed on Twitter that 'I'm actually 96 kilos and 72 years of age, for the record'. Well Tory Landlord points out that John Prescott is actually 71, his 72nd birthday not being until 31 May.

Tory Landlord then wonders

'For the non-Europhiles among us, 96 kilos is only just over 15 stone. That does seem a bit unlikely – unless he’s really short – because, let’s be honest, the bloke is fat. I asked around, and the general consensus seems to be that he is probably 5′8″-5′9″ (height, not width). So I helpfully put his details into a BMI calculator. At 96 kilos and 5′8″, his BMI is 32.2; at 5′9″ his BMI’s 31.3. Either way, he’s clinically obese. Shocker..

Now I weigh around 98 kilos and am around 5'9" tall and I look nowhere near the size of John Prescott. I am clearly not svelte and have a paunch and am clinically obese, but I cut nothing like the jowlly figure that John Prescott does. I cannot be sure but I do not believe that if I sat at the opposite end of a see-saw from John Prescott that I would end up other than up in the air.

The Labour government, the Labour party, Tony Blair, Windrush and Data Protection

Greg Hands on Conservative Home have the details of a fascinating story.

Is now the time for David Davis to return to the Conservative front bench?

Will Christopher Grayling's 'gaffe' be the push that David Cameron needs to bring David Davis back to the Conservative front bench for the coming general election battle. Has David Cameron the nerve to bring another Tory big gun back to his team? He took the, arguably, bigger risk and recalled Ken Clarke, so why not David Davis?

Why are there so many happy lady cyclists in Amsterdam?

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

New Scientist and 'global warming' science

Joanne Nova explains New Scientist's problems with science. Do read the whole piece, but here is an extract:

'You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.

In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely as it does the unthinkable and tries to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s okay because other people have done other things (that were not related) a little bit wrong and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…

The big problem for this formerly good publication is that it has decided already what the answer is to any question on climate change (and the answer could be warm or cold, but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves it clutching for sand-bags to prop up its position as the king-tide sweeps away any journalistic credibility it might have had.

...

spot the appearance of the mythical “HUGE body of evidence”. Can anyone at New Scientist find that one mystery paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just ONE? That’s major warming, not minor. And that’s empirical, i.e., by observation, not by simulation.'

Which senior politician's gaffes are newsworthy and which are not

Let's be generous and say that Chris Grayling is what, the fourth most senior Conservative politician - after David Cameron, William Hague and George Osborne - if so then the BBC are quite correct to report his remarks thus:

'A key Conservative has been recorded suggesting people who run bed and breakfasts in their homes should have the right to reject homosexual guests.

But shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said hotels should not be allowed to discriminate in that way.'

This story is the BBC lead political story and the number three story on the News front page.

Oddly, I can see no coverage on the BBC news website of Peter Mandelson - the number two, if not number one Labour politician, the man who has cemented his position at Gordon Brown's right hand by winning full control of Labour's general election campaign team - saying that if Labour wins the general election then Gordon Brown may not serve five years, or four or even three years as Prime Minister. Obviously news that the serving Prime Minister looking for re-election (sorry first election) as Prime Minister may not look to serve a full term is just not newsworthy in the eyes of the BBC, but why?

Top Gear's Stig takes a lap in a 'kit car' version of the Lancia Stratos

So will the BBC report that the opinion polls are moving back in favour of the Conservatives?

Of course not when the votes are moving to Labour then 'the gap is narrowing' becomes the exciting 'narrative' and Poll Tracker moves into a more prominent position. Now the polls are moving back towards the Conservatives I predict that the polls will stop being mentioned and that Poll Tracker, already moved to a less prominent position a week or so ago, will be demoted yet again.

One from 1980

Yellow Magic Orchestra - "Computer Games"

Ah the memories...

Dr Who - thoughts on the new Doctor

New titles rather 'cartoony'

Stephen Moffat messing with children's minds = cracks in walls through which you can hear voices?

"Your Scottish, fry something" - careful, not too much comedy please...

"wibby wobbly timey wimey" the David Tennant line is back...

"Prisoner Zero has escaped" - the original prisoner - The Devil?

He's not coming back in 5 minutes is he?

That's a very short skirt for a policewoman, legs not bad though... Isn't she Amelia Pond?

The corner of your eye...

Bit of thigh in the close ups of The Doctor's face; something for the fathers...

"What, what, what!" bit reminiscent...

"Just believe me for 20 minutes..." Good writing


...

The Pandorica will open...?


0000 Quantum Fast - the word is zero


"What a disappointment you've been..." - a hostage to fortune for the reviewers?

"Silence will fall...!"



Nice look at naked Doctor from Amy Pond, rather lascivious


Hello I'm The Doctor; basically RUN"


RiverSong said "My Doctor, he could open the Tardis with a click of his fingers..." and this Doctor can, will RiverSong be re-appearing in this series? If so it is too soon, should be kept in the backpocket for 5 years or so...


"I'm definitely a madman with a box"


Please stop showing us clips of what is to come, I want surprises...

Dr Who returns with a new Doctor

Tonight leaves me feeling a little trepidous as Matt Smith starts his run as The Doctor. Matt Smith starts his run as the eleventh Doctor in an episode called "The Eleventh Hour".

I am a huge Doctor Who fan and so the start of a new Doctor in the role is a worrying moment. Will I prefer the new Doctor as I did with Tom Baker taking over from Jon Pertwee and David Tennant taking over from Christopher Ecclestone or will it all go horribly wrong as it did when Peter Davison replaced Tom Baker, Colin Baker replaced Peter Davison and let's not get started on Sylvester McCoy?

By 19:30 I will know if I will be a happy NotaSheep or will I have to find something else to do early on a Saturday evening... I will report back.

The Conservatives take all the joy from Labour's 'poster' launch

The Conservatives have taken Labour's back to the 1980s poster and run with it - "Fire up the Quattro, it's time for change".

I also like the Gordon Brown back to the 1970s poster shown below, and please don't let anyone say the car is an Austin Allegro, it is an Austin Maxi...





A lovely comment on Letters From A Tory's article about the poster war, it's from 'Bill Quango MP' and ends with this idea for another anti-Brown poster

'The Terminator.
Brown on the motorcycle in the leather outfit. Half the exoskeleton head peeled away to reveal the metal skull and glowing red eye.
...
“I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle. And your pension, your gold, your wages, your house, your savings and your children’s salaries and their children’s earnings too. And when you die I want another 10% of whatever you have left. And then.. I’ll be back… for more.”'

Masterful...

The Boat Race - the verdict of a non-rower but enthusiast

A fine victory for Cambridge due in no small part to having a Tideway experienced cox, Ted Randolph, it makes a real difference in The Boat Race.


A note to The Daily Telegraph, your guide to the race is a sham; who decided that the pubs west of Hammersmith run Blue Anchor, Rutland, Old Ship, Dove when we all know the Dove comes a long way East of the Old Ship. Heaven knows I've spent enough time in both over the years.

