Monday, 24 September 2007
You Gov Poll and Worcester council seat by-election
I blogged yesterday about the You Gov poll in the Telegraph. The same Telegraph article leaned quite heavily on a council seat by election in Worcester, which Labour won with 17% swing in votes, a huge swing. this seemed a little odd but the explanation is more interesting that much of politics, it appears that Lisa Ventura, the Conservative candidate for this safe seat suffered because of her running of a erotic website, eroticfiction.org, that included discussions of the merits of various sex toys. The small-mindedness of much of the population of this country never ceases to amaze me. Reading this article, Lisa Ventura's address brought a smile to my face - Beaver Close, Lower Wick, Worcester - you couldn't make that sort of thing up!
Sunday, 23 September 2007
BBC continue to mislead over Climate Change (part 2)
The BBC has affected at least one person, This letter from today reads - "Martin Johnson quotes Christopher Booker's view that "the 'global warming' edifice is starting to crumble" (Letters, September 16). In the same edition, you report that the North West Passage is free of ice for the first time since records began (International News). Funny that…"
As I blogged last week "I read on the BBC's web site that "The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says." I was seriously scared until I read further down the article that records didn't begin in 1878 or even 1928 but in 1978. This is typical BBC, a scaremongering headline about "Climate Change" with a few paragraphs of detail to fuel the scare and then put the qualifier where most people wont bother reading to. The BBC may have had to cancel their Planet Relief day but that doesn't mean that they wont keep ramming this sort of cr*p down our collective throats as often as possible."
Well done BBC another victory for brainwashing and "the big lie".
As I blogged last week "I read on the BBC's web site that "The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says." I was seriously scared until I read further down the article that records didn't begin in 1878 or even 1928 but in 1978. This is typical BBC, a scaremongering headline about "Climate Change" with a few paragraphs of detail to fuel the scare and then put the qualifier where most people wont bother reading to. The BBC may have had to cancel their Planet Relief day but that doesn't mean that they wont keep ramming this sort of cr*p down our collective throats as often as possible."
Well done BBC another victory for brainwashing and "the big lie".
Trust the government - a fine example
I blogged earlier that 53% of those polled did not trust the government to tell the truth over recent "issues". I wasn't going to go back over all of the examples of this government fiddling figures or lying to us but then I considered the matter of unpaid fines.
In March 2002 it was reported that "More than one-third of financial penalties handed down last year went unpaid, says a report from the National Audit Office today. Across the 42 magistrates' court districts in England and Wales, penalties totalling £385 million were imposed but less than two-thirds of this was collected." The report included some examples of how fines came to be unpaid "In Cheshire, between 1996 and August 2000, magistrates imposed eight fines on a man for fraud and various motoring offences. Last year, he still owed £1,100 despite 60 enforcement actions and 26 enforcement hearings against him.
A man fined £80 plus £50 costs for criminal damage in south Durham in 1998 accumulated further fines totalling £500 by the following year. A series of enforcement notices were returned marked "Gone away". Eventually he was arrested in April 2000 and an order made for the money to be deducted from his wages. The fines were eventually paid off in May 2001.
In inner London a man failed to pay £1,000 compensation for damaging a car in a "road rage" incident. Eventually a warrant was issued for his arrest only to find he was already in jail on another offence. Magistrates asked the victim if he would waive the compensation, something he refused to do. Seven years later he is still waiting for his payment.
In 1991 magistrates in Cheshire imposed a fine of £160 and a compensation payment of £1,782 to the victim of a deception. In the intervening 11 years the court has taken 120 actions against the defaulter, including cancelling the fine in 1994. These include summonses, arrest warrants, committal to prison (suspended), changes of instalment plans and attachment of earnings orders. The victim is still waiting for the money to be paid."
In May this year, it was reported that "Almost half the fines imposed on offenders remain unpaid six months after they were handed out by the courts, according to Whitehall's spending watchdog.
In a critical report, the National Audit Office said that in some parts of the country the proportion of fines collected is as low as one in three. Last year alone, magistrates' courts imposed fines totalling £352 million but only £222 million was collected.
Of the remainder, around £75 million of fines were cancelled because they had been set at the wrong level, while the remaining £55 million were unpaid."
This article finished thus "The NAO's conclusions contrast with the Government's claim that the national payment rate for fines has risen from 55 to 80 per cent over the past three years."
In July this year, it was reported that "The amount of uncollected court fines has risen despite a high-profile Government campaign to improve performance.
Ministry of Justice data released today shows £486 million in fines was outstanding at the end of March in England and Wales, up £12 million on the previous year."
So there is a clear problem that a high percentage of fines were not being collected so this glorious Government had to do something and they did... According to a report in today's Telegraph (which I cannot find on-line, please assist...) what the Government have actually done is to write off millions of pounds of fines a year. "Around £50 million of unpaid fines are simply being cancelled or discontinued...The practice has allowed ministers to claim a dramatic rise in the rate at which fines are being paid...As a result, the official proportion of "paid" fines has shot up from around 60 per cent a few years ago to 98 per cent now."