Labour's poster competition winner seems an odd choice

The Labour party website proudly declare that 'We've had over 1000 entries to our "Create Labour's next ad" competition...but here's the winner - created by Jacob Quagliozzi from St Albans.'

Oddly I think that the winning entry is rather out of kilter. First it seems to show David Cameron rather cooly perched on an uber-cool Audi Quattro in a Gene 'Ashes to Ashes' Hunt' type pose. Secondly with the way the UK economy is now I think that many would rather like a return to the 1980s, the last decade when the Conservatives had to fix a Labour caused economic mess.

Peter Mandelson at it again

The great dissembler himself, Peter Mandelsom, has his latest pronouncement faithfully reported by the BBC:

'Lord Mandelson has launched a personal attack on the president of Barclays, Bob Diamond, branding him the "unacceptable face" of banking.

The business secretary told the Times that Mr Diamond, head of the bank's investment arm, had taken £63m in salary which could not be "justified".

He said he had made the money by "deal-making and shuffling paper around".'

Of course the facts are somewhat different:

'Barclays said Mr Diamond had a basic salary of £250,000 and dismissed the £63m figure as "total fiction".

A spokesman added that Mr Diamond took no bonus in 2008 and 2009.

BBC business editor Robert Peston said the pay of top business leaders was "ferociously" complicated.

However, he believed Mr Diamond earned £6m last year from a long-term incentive scheme and £27m from selling his stake in a Barclays-owned business which had been sold.'

So who to believe? Peter 'dodgy mortgage application' Mandelson or Robert Peston? When even the loyal Robert Peston can't back Peter Mandelson up then you know something is dodgier than normal is being attempted by the master of the dark arts of spin. What is being attempted by Peter Mandelson is a piece of misdirection, shift the attention from Labour's increasing isolation over the National Insurance increase, with a renewed attack on evil bankers. Maybe Peter Mandelson could answer the following questions: What was Gordon Brown doing to control the evil bankers when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and the money supply was heading ever higher and the retail money markets were flooded with cheap money? What did Gordon Brown do to stop the banks from offering mortgages at five or six times first salary and twice times second salary? What warnings was Gordon Brown issuing to the banks about their actions at the time?

Tasteful? (update)

Further to this post about Erykah Badu's controversial music video in which she strips naked in public in Dealey Plaza, the site of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, and at the end falls to the ground as if shot. I read on the BBC that 'US neo-soul singer Erykah Badu has been charged with disorderly conduct for stripping naked on a street among pedestrians for her music video shoot.'

Tasteful? It would seem maybe not...

How many climate related 'Gates' ?

A comment at Joanne Nova's excellent site caught my eye:

'Mia Nony:
March 29th, 2010 at 9:53 am

NO, NOT BILL GATES, (although is is funding both the Doomsday Seed Vault and the Sorcerer’s Apprenctice nightmare of mad scientists pursuing radical planetary geoengineering with the fallout of ever more horrific pollution, on the pretext that even the mass deaths this will incur are worth it to save the planet)
How many gates and how much denial can these warmists indulge in before they implode?

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics’ views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the “science is settled?”

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff’s so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC’s Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was “speculation” lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced “voodoo science.” After the melting-scam perpetrator ‘fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn’t know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who “decided to overlook it.” Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was “preoccupied.” Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri’s India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming’s melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri’s resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.’s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication “some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.” Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.” We’re shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC’s climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they’ve often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers’ anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find “further investigation is warranted” to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers’ errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.'

Anyone still believe that the figures are beyond question and climate change is an unchallengeable fact?

“Pontificating, most are economically, politically and socially ignorant of their country. They are absolutely unaccountable to the public.”

The excellent Letters from a Tory does a masterful 'fisking' of the admittedly easy target that is Polly Toynbee, take a read.

The elephant in the room

The BBC manage to write a whole piece about the housing shortage without mentioning immigration; most odd.

Here's an extract to give you a flavour:

'The housing crisis in England is set to intensify, with insufficient numbers of homes having been built in every region since 2002, a campaign group has said.

The National Housing Federation said a record 4.5m people were on housing waiting lists and 2.5m people lived in overcrowded conditions. '

The Climate Change debate - two views

Rajendra Pachauri in The Guardian claims that:

'To dismiss the implications of climate change based on an error about the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are melting is an act of astonishing intellectual legerdemain. Yet this is what some doubters of climate change are claiming. But the reality is that our understanding of climate change is based on a vast and remarkably sound body of science – and is something we distort and trivialise at our peril.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published four comprehensive assessments of climate change and several important special reports since its founding in 1988. The last such document, the fourth assessment report (AR4) from 2007, mobilised 450 scientists from all over the world to write the report. An additional 800 contributing authors gave specialised inputs and about 2,500 expert reviewers provided 90,000 comments.

In this mammoth task, which yielded a finished product of nearly 3,000 pages, there was a regrettable error indicating the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by the year 2035. This mistake has been acknowledged by the IPCC. Learning from this error, the IPCC has requested, in tandem with the United Nations' secretary general, an independent review of its procedures and practices by the Inter-Academy Council (IAC). This review was requested in part so that the possibility of similar errors can be eliminated as much as is humanly possible.

It is important, however, to understand that irrespective of the error on Himalayan glaciers and a few other questions about some specific wording in AR4, the major thrust of the report's findings provides overwhelming evidence that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. To quote the report: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) concentrations."'

Yes because those were the only minor errors and everything else is based on cast-iron fact?


Meanwhile Joanne Nova prints a summary of Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers, recent speech, here's an extract or two (+) from the summary:

'The Climategate emails confirmed much of what the sceptics had been saying for years.

* They confirmed that the peer review process had been corrupted, that scientists were arranging friendly reviews.
* They confirmed that the science journals had been corrupted.
* That journals that refused to play ball with the doomsayers faced boycotts and their editors faced firing.
* They confirmed that sceptical scientists were being systematically excluded from the top‐tier journals.
* The Climategate emails confirmed that journalists were likewise threatened with boycotts if they didn’t play ball.
* The Climategate emails confirmed that the science itself was suspect. That the doomsayers themselves couldn’t make the data work. That they were debating among themselves some of the same points that the sceptics raised, and were privately acknowledging that they didn’t have answers to the issues that the sceptics raised.
* The Climategate emails confirmed that the doomsayers were so determined to hide their data from inquiring minds that they were prepared to break the law to hide it – and did break the law – by avoiding Freedom of Information requests.
* The Climategate emails confirmed that raw temperature data collected from countries around the world was destroyed. It appears the UK is missing raw temperature data going back to 1850.

The scientists at the heart of the Climategate emails aren’t fringe players on some periphery. They operate what’s known as the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. This is the group that collects temperature data, messages it, and then feeds it to the UN and others. This is the data that we have been relying on to tell us if the globe has been warming or not. This same data is then used by virtually everyone in the climate science field who is concerned with historical temperatures.

Without the raw data, it is impossible to confirm that the planet has been warming over the last 150 years. The only ones who now know by how much the planet has been warming, if at all, are the same people who have destroyed the raw data. There are now six separate investigations underway which have been spawned by the Climategate emails. One of those six is by the UK Met Office, which partnered with the Climatic Research Unit in producing the data sets.
The UK Met Office – this is the UK government’s meteorological department – says it will need three years to recreate the data that has been destroyed.'

Read the rest of the summary, read the full speech.

Now who do you find more convincing; Rajendra Pachauri or Lawrence Solomon?

Who's 'pleased'?

The 'tweet' from Charlie Whelan that 'Nicky Campbell on plane with me back to Highlands. Very pleased with his interview with Cam exposing the Tory leaders love of fox hunting' has me slightly confused. Was Charlie Whelan 'very pleased' with this expose on David Cameron or was Nicky Campbell the 'very pleased' party? If it is Charlie Whelan then fair enough he is after all one of the Labour party's chief source of funds. If it is Nicky Campbell then is it right that a BBC journalist be so cheered by uncovering such a story?

Great punchline...

Tony: "Are you pregnant?"

Brenda: "Not unless sperm can get through sash windows..."


Victoria Wood in Dinnerladies

The Green Agenda?

"Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

James 'Gaia' Lovelock

That's the green agenda for you, totalitarian control 'for our own good'.

Stephanie Flanders, the BBC's economics editor, speaks the truth about Labour slurs - Peter Mandelson will not be happy

I fear for Stephanie Flanders, the BBC's economics editor, after this piece. Stephanie Flanders analyses Labour's claims of there being a Conservatives' 'credibility gap' or "Credibility Deficit" on tax and spending and finds the claims don't add up.

'Back in January, Labour said there was a £33.8bn hole in the Conservatives' plans. Now it's fallen to £22.2bn - suggesting a 34% rise in credibiliy. But, to coin a phrase, Labour's numbers really don't add up.'

Here are a few examples that Stephanie Flanders has found, do read the whole article for more:

'Back in January, Labour said Mr Osborne had promised to reverse the new 50p rate of income tax, at a cost £2.4bn. Now that's gone from the list entirely. It's not clear whether Labour thinks they "broke" that promise or not.

...

Once again, the tax cut for married couples is listed at £4.9bn, which would be the cost of the change proposed some time ago by Iain Duncan Smith.

But the Conservatives have now made clear they will be recognising marriage on the cheap. It won't cost nothing. But it could cost less than £1bn.

You can call that derisory. You can say it's an empty promise. But you cannot then also say they've committed to spend nearly £5bn on it.

...

once again, Labour can't have it both ways. You can't claim the cost-cutting will have a devastating effect on public services and the economy - but somehow, with all that, not raise any cash.'

The key part of Stephanie Flanders' article and the one that I am surprise to see on a BBC blog is this:

'The Conservatives have at least given us a number by which to measure whether those savings happen. That is more than Labour has done.

And a party that has yet to account for two thirds of the £35bn in efficiency savings promised between 2008 and the end of this financial year (April 2010) isn't really in a position to lecture the Conservatives on their lack of detail.'

These are very good and fair points and ones that other BBC journalists would do well to bear in mind the next time they allow Peter Mandelson airspace to make his accusations.

Pity the BBC

After a day of claim and counter claim the BBC now have to report that:

'Business groups back Tory National Insurance plans

Britain's main business groups have waded into the row over Labour plans to increase National Insurance.

The British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and five other organisations said the Tories "deserved credit" for their opposition to the planned increase.

Earlier, 23 company bosses had spoken out in favour of the Tory position.'

Of course the BBC have to shoehorn Peter Mandelson's earlier accusations that "Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are peddling a deception."

For the first time in ages I switched onto Sky News and the Jeff Randall program is somewhat different in emphasis. It reports the original letter and Peter Mandelson's claims but then has Labour's Lord Desai all but siding with the Conservatives before interviewing a business spokesman who pointed out that the business leaders are not the naive fools that Peter Mandelson seems to portray them as but sophisticated leaders of commerce.

Meanwhile back on the BBC Robert Peston is doing his best to portray the businessmen as Conservatives, Conservative donors or 'chummy with... the leadership clique around David Cameron' and explaining that 'None of which is to say this letter of endorsement of an important Tory policy from some business heavyweights is trivial - just that it isn't terribly surprising.' and that 'it's worth noting that the interests of business and the interests of the country are not identical. '

Maybe I'll leave the last word to sandy winder in Robert Peston's comments:

'It's a bit of a dilemma.

Should we believe the Labour party, who have been wasting billions every year even by their own admittance, who have deceiving us for thirteen years and who did not foresee the recession or what was happening in the banks?

Or should we believe relatively honest business leaders who have provided wealth creating jobs for millions and been responsible for growing their businesses and pouring billions into the Treasury coffers?

Tough one that.

I think I'll plump for the one who has got the least debt.'

The best catches in the IPL 2010 (so far)

Two catches have taken my breath away this year.

AB de Villiers staggering boundary catch.


Mike Hussey's incredible three part boundary catch.


Which is your favourite?

Scrubs go to the Bahamas - Jordan and Elliot in Bikinis and Todd in a banana hammock

The BBC waste no time in publicising Peter Mandelson's claims

This morning the BBC were for a short time leading their news coverage with the story that

'Business leaders back Conservative tax pledge - Bosses of some of the UK's biggest firms have backed Conservative plans to axe part of Labour's planned National Insurance rise if they win power.

The 23 - including Marks & Spencer's and Next's bosses - said the 1% NI increase would be a "tax on jobs" and would "endanger" economic recovery.

David Cameron called it a "significant" moment in the election campaign.'

The Labour/BBC alliance swiftly countered with this 'Mandelson attacks Tory tax 'deception' - Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has described Conservative plans to scrap part of a planned National Insurance rise as a "deception".' and an article explaining that

'Labour hits back after City bosses back Tories on NI - The leaders of 23 major UK firms have been "deceived" by a Conservative pledge to axe some National Insurance rises, Lord Mandelson has claimed.

He said the Tories could not make their sums add up without increasing VAT.'

It would be interesting to know how long the BBC were allowed to keep the first article up before Peter Mandelson swung into action.

Interestingly the top story is now this:

'Bosses hit back in National Insurance rise row - A row over National Insurance rises has escalated after business leaders said claims they had been "deceived" into backing Tory plans were "patronising".

Chancellor Alistair Darling accused the Tories of "peddling a deception" after 23 top bosses backed proposals to curb National Insurance increases.

Mr Darling said the bosses should take a "long hard look" at the Tory plans, rather than accepting "flimsy advice".

But two of them hit back instantly, accusing Labour of a "tax on jobs".

Next boss Simon Wolfson, a longstanding Conservative supporter, said in a statement: "Of course we have not been deceived.

"The principle is a very simple one. It is a question of, do we pay for government profligacy through increased taxes or do we urge them to save money in a way that businesses have?"

Kingfisher chief executive Ian Cheshire said: "It's a little patronising to suggest that we've been deceived.

"This isn't a political point, it's a business issue - whichever way you look at it, it's a tax on jobs."'

The BBC do quote Peter Mandelson again:

'Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said the Conservative plans were a "cynical deception" that could not be achieved without increasing VAT, as he said the Conservatives had done after winning elections in 1979 and 1992.