Listen out for Labour claims that the "proportion of paid fines has increased from 60% to 98% and listen out for the complete lack of questioning of the figures by the Main Stream Media.
Now ask yourself this, what other "official" figures are being fiddled?
In March 2002 it was reported that "More than one-third of financial penalties handed down last year went unpaid, says a report from the National Audit Office today. Across the 42 magistrates' court districts in England and Wales, penalties totalling £385 million were imposed but less than two-thirds of this was collected." The report included some examples of how fines came to be unpaid "In Cheshire, between 1996 and August 2000, magistrates imposed eight fines on a man for fraud and various motoring offences. Last year, he still owed £1,100 despite 60 enforcement actions and 26 enforcement hearings against him.
A man fined £80 plus £50 costs for criminal damage in south Durham in 1998 accumulated further fines totalling £500 by the following year. A series of enforcement notices were returned marked "Gone away". Eventually he was arrested in April 2000 and an order made for the money to be deducted from his wages. The fines were eventually paid off in May 2001.
In inner London a man failed to pay £1,000 compensation for damaging a car in a "road rage" incident. Eventually a warrant was issued for his arrest only to find he was already in jail on another offence. Magistrates asked the victim if he would waive the compensation, something he refused to do. Seven years later he is still waiting for his payment.
In 1991 magistrates in Cheshire imposed a fine of £160 and a compensation payment of £1,782 to the victim of a deception. In the intervening 11 years the court has taken 120 actions against the defaulter, including cancelling the fine in 1994. These include summonses, arrest warrants, committal to prison (suspended), changes of instalment plans and attachment of earnings orders. The victim is still waiting for the money to be paid."
In May this year, it was reported that "Almost half the fines imposed on offenders remain unpaid six months after they were handed out by the courts, according to Whitehall's spending watchdog.
In a critical report, the National Audit Office said that in some parts of the country the proportion of fines collected is as low as one in three. Last year alone, magistrates' courts imposed fines totalling £352 million but only £222 million was collected.
Of the remainder, around £75 million of fines were cancelled because they had been set at the wrong level, while the remaining £55 million were unpaid."
This article finished thus "The NAO's conclusions contrast with the Government's claim that the national payment rate for fines has risen from 55 to 80 per cent over the past three years."
In July this year, it was reported that "The amount of uncollected court fines has risen despite a high-profile Government campaign to improve performance.
Ministry of Justice data released today shows £486 million in fines was outstanding at the end of March in England and Wales, up £12 million on the previous year."
So there is a clear problem that a high percentage of fines were not being collected so this glorious Government had to do something and they did... According to a report in today's Telegraph (which I cannot find on-line, please assist...) what the Government have actually done is to write off millions of pounds of fines a year. "Around £50 million of unpaid fines are simply being cancelled or discontinued...The practice has allowed ministers to claim a dramatic rise in the rate at which fines are being paid...As a result, the official proportion of "paid" fines has shot up from around 60 per cent a few years ago to 98 per cent now."
Listen out for Labour claims that the "proportion of paid fines has increased from 60% to 98% and listen out for the complete lack of questioning of the figures by the Main Stream Media.
Now ask yourself this, what other "official" figures are being fiddled?
World Cup Rugby
I have just turned on the Scotland v New Zealand match and am somewhat confused, both teams seem to be wearing the same coloured kit. New Zealand normally wear an all black kit, hence the name "All Blacks" and Scotland generally wear a dark blue kit. Today both teams are wearing black shorts and predominantly grey tops, the only differences appear to be that the All Blacks' kit has a little black on the shirt and the Scots have a little white. This is making watching the rugby rather confusing, except for the fact that the player scoring the try is playing for New Zealand!
Trust the government
There was a fair bit of publicity on Saturday for the latest YouGov opinion poll that appeared in the Daily Telegraph. The headline was the lead that Gordon Brown's Labour party still held despite the Northern Rock debacle. Two things struck me about this poll, first that Labour's figures dropped from 41% to 39% but more intriguing were the answers to the question "thinking about some of the issues that have erupted in recent weeks (such as terrorist threats, floods, foot-and-mouth and Northern Rock) how much do you trust government ministers to tell the truth on such occasions? The replies are interesting to say the least; 5% trust a great deal, 35% trust to some extent, 28% do not trust much, 25% do not trust at all and 6% don't know. Apart from saying that the 6% who don't know shouldn't be allowed out in public (let alone vote), that is 53% who on balance don't trust the government to tell the truth - a ringing endorsement of Gordon Brown!
UK electoral system inherent bias
The Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?
Take a look at this, this and this.
Take a look at this, this and this.
Saturday, 22 September 2007
TV trivia
Brindsley Forde guitarist and vocalist with Aswad was previously one of the cast of Here comes the Double Deckers; now that is weird...
Lucky Belgium
Belgium held a General Election on June 10th, since then the political parties have managed not to agree any coalition to govern the country. That's over 100 days without a government; has the economy come to a grinding halt? No. Has anarchy broken out? No.
How long do you think Belgium could cope without a government? How long do you think the UK could cope? Makes you think...
How long do you think Belgium could cope without a government? How long do you think the UK could cope? Makes you think...
The United Kingdom?