He said shadow chancellor George Osborne was "like a kid in a sweet shop, who thinks he can just grab sweets from every jar without paying for them".

"Of course there are some in business who are going to support what appears to be a pain-free tax cut. I mean, who wouldn't, if offered that?," said Lord Mandelson.

"But the point is, this is not pain-free and Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are peddling a deception."'

Well if anyone should know about "cynical deception" it would be Peter 'dodgy mortgage application' Mandelson.

Yes I know The Guardian article was an April Fool, hence my last sentence...

To all the people who keep commenting "April Fool" on this post: Yes I know The Guardian article is an April Fool, hence my last line

'Maybe bloggers and journalists should also get involved in the inter-party fighting, I would offer to take on 'Olaf Priol' but I think he may only work at The Guardian one day a year...'

The Guardian article is the best April Fool I have seen this year and in the proud tradition of their 1977 Island of San Serriffe hoax, that kept me amused for ages, unfortunately I lost my original copy in a house move.

Is this the BBC's April Fool?

The BBC report that:

'Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg could be the surprise winner of the UK's general election, former US presidential candidate Howard Dean has said.

...

Mr Dean, who was briefly frontrunner for the 2004 Democratic Party nomination and whose infamous "Iowa scream" - a yelp of defiance at a campaign rally - became an internet hit, said Mr Clegg believes he can win outright.

...

"I know the Liberals, I know Nick Clegg very well, and he intends to win this and I think they could.

"So you may have a hung Parliament but I think you won't have a coalition. At least not that coalition going forward."

Asked if Mr Clegg could be the next British prime minister, Mr Dean said: "I think he could".'

Will the BBC stop at nothing in order to boost the 'hung Parliament' narrative and particularly the prospects of the Lib Dems?

The nasty party are back (that is the Labour party in case you were wondering)

The Guardian this morning has the fascinating story that Gordon Brown has tired of his cuddly, family man image:

'In an audacious new election strategy, Labour is set to embrace Gordon Brown's reputation for anger and physical aggression, presenting the prime minister as a hard man, unafraid of confrontation, who is willing to take on David Cameron in "a bare-knuckle fistfight for the future of Britain", the Guardian has learned.

Following months of allegations about Brown's explosive outbursts and bullying, Downing Street will seize the initiative this week with a national billboard campaign portraying him as "a sort of Dirty Harry figure", in the words of a senior aide. One poster shows a glowering Brown alongside the caption "Step outside, posh boy," while another asks "Do you want some of this?"'

Do the Labour party really think that calling someone 'posh boy' is in any way sensible, intelligent or acceptable? Sorry, what was I thinking, of course they do.

The Guardian article also includes this passage which shows the lengths that the Labour party are thinking of going to in order to ensure their re-election:

'Labour was "going all in", staking the election on the hope that voters will be drawn to an alpha-male personality who "is prepared to pummel, punch or even headbutt the British economy into a new era of jobs and prosperity".'

Unbelievable...

But the article continues with details of several putative plans to push Gordon Brown's new hard man image:

'Strategists are even understood to be considering engineering a high-profile incident of violence on the campaign trail, and are in urgent consultations on the matter with John Prescott, whose public image improved in 2001 after he punched an egg-throwing protester.

Possible confrontations under discussion include pushing Andrew Marr out of the way while passing him on a staircase, or thumping the back of Jeremy Paxman's chair so hard that he flinches in shock.

One tactic being discussed involves provoking a physical confrontation at one of the three ground-breaking TV debates between the candidates. In this scenario, Brown, instead of responding to a point made by Cameron, would walk over from his microphone with an exaggerated silent display of self-control, bring his face to within an inch of the Tory leader's, and in a subdued voice, ask "what did you just say?", before delivering a single well-aimed blow to his opponent's face, followed by a headlock if required.'

Staggering...

I am shocked that even the Labour party would be aiming so low and I congratulate The Guardian's 'Olaf Priol' for this scoop, I trust that David Cameron will respond to these plans, fighting fire with fire by setting loose William 'judo' Hague and David 'SAS' Davis on to the more effete members of the Labour cabinet and other 'greybeards'. Maybe as well as this week's Chancellor's debate and the upcoming leader's debates there should also be some proper manly bouts to settle the arguments. Cabinet ministers versus their shadows is an obvious one; who would not pay good money to see Ken Clarke beat the crap out of Peter Mandelson and William Hague show Harriet Harman and/or David Miliband how a real man operates. I would also like to see a battle of the ex-Ministers with Davis Davis showing John Prescott that one punch does not a fighter make.

As Harry Hill is often heard to say: "There's only one way to settle this... FIGHT".


Maybe bloggers and journalists should also get involved in the inter-party fighting, I would offer to take on 'Olaf Priol' but I think he may only work at The Guardian one day a year...

The Prime Minister misleads the public AGAIN and the BBC think the story is really not that important

The BBC's bias is unreal, Gordon Brown gets caught out misleading the country again and the BBC report it with the lines:

'the head of UK Statistics Authority agreed with a Tory complaint that he had made inaccurate comparisons.

Downing Street said it accepted the statistics had been "unclear".

But it insisted that Mr Brown had since corrected them. '

Can you imagine the outcry on the BBC if a Conservative politician had mislead the country AGAIN? Indeed do you remember the furore when the Conservatives were accused of using misleading crime statistics, the story ran for days and there were strong interviews of the 'guilty'? But now the Labour Prime Minister does it then it's all forgiven by the 'fact' that Gordon Brown had corrected the mistake; no interrogations, no shock just acceptance that it was a mistake, and no mention that it was yet another in a long line of Gordon Brown 'mistakes'. Just as with misleading the Chilcot Inquiry & the House of Commons and then misleading the House of Commons again with his grudging "in one or two years..." when it actually fell in four years, Gordon Brown knows he can rely on the protection of the BBC.

Could this be a reason to vote Conservative?

It is being reported that Shadow Business Minister, Mark Prisk today stated that

"For the last 13 years, Labour have constantly meddled with the tax rules for freelancers and self-employed. IR35 has especially proved to over-complex, uncertain and often unfair. At a time when Britain should be open for business, Gordon Brown has made it harder to be self-employed. This is why a Conservative Government would mandate the independent Office of Tax Simplification to undertake a fundamental review of current arrangements with the aim of providing a clearer, lasting and fairer tax regime."

Any IT consultants out there not sure who to vote for?

The last day to buy a car before the hideous rises in Vehicle Tax are implemented

On 1 April 2010 new rates of Vehicle Tax are introduced and some of the rises are spectacular:

Band M cars (those with a CO2 g/km rating above 255) will pay £950, instead of the current £405, for a 12-month tax disc. Don't be fooled into thinking that this applies only to big 4x4s and supercars, it does apply to Range Rovers but also to vehicles such as the Vauxhall Insignia 2.8.

Band L cars (ranging from 226-255g/km) will now pay £750 instead of £425 for the first year; cars affected include the Ford S-Max 2.3.

Band K cars (201-225g/km) cars will pay £550, up from £215; that's for cars including the Ford Mondeo 2.3 or Focus 2.5.

Band J cars (186-200g/km) will pay £425 rather than £235; that's for cars such as the Honda CR-V 2.0 and even the Vauxhall Corsa 1.6.

Band I cars (176-185g/km) will see their first year tax rise from £200 to £290; affecting cars such as the Land Rover Freelander 2.2 diesel and the Vauxhall Astra.

Band H cars (166-175g/km) cars see a tax increase from £180 to £250 for such 'gas guzzling' cars as the 38mpg VW Beetle 1.6.

Band G cars (151-165g/km) see no increase and neither do band F and band E.

The increases go on and on but here's the percentage increase for each band:
M +118%
L +76%
K +124%
J +81%
I +50%
H +39%
G 0%
F 0%
E 0%
D -100%
C -100%
B -100%
A -100%

So if you are thinking of buying an interesting new car, I'd buy it this afternoon....

I should make clear that the new Vehicle Tax rules apply only to motorists buying new cars from 1 April 2010. Owners of existing will pay the old rates, unless another stealth tax is required...

Tasteful?

That's American soul singer Erykah Badu with her controversial music video in which she strips naked in public in Dealey Plaza, the site of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, and at the end falls to the ground as if shot. "When I fall to the ground in the video, the word groupthink spills out of my head because I was assassinated by groupthink", she said.
Tasteful?

Good blogging

1) Letteres From a Tory asks 'What on earth is happening in European politics?' with regard to votes for far-right parties and wonders if there are implications for the UK.


2) Dizzy Thinks wonders why it will take 22 years for the government to release CO2 emission figures for 2008. Hmmm I wonder!

The BBC decides what is news and what is not

The BBC's attacks on the DUP continue with a piece reporting claims about Peter Robinson's property dealings. Oddly they have shown no interest in the Steve Purcell story.

It must be interesting being a BBC 'journalist' always knowing exactly which stories are newsworthy and which are not.

Why is 'Daily Mail reader' such an insult?

Last night I blogged three pieces of news that came from The Daily Mail, I knew that this would provoke at least one derogatory comment about The Daily Mail and my reading it, and I was not disappointed.

I have pondered before on the way that the British left see The Daily Mail and its readership as something amusing, something that can be instantly discounted, something that is automatically wrong. I suppose it saves them the time of addressing any legitimate problems raised by articles in The Daily Mail.



For the avoidance of doubt, I don't 'take' a daily paper, I read parts of The Telegraph and The Times (for the moment) on-line and dip into The Financial Times (on-line and in its pink version). I also a couple of times a week may skim through The Daily Mail and less often The Sun. At weekends I buy The Telegraph & Sunday Telegraph most weeks and The Times and Sunday Times less often and skim through several more on-line.

The UK in 2010

Three stories that show just a little of what is wrong with the Uk in 2010 after 13 years of labour misrule.

1) The Mail reports:

'A convicted rapist facing deportation has won a High Court battle to be allowed to stay in Britain so he can get married.

Alphonse Semo, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, threw his victim on a rubbish tip when he 'had finished with her'.

But last night he won the right to remain in the UK for his wedding, just hours before he was due to board a plane back to Africa.

A judge said it was difficult to have any sympathy for Semo, who was jailed for eight years, but he must be allowed to stay.

Mr Justice Collins said the Home Office had at first agreed to let the 53-year-old, from Deptford, south east London, get married to his long-term partner, a German national.

Then the wedding was effectively cancelled by a subsequent decision 'by the same Home Office - no doubt by a different department', he said.

The judge added that he was 'very reluctant' to intervene but said the Home Office could not be allowed to play 'hot and cold'.

The judge said: 'With considerable reluctance, I have to say he must be allowed to marry.

'That means there will be a prohibition against removing him.'

The judge said the Home Secretary would have to reconsider later, after the marriage, whether to make a fresh attempt to deport Semo.

That would engage issues of EU law as his bride-to-be, Bunsana Kalonji, is a refugee from the Congo who became a German national. The pair have a long-established relationship.

Once married, the pair are expected to claim that Semo is legally entitled to remain in the UK as the spouse of an European Economic Area national entitled to free movement within EU member states, including the UK.'

2) The Mail reports that:

' A father who was barred from a public pool's changing room because children were inside has said he was branded a 'pervert'.

Craig Roper claims new rules in force at a council-owned sports centre mean that all men are assumed to be paedophiles who pose a danger to youngsters if they are allowed in the same room.

The regular swimmer said he was furious when he was ordered out of the men's changing room at Scissett Baths in Kirklees, Yorkshire, after a confrontation with a teacher.

Mr Roper, a father of three who has been using the baths at lunchtimes for 30 years, said he always used a private cubicle if boys were still getting changed after morning swimming lessons.

But least week he says he was accosted by a female teacher after being let into the electronically operated room by a lifeguard, and she demanded that he leave at once.

'She said "What are you doing in here, you're not supposed to be here?",' Mr Roper said.

He was then forced to use a separate sauna facility to change.

Pool bosses later confirmed they had introduced new rules 'to protect all our customers from potential incidents'.

Mr Roper said: 'It implies that any male is perceived as paedophilic or as a threat or pervert. They haven't done this on the female side.

'I don't take it personally I just resent the introduction of a plethora of rules and regulations without considering how it impacts people's lives.

'It would now seem that the local schools have initiated a policy of "lock down" and implemented designated exclusion zones in what should be public spaces.

'After decades of the common sense approach to the multi-use of this small pool with limited resources it would now seem that the politically correct brigade have hijacked the agenda.

'These new imposed rules and regulations interfere with the civil liberties of the general public wanting to use this public sports centre.'

A spokeswoman for Kirklees Active Leisure, which runs sports facilities for the council, said the policy applied both to male and female changing rooms.

She said: 'We take all of our customers' safety and privacy very seriously and in order to protect all of our customers against any potential incidents we have a number of policies in place.

'We have a duty to specific groups in our community including our local schools to provide safeguarding of children.

'Kirklees Active Leisure introduced a new school swimming policy in 2007 in partnership with the education service stating that the teacher in charge of school swim sessions has the responsibility to ensure the safety and supervision of the pupils.

'As part of this policy KAL will, where possible, make arrangements for separate school changing areas to be available.

'This is the case at Scissett Baths, alternative changing areas are available to other customers during this time. These policies not only protect children but also all of our customers.''

3) The Mail reports that:

'Buying a goldfish at a pet shop used to be an innocent childhood pleasure.

But today an elderly pet shop owner told how she was entrapped into selling a goldfish to a 14-year-old schoolboy, then warned she could face jail.

She had breached a law introduced in 2006 which bans selling live fish to anyone under 16.

After a prosecution estimated to have cost taxpayers £20,0000, Joan Higgins, 66, a great-grandmother who has never been in trouble before, has been forced to wear a tag on her ankle like common criminal and given a seven-week curfew.

Her son, Mark, 47 was also handed a fine and ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work in the community.

Magistrates were today accused of using a hammer to crack a nut in their bid to enforce the animal welfare laws.