Watch this video
and ask yourself why? The answer is simple Scotland returned 72 MP's to Westminster, way out of proportion to their population, this will be reduced to 59 seats at the next General Election and they used to mainly return Labour MPs.
UPDATE: I stand corrected, I though the reduction to 59 MPs would come in the next election when in fact it started in the 2005 election. THe point about over representation by population in Scotland is therefore no longer as true.
However the Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?
and ask yourself why? The answer is simple Scotland returned 72 MP's to Westminster, way out of proportion to their population, this will be reduced to 59 seats at the next General Election and they used to mainly return Labour MPs.
UPDATE: I stand corrected, I though the reduction to 59 MPs would come in the next election when in fact it started in the 2005 election. THe point about over representation by population in Scotland is therefore no longer as true.
However the Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?
The McCann's
I have not blogged about the Madeleine McCann affair before, I have resisted all temptation as I think that there has been quite enough coverage on every TV station and radio station and every newspaper for the last what seems like six years. Then I read this article in the Daily Telegraph. I can honestly say that this is the biggest load of bollocks that I have read since the last Labour election manifesto and that is no real surprise as the McCann's this week took advantage of the services of Clarence Mitchell, a former BBC News presenter then working as a senior government spin-doctor to become the new voice of the McCanns. Ever since there has been a barrage of pro-McCann propaganda stories in the British press. I do not know what happened to Madeleine McCann and I am not sure if I really care that much. Hundreds of British children go missing each year and yet it is this story that has dominated our media for the last 4 months or so.
So has Clarence Mitchell been earning his, no doubt, substantial corn. Let's look at the afore-mentioned Daily Telegraph article. Apparently "Gerry McCann is convinced his daughter's kidnapper was hiding behind a door in their holiday apartment as he checked on his sleeping children, according to a friend." Why is he suddenly so convinced now? Who is the "friend"?
"The cardiologist saw all three of his offspring – Madeleine, and the twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping peacefully at just after 9pm on the night of her disappearance. But as he turned to leave the ground floor room, he noticed that a door which he thought he had closed earlier was slightly ajar. Agonisingly, he is now sure that standing behind this door was his four-year-old daughter's abductor, waiting to steal her from her bed in the Praia da Luz."
He's sure is he? Not just suspects?
"The friend said Gerry had pondered over the sequence of events that night for four and half painful months. "He believes the abductor came in, opened the door and didn't have time to close it (before Mr McCann arrived)," said the friend."
He's taken four and a half months to come up with this story.
As I say, I don't know what happened that night and I don't know if the McCann's had any involvement in the disappearance of their child; I do know that the stories coming out of the McCann camp now are pure and simple propaganda.
So has Clarence Mitchell been earning his, no doubt, substantial corn. Let's look at the afore-mentioned Daily Telegraph article. Apparently "Gerry McCann is convinced his daughter's kidnapper was hiding behind a door in their holiday apartment as he checked on his sleeping children, according to a friend." Why is he suddenly so convinced now? Who is the "friend"?
"The cardiologist saw all three of his offspring – Madeleine, and the twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping peacefully at just after 9pm on the night of her disappearance. But as he turned to leave the ground floor room, he noticed that a door which he thought he had closed earlier was slightly ajar. Agonisingly, he is now sure that standing behind this door was his four-year-old daughter's abductor, waiting to steal her from her bed in the Praia da Luz."
He's sure is he? Not just suspects?
"The friend said Gerry had pondered over the sequence of events that night for four and half painful months. "He believes the abductor came in, opened the door and didn't have time to close it (before Mr McCann arrived)," said the friend."
He's taken four and a half months to come up with this story.
As I say, I don't know what happened that night and I don't know if the McCann's had any involvement in the disappearance of their child; I do know that the stories coming out of the McCann camp now are pure and simple propaganda.
NHS shenanigans
This is one of the most anti-democratic articles that I have read for quite a while on the web. Dr Ray is a consultant radiologist at a hospital in the Welsh borders. He writes that "Yesterday evening I had an insight into the workings of Nulabours "consultation" process on the planned closure of NHS District General Hospitals and replacement with dumbed down polyclinics.
A few weeks ago invitations to attend a public consultation were sent to consultants at our Trust. We were only given one day to reply for the meeting in the near future even though we have to give 6 weeks notice of leave because of "choose and book".
Obviously this meant that most of us could not attend but one consultant did take up the invitation.
The location of the meeting was kept secret until three days before the event and when this consultant was eventually told the location and turned up in Birmingham for the "Citizens Jury" it turned out that medical staff were outnumbered 2:1 by laypeople specifically chosen by an agency to attend the event. The media were present and had obviously been invited to publicise the event.
The delegates were split up into groups and each allocated an electronic voting device. A "minder" was allocated to each group.
Then the stars of the show arrived: Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson and Ara Darzi.
There followed a rapid succession of questions from the podium on which the delegates were asked to vote. The minder was available to suggest the best answer if there was any doubt.
Strangely, almost all the votes were 2:1 in favour of Nulabour's policy. Even the question: "Would you prefer gynaecological surgery to be carried out in your GP practice even if it meant the closure of your DGH facility?" was answered with 2:1 in favour.