The Higgins' ordeal began when council officials heard the Majors Pet Shop in Sale, Greater Manchester was selling animals to children.

They sent the 14-year-old schoolboy into the shop to carry out a test purchase and Mr Higgins sold the youngster a goldfish without questioning his age or providing any information about the care of the fish.'

Happy in the UK? Happy with the effects of human rights legislation, safety legislation and idiotic laws? Consider this when voting...

Really, is that what it is about?

The BBC have a helpful 'Q&A: What's the BA dispute about?' piece but I didn't get far into it before I found an error. The BBC claim:

'What is at the heart of the dispute?

In November, BA reduced the number of cabin crew on long haul flights from 15 to 14 and introduced a two-year pay freeze from 2010.'

Near the end of the piece you do find this line 'The airline has said flights from London City Airport will not be affected, and long-haul flights to and from Gatwick will also operate..'


So why is Gatwick not affected but Heathrow is? The BBC don't seem interested in pursuing this question, might that be because long haul flights from Gatwick already operate with one less crew-member, something that I was discussing with BA cabin crew before the cancelled Christmas flights. Now why are the BBC so shy of reporting this information?

All in the emphasis

We are very close to Gordon Brown calling an election, assuming the great 'feartie' actually plucks up the courage to do so. So the BBC's spin on Labour's partial climbdown on Social Care provision is not that surprising. THe BBC's headline piece accentuates the positive and associates negative words with the Conservative's position. The headline 'Long-awaited plan for social care levy due' sets the scene, it would seem that we are all tired of waiting for this decision and now the wise and beneficent Labour Gordon are almost ready to satisfy us. Here's an extract from the 'news report:

'A compulsory levy would be introduced to help pay for social care for adults in England, under plans to be unveiled by ministers in a white paper later.

They will call for a new commission to look at when and how the fee should be applied, and how much it should be.

It is widely agreed the current means-tested system needs reform because of the ageing population.

A compulsory charge is opposed by the Conservatives, who called one proposal for a levy on estates a death tax.'

You have to admire the BBC's clever wording, well you would if they were not meant to be 'impartial'.

Oddly The Telegraph do manage to point out that:

'Death tax to pay for elderly care is scrapped - Plans for a new National Care Service providing free support for the elderly have been abandoned by the Government.'

Well you pays your money and you takes your choice. Except you don't, The Telegraph news website is free whereas we all pay for the BBC via the TV Licence and they are required to be impartial.


UPDATE: Take a listen to Radio 4's Today programme for the most bizarre of interviews where Andy Burnham is questioned but cannot answer even simple questions.

What's happening re the Steve Purcell affair?

News Net Scotland report that the answer is not a lot:

'the Scottish media quite casually reported that there would be neither an inquiry nor any investigation into the fallout at Glasgow City Council following the Steven Purcell scandal.



There was no media outrage at this announcement and no furious editorials; in fact no serious questioning whatsoever of the decision by Audit Scotland and Strathclyde Police to simply drop the matter. As far as these bodies were concerned the goings on were nothing to do with them, there would be no investigation which meant no evidence would be uncovered and therefore those involved would face....... 'no charges'.

It's almost impossible to envisage a more serious or scandalous series of revelations than the ones that have emerged this last few weeks from Glasgow council.



Here we had one of Labour's most high profile Scottish based politicians resigning and fleeing the country in disgrace without answering a single question. An English newspaper reporting that this politician had admitted taking cocaine, that he had been interviewed by drugs enforcement officers in his office and that he had been connected by them to drug dealers.

It is also reported that these officers were concerned that the politician may have left himself open to blackmail from these same gangsters. If true, then that alone leads one to ask what it was that the police believed could have been used in order to blackmail this politician? Were they aware of the aforementioned allegations of drug use? If so, why was an investigation not carried out then? If it wasn't drug use then what else did the police feel could have been used against this senior Labour politician?



Remember that this individual was in control of an annual budget in excess of £2 billion, he was making decisions that would affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of Glasgow citizens.



Subsequent revelations involving local authority owned companies, public cash going to the Labour party and contracts to businesses owned by senior Labour donors led to cross party calls for an investigation into the council.



A more clear-cut case for an independent inquiry in order to restore public confidence in Scotland's largest local authority is difficult to imagine.



Of course we now that isn’t going to happen, the matter has been dropped and concerned citizens of Glasgow have been told to ‘move along, there’s nothing to see’.



Only media pressure can compel Audit Scotland and the police to change their minds and carry out an inquiry; but that media pressure simply isn’t there – nor is it likely to appear.'

Read the whole piece and you will note that News Net Scotland also wonder how this story would have been reported if it had related to a Conservative local politician rather than a Labour one:

'For those who see nothing wrong with the Scottish media coverage of the whole Purcell affair then imagine instead of Purcell, Labour and Glasgow being at the centre of the scandal that it was instead Boris Johnston, the Conservatives and London that was the focus.



Yep, the English media would still be savaging the Conservatives over this and a posse of journalists would now be closing in on the whereabouts of the ‘Tory Fugitive’.'

Remember what I wrote on March 8th:

'Just imagine that a rising star in the Conservative party, a city council leader no less, had resigned under strange circumstances. Imagine if the story involved claims or speculation about drug taking, rehab clinics. Imagine if high powered lawyers had become involved. Imagine if there were photos of this former high-flyer sitting next to David Cameron last week. Imagine if the young council leader had disappeared and was rumoured to have relocated to warmer climes. Just imagine all of that happening to a Conservative councillor and tell me that it would not be headline news on the BBC.

Oddly when the story concerns a rising star Labour councillor who was pictured sitting next to Gordon Brown last week, not a word on the BBC whose political lead stories still include a Lord Ashcroft story.'

Criminalising the Population - Repost from last year

'For a while now my thoughts have been turning to possible reasons for why this Labour government have introduced so many laws but not enforced that many that well. My theory is that with so many laws available, they could use them to make anyone a "criminal" that they choose. In an average day the average London motorist probably breaks a couple of laws - straying into a box junction without the exit being clear, moving into a bus lane to pass a car turning right and blocking the only carriageway allowed to cars, etc. etc. etc. Add to traffic laws, laws relating to waste disposal, other environmental laws, laws preventing photography of policemen etc. etc. etc. and you have a situation where there are too many law-breakers to be dealt with by the police and courts BUT it does mean that the State (or Party) can decide who to investigate and prosecute. In effect we are all "criminals", it's just that most of us are allowed to evade the consequences of this "criminality" unless we incur the displeasure of the State/Party when we will suffer. At the moment the sentences for each of these "crimes" might be a year in prison, how long before it is a prison camp or worse?


Thanks to a comment on Devils Kitchen, here is an extract from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" that seems pertinent:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."'

Make Labour History

in case Vince Cable gets too saintly tonight at the Chancellors debate

The Telegraph reminds us that despite the 'saintly Vince' act, Vince Cable is no more honest than most politicians:

'Mr Cable earlier this month claimed to have been consulted by the Treasury about his party’s policies and suggested the talks were a prelude to his becoming Chancellor in the event of a hung parliament.

It later emerged that the meeting with Sir Nicholas McPherson, the permanent secretary at the Treasury, had been a “courtesy call” requested by Mr Cable himself.

Mr Cable’s presentation of the event angered Treasury officials, and the Lib Dem has now written to Sir Nicholas to apologise.'

I wonder if the BBC will report this climbdown, after all Vince Cable is the BBC's go to economist.

What the BBC and Labour don't tell us about unemployment

Here's some interesting facts about UK unemployment and employment:

'1. There are fewer people employed than at any time in the last 12 years
The employment rate in the three months to January 2010 is 72.2% - it fell by 54,000 on the quarter to reach 28.86m.

3. If you work in the private sector, wages are going down … in the public sector, they're going up
Average weekly earnings in the private sector are £426 per week - down 0.7% on January 2009. In the public sector, they're higher - £461 per week, up 4.1% on Jan 2009.

4. Public sector jobs are still going up
6m people are employed in the public sector - +46,000 on the year. 21.1% of us work in the public sector. The biggest percentage increase has been in the NHS - up by 4% on the year to 1.6m people in January. In contrast, private sector employment is down by 527,000.

7. There are more long-term unemployed
Those unemployed over six months has gone up by 58.7% to 549,000 people.

8. More of us are part-time
Part-time jobs are up - by 1.3% or 87,000 on the year. Meanwhile full-time employment has gone down by 3.4% (-642,000).

9. There are less young people employed
Employment is down for 16-17 year-olds (by 22.2% or 109,000) and 18-24 year-olds (down 6.6% or 237,000)'

Thanks to My Thoughts My Country for the spot and for some great information on other matters, a site that is well worth a visit.


Yet the BBC still push the Labour line that the recovery has started and that ll will be well under Gordon Brown's continued Premiership. It won't be, the UK economy is more screwed than most people realise but that won't stop the BBC supporting their political friends.

An alternative Conservative campaign suggestion from 'Red Flag'

A great idea although the tag line may need some work 'You've got to laugh. Or vote Conservative'. A small part of me says that that final line associates the Conservatives with the opposite of laughter. Regardless, let's make this 'viral'.


Thanks to Red Rag Online for the video.

What if Labour do win the election?

Burning Our Money depressed me with this:

'13 years of Labour misrule have left Britain emasculated not only economically, but also politically.

The state has wormed its way into all aspects of our lives. 25 million voters are now directly dependent on the state for all or part of their incomes (see here) - that's over half the electorate. Our political establishment have been bought wholesale with lavish troughing rights and Zils. And the left's state subsidised media hegemony feeds the people an unbroken diet of Big Government propaganda, making it impossible for dissenting voices to get a fair hearing. We are therefore consigned to live under the yoke of state socialism for ever.'

Whilst The Last Ditch writes

'If the polls are to be believed, a lethal proportion of our fellow-citizens remains willing to vote Labour in a few weeks time. This, despite all the evidence of the terrible damage that Labour has wrought.

Labour has lost our AAA credit rating. The agencies haven't announced it yet, presumably so as not to seem political. But bankers of my acquaintance are in no doubt it will happen. They are already re-pricing the nation's debt on that assumption and the epic costs of servicing it will soon rise. Britain has dropped in every international economic ranking. Yet Labour is winning the economic argument. It is winning it with the Keynesian idea that the government should prime the pumps with public money during a recession. That's a respectable argument (even if I don't buy it). What's not respectable is that no-one is pointing out that the pumps should be primed from tanks filled with reserves during the good times. Labour ran those tanks dry years ago. They can't be blamed for a global recession. They must be blamed for that lack of prudence. Why can't the charmless Gideon Osborne and his soigné chum Dave make that simple point?'

and goes on to depress me more with

'The British population is not, on average, stupid or insane. It is however in deep denial. It cannot face an economic truth quite so horrific. Perhaps voting for the agents of economic apocalypse is psychologically the very best way of denying it's happening? God knows. '

Depressed yet? This Labour government must be kicked out at the general election or this country is dead.

Gordon Brown's poverty trap

"In Gordon Brown’s Britain if you’re a single mother with two kids earning £150 a week, the withdrawal of benefits and the additional taxes mean that for every extra pound you earn, you keep just 4 pence.

What kind of incentive is that? Thirty years ago this party won an election fighting against 98 per cent tax rates on the richest."

That was DAvid Cameron in his recent speech. For more details on this Labour pverty trap please take a read of Burning Our Money.

'What do you think of Labour's election pledges?' The BBC might regret asking this question

The BBC 'Have Your Say' section was recently 'improved' to get rid of the 'most recommended' feature, many assumed because the most recommended comments were usually those most opposed to the BBC's house point of view. Today's Have Your Say on Labour's election pledges does not seem to be going the way the BBC might have hoped. Here are the first 10 comments:

'# . At 10:22am on 27 Mar 2010, The Uncivil Servant wrote:

A joke? Five vague statements.

We pleadge that 1. the day will begin at dawn, 2. rain will be wet, as will 3. the sea, 4. those bits of the plannet that are not wet will be dry and 5. the moon's made of green cheese. All as measurable as Gordon's effort.


# 2. At 10:32am on 27 Mar 2010, D Johnson wrote:

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 3. At 10:35am on 27 Mar 2010, grainsofsand wrote:

Based on Labour’s past performance – can I suggest that the following would probably be more appropriate for Labours election pledges:

To wreck the economy
To Lower living standards
To Let foreigners take control of our industry
To Let millions more immigrants into the country
To totally destroy the country as we know it


# 4. At 10:36am on 27 Mar 2010, Tim wrote:

You must be kidding this mans track record on promises speaks for itself.
Remember the referendum that never was? and all the porkys he has been caught out on recently. Not to mention the 10p tax disaster and the promise to make ammends that never happened. Just a few more weeks of lies and spin and hopefully a hung paliament. Cant wait to see all the red face polititians.


# 5. At 10:36am on 27 Mar 2010, Peter_Wilkinson wrote:

The only thing our political representatives inspire me to do is emmigrate!


# 6. At 10:37am on 27 Mar 2010, BDZ wrote:

Sorry, they've had 13 years to fulfil their promises. We don't believe them.
Nor incidentally do we believe any of the others.
The problem is that no matter what the result of the next election we'll still be ruled by politicians!


# 7. At 10:38am on 27 Mar 2010, just_common_sense wrote:

Great!

If Gordon Brown wanted to secure the economy, why did he split the responsibility for financial regulation, letting the banking system get to the verge of collapse?

If by 'control' he means more petty rules, ID cards etc, yeah we all want that!!!


# 8. At 10:39am on 27 Mar 2010, steve butler wrote:

I think I am going to throw up.

The sad thing is, there are enough gullible idiots in this country who are dumb enough to fall for this claptrap.


# 9. At 10:40am on 27 Mar 2010, Anthony WALKER wrote:

If I believed anything Nu Labour promised at any time, I would have to be one of the most gullible person on earth! When I look at the hash that Nu Labour has made of just about everything - especially the economy - It almost drives me to despair! I want a fair, just, truthful, and happy Country for my Children and Grand Children. I know that I will never get it under Nu Labour or, especially, Mr Brown.