Following the "consultation" the medical delegates were told to leave but the other 2/3 of the audience were kept back and each given an envelope. My colleague was intrigued by this and managed to catch one of the "chosen ones" and ask about the contents. Each envelope contained £75 in cash!
So now the consultation is over and the results indicate there is overwhelming public and doctor support for closing down the DGHs. I can only say that the way the voting was done makes the "Blue Peter" voting fraud seem like, well, "Blue Peter".
According to the Downing Street website there are nine more of these "consultations" due around the county. That's an awful lot of people to bribe with taxpayers money, but once they're done the business of closing the DGHs can start in earnest."
Is this true, is this how New Labour will get the results they want from Citizens Juries? Is this what New Labour mean by listening to the people? Do you trust New Labour to actually consult honestly on anything? The sad thing is that I am not really surprised by this story?
UPDATE:
From a Biased BBC comments thread:
"Anonanon:
Many readers of this blog will already be aware of the shenanigans surrounding Gordon Brown's NHS citizen jury in Birmingham (Brown's favourite polling company OLR bussed in "citizens" to support the government's proposals in return for envelopes stuffed with money).
One organisation heavily involved in the promotion of the citizen jury scam is Involve (or "involve" as the logo declares, with lower-case inevitability). Judging by the website this appears to be yet another pro-Labour outfit masquerading as independent.
Involve's director Richard Wilson is an adviser to the Home Office, the Department of Constitutional Affairs, the Department of Health, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the BBC. Head of Research & Development is Stella Creasy, a former Labour councillor and adviser to Douglas Alexander. The rest of the staff all have backgrounds in quangos, unions and big government bureaucracy. For example project manager Edward Andersson has worked for The Environment Council ("a UN-affiliated Lobby Group"), a Swedish Trade Union, and has "delivered participatory processes with the BBC", whatever that means.
The board members are more of the same, ranging from the chairman - sorry, chair - Geoff Mulgan, the Labour party strategist who was Head of Policy in No 10, through to Perry Walker of the left wing think tank the New Economics Foundation.
Involve's funding comes from the "progressive" (ie leftie) Joseph Rowntree Trust, but its projects have also been funded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Home Office, the Department of Communities and Local Government, the DTI, the Scottish Executive, the OECD and the Food Standards Agency. Oh yes, and the BBC.
All very cosy this use of our taxes and licence fee, isn't it?
Anonanon | 23.09.07 - 1:33 pm | # "
A few weeks ago invitations to attend a public consultation were sent to consultants at our Trust. We were only given one day to reply for the meeting in the near future even though we have to give 6 weeks notice of leave because of "choose and book".
Obviously this meant that most of us could not attend but one consultant did take up the invitation.
The location of the meeting was kept secret until three days before the event and when this consultant was eventually told the location and turned up in Birmingham for the "Citizens Jury" it turned out that medical staff were outnumbered 2:1 by laypeople specifically chosen by an agency to attend the event. The media were present and had obviously been invited to publicise the event.
The delegates were split up into groups and each allocated an electronic voting device. A "minder" was allocated to each group.
Then the stars of the show arrived: Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson and Ara Darzi.
There followed a rapid succession of questions from the podium on which the delegates were asked to vote. The minder was available to suggest the best answer if there was any doubt.
Strangely, almost all the votes were 2:1 in favour of Nulabour's policy. Even the question: "Would you prefer gynaecological surgery to be carried out in your GP practice even if it meant the closure of your DGH facility?" was answered with 2:1 in favour.
Following the "consultation" the medical delegates were told to leave but the other 2/3 of the audience were kept back and each given an envelope. My colleague was intrigued by this and managed to catch one of the "chosen ones" and ask about the contents. Each envelope contained £75 in cash!
So now the consultation is over and the results indicate there is overwhelming public and doctor support for closing down the DGHs. I can only say that the way the voting was done makes the "Blue Peter" voting fraud seem like, well, "Blue Peter".
According to the Downing Street website there are nine more of these "consultations" due around the county. That's an awful lot of people to bribe with taxpayers money, but once they're done the business of closing the DGHs can start in earnest."
Is this true, is this how New Labour will get the results they want from Citizens Juries? Is this what New Labour mean by listening to the people? Do you trust New Labour to actually consult honestly on anything? The sad thing is that I am not really surprised by this story?
UPDATE:
From a Biased BBC comments thread:
"Anonanon:
Many readers of this blog will already be aware of the shenanigans surrounding Gordon Brown's NHS citizen jury in Birmingham (Brown's favourite polling company OLR bussed in "citizens" to support the government's proposals in return for envelopes stuffed with money).
One organisation heavily involved in the promotion of the citizen jury scam is Involve (or "involve" as the logo declares, with lower-case inevitability). Judging by the website this appears to be yet another pro-Labour outfit masquerading as independent.