Neither Mr Brown, or any of Nu Labour, or Nu Labour inspire me to do anything other than leave the UK if they get another five years!


# 10. At 10:41am on 27 Mar 2010, Wreck-O-Mend wrote:

In 1997 New Labour promised a fair deal for all and the chance to make the most of one’s potential.

As a single childless male I have never had a fair deal with New Labour and all those who have already had plenty of spoon-feeding continue to qualify for more help yet workers who are living way below these standards who don’t rely on state handouts or special privileges are ignored and treated as second class.

Why take from the starving to give to the greedy?

New Labour has created a more unfair society and only the cheats will argue that it is fairer now.'

Not until comment 31 is there any comment favourable to Gordon Brown and his party and that from a Mr Whinger!

No doubt the BBC will deduce from this lack of belief in Labour's pledges that they must redouble their efforts to explain why we must vote Labour.

NHS cuts, not according to the BBC

The BBC's strategy of reporting every piece of news detrimental to the Conservative party with banner headlines whilst either not reporting or minimising coverage of news detrimental to their friends in the Labour party is once again in evidence this morning. The Telegraph reported yesterday that

'Tens of thousands of NHS workers would be sacked, hospital units closed and patients denied treatments under secret plans for £20 billion of health cuts.

...

The plans have emerged as health chiefs draw up emergency budgets that cast doubt on pledges by Gordon Brown to protect “front line services” in the NHS.

...

The plans are contained in a series of internal NHS documents uncovered by The Daily Telegraph.

The final details of the plans are not due to be announced until the autumn, well after the country has gone to the polls for the general election. '

If this was a story about proposed Conservative cuts then the BBC would have this as a headline story but as it is about Labour cuts, it appears to not even have appeared on the BBC news.

The Conservatives finally go on the attack

One of the seven new adverts from Saatchi that the Conservatives have launched today. The other six slogans are (all ending vote for me)'I took billions from pensions', 'I lost £6 billion selling off Britain's gold', 'I let 80,000 criminals out early', 'I doubled the tax rate for the poor', 'I caused record youth unemployment' and 'I increased the gap between rich and poor'.

This is the angle that may help kill off this Labour government, the Conservatives have to stop being nice and attack this most vile Labour government.


More on the campaign at Conservative Home.

Gordon Brown 'lies' again and the BBC don't consider it a big story because they are not an unbiased news organisation but cheerleaders for Labour

I am truly fed-up with the crap that spews from the mouth of Gordon Brown and the way that the BBC protect him from the righteous wrath of the people. The BBC headline their news page with 'PM unveils key election pledges' and the news that 'Gordon Brown pledges to fix the economy and make government more accountable - as the Tories urge him to call the election.' Meanwhile hidden in the politics news section but not mentioned on the front page of that section is the news that (my emphasis)

:'The Conservatives have accused Gordon Brown of "dishonesty" over immigration figures used in a Number 10 podcast.

Mr Brown said net migration into the UK fell from 237,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008 and provisionally 147,000 in 2009.

The Tories said the figure for 2009 was only for the year up to June, and excluded asylum seekers and people overstaying their original visas.

A Downing Street spokesman said the prime minister had made it clear he was using a provisional figure for 2009.

The Conservatives' interpretation of the figures has been confirmed by the Office for National Statistics.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling called it "another extraordinary example of Gordon Brown's dishonesty".'

Hold on, 'The Conservatives' interpretation of the figures has been confirmed by the Office for National Statistics.
; the independent Office for National Statistics confirm the Conservatives line and thus disagree with Gordon Brown's claims. This surely is worthy of a headline and indeed it would be anywhere but on the pro-Labour BBC.

Take a look at The Telegraph for some more relevant information.


So once again the BBC hide the news of another Gordon Brown 'brownie', and the confirmation of his lack of veracity by the Office for National Statistics, preferring to concentrate on more meaningless promises from the man who has screwed the UK economy, destroyed the prospects of a generation or more and who has made more serious economic errors than most politicians.

This sort of BBC bias makes me so angry and it pisses me off that so many people are so brainwashed by years and years of Labour lies, spin & attacks on any opposition all so cheerfully spread by the BBC propaganda wing that nearly 30% of the UK population intend to vote for a political party headed by this dangerous fool.

If, as I believe will be the case, Gordon Brown does lead the Labour party to victory at the coming general election then I and Mrs NotaSheep will not remain to be milked dry to pay for the idiocy of Gordon Brown.





Thanks to Biased BBC for the spot but not for raising my my blood pressure.

Poor Mike Gatting

The Duckworth Lewis Method - Jiggery Pokery

Byers' story doesn't hang together

Ed Howker at The Spectator has been studying Stephen Byers' emails to the 'lobbyists' and has found some odd inconsistencies. Here's the conclusion but do read the whole piece:

'In particular, in this second email, Mr. Byers stated "I have not spoken to Andrew Adonis...about the matters I mentioned."

We now know this not to be true because, on Monday, the day of the Dispatches broadcast, Andrew Adonis made the following statement in reply to a question posed by Tory transport spokeswoman Baroness Hanham in the House of Lords. The question concerned Mr. Byers involvement with National Express's East Coast Mainline franchise:

"Stephen Byers had a brief conversation with me in the House of Commons last June about the East Coast Mainline. We discussed his experience in dealing with rail franchise difficulties when Transport Secretary. As regards the situation then facing National Express," he continued, "I told him that despite the company's difficulties I had no intention whatsoever of renegotiating the East Coast franchise on terms favourable to the company as the company was seeking in its approaches to my department.''

It is only in a final email, just a few days before the programme broadcast, and after some details of the sting have been leaked to a Sunday newspaper, that Mr. Byers formally withdrew from the lobbying company's selection process. Why it took him so long is a question he must answer before the Parliamentary Commissioner but it's a tough sell. He "indicated" that he had attempted secretly to influence the terms of a government negotiation, then denied that he met with Lord Adonis to discuss the matter at all. Both of these claims are false. So what, do you suppose, is the Commissioner expected to believe?'

Doesn't look good for Stephen Byers does it? Now why is nobody investigating the Peter Mandelson angles?

Gordon 'fearty' Brown

Paul Waugh in The Standard wonders 'Is Brown running scared of a Paxo stuffing?'. He notes that

'Word reaches me that the Prime Minister has not agreed to take part in the traditional in-depth interview with Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman during the general election.

Despite repeated requests from the programme, Number 10 have failed to commit to the grilling that previous premiers have faced.'

He reports that

'A senior Whitehall source confirms that the PM has not given the green light. “We are dragging our feet, that’s right. But we are dragging our feet with all of the BBC bids - we have about 17 different requests for interviews for the election,” my source says.

“Taking time out to do half-hour TV interviews has a real impact on the campaign. It’s not just the airtime, it takes a lot of time to prepare for Paxman, for example.”'

Forget the excuses, if Gordon Brown fails to appear on Newsnight for the traditional joust with Jeremy Paxman then it will be clear to all that he deserves his moniker 'FEARTY'.