Involve's director Richard Wilson is an adviser to the Home Office, the Department of Constitutional Affairs, the Department of Health, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the BBC. Head of Research & Development is Stella Creasy, a former Labour councillor and adviser to Douglas Alexander. The rest of the staff all have backgrounds in quangos, unions and big government bureaucracy. For example project manager Edward Andersson has worked for The Environment Council ("a UN-affiliated Lobby Group"), a Swedish Trade Union, and has "delivered participatory processes with the BBC", whatever that means.
The board members are more of the same, ranging from the chairman - sorry, chair - Geoff Mulgan, the Labour party strategist who was Head of Policy in No 10, through to Perry Walker of the left wing think tank the New Economics Foundation.
Involve's funding comes from the "progressive" (ie leftie) Joseph Rowntree Trust, but its projects have also been funded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Home Office, the Department of Communities and Local Government, the DTI, the Scottish Executive, the OECD and the Food Standards Agency. Oh yes, and the BBC.
All very cosy this use of our taxes and licence fee, isn't it?
Anonanon | 23.09.07 - 1:33 pm | # "
Tim Henman - a British sporting hero
Tim Henman was the best English male tennis player from 1994 until the arrival of Andy Murray, Greg Rusedski in 1997 may be the exception. I remember following tennis in the 1980's and there was very little to cheer other than Annabel Croft's "form". Tim Henman's ATP end of year rankings from 1994 were: 167 95 29 17 7 11 10 9 8 15 6 36 39. During that period he won 11 ATP tournaments, contrary to the "he never won anything" brigade's claims. In the 1980s English tennis players rarely made it the second week at Wimbledon, Tim Henman's Wimbledon record is from 1994 1R 2R QF QF SF SF 4R SF SF QF QF 2R 2R 2R - that's 1996 to 2004 four semi-final losses, four quarter-final losses and just one fourth round loss. You can add to that a French and a US Open semi-final appearance in 2004 and an Olympic silver medal in the men's doubles in 1996. Tim Henman reached the ranking of Number 4 in the world. Tim Henman's serve and volley style was best suited to Wimbledon where he played his best tennis. Two of his four semi-final losses there were to the then world number one, Pete Sampras and another to Lleyton Hewitt, that year the world number one ranked player. He should have beaten Goran Ivanišević in the 2001 semi-final and came within two points of victory before the rain came again and again. In 2003 he took his first and only ATP Masters Series title, winning the Paris Masters against Andrei Pavel. On the way to the final he beat Nikolay Davydenko, Sébastian Grosjean, Gustavo Kuerten, Roger Federer and Andy Roddick and only lost one set in the entire competition.
I get really angry at the insults aimed at Tim Henman for not being angry enough on court and for not winning anything. As I have pointed out above, he won lots and how many tournaments have the overpaid, over hyped English football team won? They seem to make quarter finals and occasional semi finals and yet they are acclaimed as heroes. As to his lack of anger on court, I think he learned his lesson in 1994 when he was disqualified at Wimbledon in 1994 when he hit a ball in a fit of anger during a doubles match, striking a ball girl on the head. The other angle of attack on Time Henman has been his being middle class, an unforgivable offence for many in New Labour Britain. The insults that I have heard aimed at Tim Henman for being a middle class mummies boy would if aimed at a working class footballer have been described as discriminatory. The fun that "The Now Show" have made of Tim Henman and his fans has been nothing short of disgraceful. It seems that in "modern Britain" it is fine to make fun of middle aged, middle class female tennis supporters and to express disgust at their polite queueing and cries of "come on Tim" but at the same time it is not allowed to question too closely the antics of the many shaven headed, thuggish football fans who drunkenly cause more damage every weekend at football matches all over the country.
As Tim Henman wins his last Davis Cup singles match yesterday and today hits the winner, a fabulous cross-court forehand in the doubles against Croatia, thus taking England into the World Group for the first time since 2003 we should salute a great British sporting hero.
I get really angry at the insults aimed at Tim Henman for not being angry enough on court and for not winning anything. As I have pointed out above, he won lots and how many tournaments have the overpaid, over hyped English football team won? They seem to make quarter finals and occasional semi finals and yet they are acclaimed as heroes. As to his lack of anger on court, I think he learned his lesson in 1994 when he was disqualified at Wimbledon in 1994 when he hit a ball in a fit of anger during a doubles match, striking a ball girl on the head. The other angle of attack on Time Henman has been his being middle class, an unforgivable offence for many in New Labour Britain. The insults that I have heard aimed at Tim Henman for being a middle class mummies boy would if aimed at a working class footballer have been described as discriminatory. The fun that "The Now Show" have made of Tim Henman and his fans has been nothing short of disgraceful. It seems that in "modern Britain" it is fine to make fun of middle aged, middle class female tennis supporters and to express disgust at their polite queueing and cries of "come on Tim" but at the same time it is not allowed to question too closely the antics of the many shaven headed, thuggish football fans who drunkenly cause more damage every weekend at football matches all over the country.
As Tim Henman wins his last Davis Cup singles match yesterday and today hits the winner, a fabulous cross-court forehand in the doubles against Croatia, thus taking England into the World Group for the first time since 2003 we should salute a great British sporting hero.
President Ahmadinejad of Iran visits New York
The dean of Columbia University's school of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson, invited the Iranian President, Mr Ahmadinejad, to speak at the World Leader's Forum, a year-long program that aims to unite "renowned intellectuals and cultural icons from many nations to examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives." A staggering thing to do? Well Columbia University has form in the area of inviting representatives of anti-semitic regimes to speak at their University. In 1933 Columbia University invited a representative of the Nazi government in Germany to speak at the University, you can read an article on this visit here. "in 1933, Columbia president Nicholas Murray Butler invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, to speak on campus, and also hosted a reception for him. Luther represented "the government of a friendly people," Butler insisted. He was "entitled to be received ... with the greatest courtesy and respect." Ambassador Luther's speech focused on what he characterized as Hitler's peaceful intentions. Students who criticized the Luther invitation were derided as “ill-mannered children” by the director of Columbia’s Institute of Arts and Sciences...Columbia also insisted on maintaining friendly relations with Nazi-controlled German universities. While Williams College terminated its program of student exchanges with Nazi Germany, Columbia and other universities declined to do likewise. Columbia refused to pull out even after a German official candidly asserted that his country’s students were being sent abroad to serve as “political soldiers of the Reich.”
In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg. This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors. Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was “very enjoyable.”"
Of course Columbia was not unique in inviting representatives of Nazi Germany to speak at American Universities, Harvard, MIT and Princeton all did likewise. The difference is that these other universities seem to have learnt the lesson of the 1930's whilst Columbia has not. According to Israel’s ambassador, inviting Ahmadinejad to speak is the equivalent of “inviting Hitler to [speak] in the 1930s,” because “appeasing fanatics and granting them legitimacy leads to genocide and war.” Will some future Columbia president one day look back at the invitation to Ahmadinejad and say the same thing? I hope not but fear it may be the case.
It appears that the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, yesterday withdrew the invitation to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Mr. Bollinger said he canceled Mr. Ahmadinejad's invitation because he couldn't be certain it would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum." He told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Ahmadinejad could speak at the school of international and public affairs, just not as a part of the university-wide leader's forum. That is something but appeasement was not the answer in the 1930's and I don't believe it is the answer now.
It appears that President Ahmadinejad also asked to visit Ground Zero during his visit and this request provoked the response that he wanted, that is lots of anger that a supporter of terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and elsewhere and a vehement enemy of the USA wanted to visit the site of the Twin Towers' destruction by Islamic terrorists in 2001.
In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg. This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors. Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was “very enjoyable.”"
Of course Columbia was not unique in inviting representatives of Nazi Germany to speak at American Universities, Harvard, MIT and Princeton all did likewise. The difference is that these other universities seem to have learnt the lesson of the 1930's whilst Columbia has not. According to Israel’s ambassador, inviting Ahmadinejad to speak is the equivalent of “inviting Hitler to [speak] in the 1930s,” because “appeasing fanatics and granting them legitimacy leads to genocide and war.” Will some future Columbia president one day look back at the invitation to Ahmadinejad and say the same thing? I hope not but fear it may be the case.
It appears that the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, yesterday withdrew the invitation to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Mr. Bollinger said he canceled Mr. Ahmadinejad's invitation because he couldn't be certain it would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum." He told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Ahmadinejad could speak at the school of international and public affairs, just not as a part of the university-wide leader's forum. That is something but appeasement was not the answer in the 1930's and I don't believe it is the answer now.
It appears that President Ahmadinejad also asked to visit Ground Zero during his visit and this request provoked the response that he wanted, that is lots of anger that a supporter of terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and elsewhere and a vehement enemy of the USA wanted to visit the site of the Twin Towers' destruction by Islamic terrorists in 2001.
Rugby World Cup
I missed the World Cup victory in 2003 as I was on an airplane, so I am less than happy at being able to watch England's "performances" this time around. To cheer me and you up, try this rugby related cartoon - 
News from the Lebanon
The Lebanon is an unfortunate country, what was once the Paris of the East is in a geographically important position and suffers from having powerful neighbours and a very mixed population. Interestingly the population split in the Lebanon is unknown because they have not held a census since 1932 because of sensitivity/controversy over the religious makeup of the population. It is estimated that the Lebanese population is now about 60% Muslim and 40% Christian. Wikipedia states that "Lebanon is a parliamentary, democratic republic, which implements a special system known as confessionalism. This system, meant to insure that sectarian conflict is kept at bay, attempts to fairly represent the demographic distribution of religious sects in the governing body. As such, high-ranking offices in the government are reserved for members of specific religious groups. The President, for example, has to be a Maronite Catholic Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister an Orthodox Christian, and the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim. The Lebanese parliament building at the Place de l'ÉtoileThis trend continues in the distribution of the 128 parliamentary seats, which are divided proportionally between Muslims and Christians. Prior to 1990, the ratio stood at 6:5 in favor of Christians; however, the Taif Accord, which put an end to the 1975-1990 civil war, adjusted the ratio to grant equal representation to followers of the two religions. According to the constitution, direct elections must be held for the parliament every four years, although for much of Lebanon’s recent history, civil war precluded the exercise of this right."
Lebanon's main problem is its neighbours, it's Southern neighbour is Israel but its more dangerous neighbour is to the East and North, Syria. Syria has increasingly wanted Lebanon as under its control, as it was prior to independence from France in the 1940's. Syria has been meddling in Lebanon's affairs for many years but recently this has reached serious levels. On February 14 2005 the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut. Syria was accused of carrying out the attack due to rift between Hariri and Damascus over the Syrian-backed constitutional amendment extending pro-Syrian President Lahoud's term in office. The assassination of Hariri marked the beginning of a series of assassination attempts that led to the loss of many prominent Lebanese figures.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously called for an investigation into the assassination of Rafik Hariri. The findings of this investigation suggested the assassination was carried out by a group with considerable resources, that it had been prepared many months in advance, and that the group had detailed knowledge of Hariri’s movements. This investigation into the Hariri assassination is ongoing and has yet to be concluded. The United Nations Security Council and the Lebanese cabinet have approved a Special Tribunal for Lebanon that would prosecute those responsible for Hariri's death. On February 28 2005, with over 50,000 people demonstrating in Martyrs' Square, Prime Minister Omar Karami and his Cabinet resigned. In response, Hezbollah organized a large counter-demonstration attended by hundreds of thousands of people, supporting Syria and accusing Israel and the United States of meddling in internal Lebanese affairs. On March 14 2005, one month after Hariri's assassination, throngs of people rallied in Martyrs' Square in Lebanon with around 1 million people. Protesters marched demanding the truth about Hariri's murder and independence from Syrian presence in Lebanon. The march reiterated their desire for a sovereign, democratic, and unified country, free of Syria's hegemony.
In the weeks following the demonstrations, bombs were detonated in Christian areas near Beirut. Although the damage was mostly material, these acts threatened to drag Lebanon back into sectarian strife. Eventually, and under pressure from the international community, Syria began withdrawing its 15,000 army from Lebanon. By April 26 2005, all uniformed Syrian soldiers had already crossed the border back to Syria. On April 27 2005, anti-Syrian Lebanese celebrated their first free-from-Syria day. UN forces led by Senegalese Brig. Gen. Mouhamadou Kandji and Lebanese Brig. Gen. Imad Anka were sent to Lebanon to verify the military withdrawal which was mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1559. During the first parliamentary elections held after Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2005, the anti-Syrian coalition of Sunni Muslim, Druze and Christian parties led by Saad Hariri, son of assassinated ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, won a majority of seats in the new Parliament.The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), though not allied with the Rafik Hariri Martyr List during the elections, garnered strong representation in the newly elected Parliament. The political alliances were interesting in that in some areas the anti-Syrian coalition allied with Hezbollah and in others with Amal. They did not win the two-thirds majority required to force the resignation of Syrian-appointed President Lahoud voted for by Rafik Hariri parliamentary bloc, due to the unexpectedly strong showing of formerly exiled General Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement party in Mount Lebanon. Despite being staunchly anti-Syrian during his 15-year exile, upon his return Aoun aligned himself with politicians who were friendly to the Syrians in the past decade: Soleiman Franjieh Jr and Michel Murr. Their alliance dominated the north and the Matn District of Mount Lebanon. Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt joined forces with the two staunchly pro-Syrian Shiite movements, Hezbollah and Amal, to secure major wins in the South, Beqaa, as well as the Baabda and Aley districts of Mount Lebanon. This alliance proved temporary. On February 6, 2006 Hezbollah signed an understanding of disarmament with Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement. After the elections, Hariri's Future Movement party, now the country's dominant political force, nominated Fouad Siniora, a former Finance Minister, to be Prime Minister.His newly formed representative government has obtained the vote of confidence from the parliament. On July 18 2005, Lebanon elected a new parliament dominated by an anti-Syrian coalition. This parliament approved a motion to free Samir Geagea, leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces, who had spent most of the past eleven years in solitary confinement in an underground cell with no access to news. The motion was endorsed by pro-Syrian Lebanese President Émile Lahoud the next day. (The above section quotes liberally from Wikipedia)
What has happened now is that another Christian politician has been killed by a car bomb. Antoine Ghanem, 64, a member of the Right-wing Christian Phalange Party, was killed along with eight other people in the attack in a Christian suburb of Beirut. He was the eighth prominent anti-Syrian figure assassinated since 2005 and the attack came just six days before parliament was scheduled to meet to elect a new president in a deeply divisive vote.
This assassination is aimed at preventing any elections from taking place and at distracting world attention from Syria's weapons programme, a plan that took a severe knock on 6 September - see my article on Syria.
Lebanon's main problem is its neighbours, it's Southern neighbour is Israel but its more dangerous neighbour is to the East and North, Syria. Syria has increasingly wanted Lebanon as under its control, as it was prior to independence from France in the 1940's. Syria has been meddling in Lebanon's affairs for many years but recently this has reached serious levels. On February 14 2005 the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut. Syria was accused of carrying out the attack due to rift between Hariri and Damascus over the Syrian-backed constitutional amendment extending pro-Syrian President Lahoud's term in office. The assassination of Hariri marked the beginning of a series of assassination attempts that led to the loss of many prominent Lebanese figures.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously called for an investigation into the assassination of Rafik Hariri. The findings of this investigation suggested the assassination was carried out by a group with considerable resources, that it had been prepared many months in advance, and that the group had detailed knowledge of Hariri’s movements. This investigation into the Hariri assassination is ongoing and has yet to be concluded. The United Nations Security Council and the Lebanese cabinet have approved a Special Tribunal for Lebanon that would prosecute those responsible for Hariri's death. On February 28 2005, with over 50,000 people demonstrating in Martyrs' Square, Prime Minister Omar Karami and his Cabinet resigned. In response, Hezbollah organized a large counter-demonstration attended by hundreds of thousands of people, supporting Syria and accusing Israel and the United States of meddling in internal Lebanese affairs. On March 14 2005, one month after Hariri's assassination, throngs of people rallied in Martyrs' Square in Lebanon with around 1 million people. Protesters marched demanding the truth about Hariri's murder and independence from Syrian presence in Lebanon. The march reiterated their desire for a sovereign, democratic, and unified country, free of Syria's hegemony.
In the weeks following the demonstrations, bombs were detonated in Christian areas near Beirut. Although the damage was mostly material, these acts threatened to drag Lebanon back into sectarian strife. Eventually, and under pressure from the international community, Syria began withdrawing its 15,000 army from Lebanon. By April 26 2005, all uniformed Syrian soldiers had already crossed the border back to Syria. On April 27 2005, anti-Syrian Lebanese celebrated their first free-from-Syria day. UN forces led by Senegalese Brig. Gen. Mouhamadou Kandji and Lebanese Brig. Gen. Imad Anka were sent to Lebanon to verify the military withdrawal which was mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1559. During the first parliamentary elections held after Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2005, the anti-Syrian coalition of Sunni Muslim, Druze and Christian parties led by Saad Hariri, son of assassinated ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, won a majority of seats in the new Parliament.The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), though not allied with the Rafik Hariri Martyr List during the elections, garnered strong representation in the newly elected Parliament. The political alliances were interesting in that in some areas the anti-Syrian coalition allied with Hezbollah and in others with Amal. They did not win the two-thirds majority required to force the resignation of Syrian-appointed President Lahoud voted for by Rafik Hariri parliamentary bloc, due to the unexpectedly strong showing of formerly exiled General Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement party in Mount Lebanon. Despite being staunchly anti-Syrian during his 15-year exile, upon his return Aoun aligned himself with politicians who were friendly to the Syrians in the past decade: Soleiman Franjieh Jr and Michel Murr. Their alliance dominated the north and the Matn District of Mount Lebanon. Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt joined forces with the two staunchly pro-Syrian Shiite movements, Hezbollah and Amal, to secure major wins in the South, Beqaa, as well as the Baabda and Aley districts of Mount Lebanon. This alliance proved temporary. On February 6, 2006 Hezbollah signed an understanding of disarmament with Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement. After the elections, Hariri's Future Movement party, now the country's dominant political force, nominated Fouad Siniora, a former Finance Minister, to be Prime Minister.His newly formed representative government has obtained the vote of confidence from the parliament. On July 18 2005, Lebanon elected a new parliament dominated by an anti-Syrian coalition. This parliament approved a motion to free Samir Geagea, leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces, who had spent most of the past eleven years in solitary confinement in an underground cell with no access to news. The motion was endorsed by pro-Syrian Lebanese President Émile Lahoud the next day. (The above section quotes liberally from Wikipedia)
What has happened now is that another Christian politician has been killed by a car bomb. Antoine Ghanem, 64, a member of the Right-wing Christian Phalange Party, was killed along with eight other people in the attack in a Christian suburb of Beirut. He was the eighth prominent anti-Syrian figure assassinated since 2005 and the attack came just six days before parliament was scheduled to meet to elect a new president in a deeply divisive vote.
This assassination is aimed at preventing any elections from taking place and at distracting world attention from Syria's weapons programme, a plan that took a severe knock on 6 September - see my article on Syria.
Friday, 21 September 2007
Get lost (reprise)
One of my first posts back in May concerned the European Gallileo project. It now appears that "The British Government, along with every other EU state, signed up to the principle of Galileo in 2000 on the basis that it would be co-funded with industry in a public-private partnership. The original plan was for taxpayers to finance for the first four satellites, and industry to pay for two thirds of the costs of the next 26.
The project was allocated €1 billion (about £700 million) in the current EU budget. But the complete withdrawal of funding from commercial companies has left Galileo in urgent need of a further €2.4 billion to stay on schedule for completion by 2012. With just one satellite in orbit, four more need to be launched as soon as possible to get the system back on track.
Britain has found itself powerless to stop the spiralling costs – initially €915 million – because all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects – including France, Germany, Italy and Spain – have consistently voted in favour."
So now the French have decided to bail out the project with a €2.1 billion raid on the EU farming budget. This would of course break many EU budgetary rules and set an alarming precedent. However, with European prestige and Gallic pride at stake the French government has won the backing of the European Commission to use public money.
How is this possible you may ask? The answer is that all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, have consistently voted in favour.
The project was allocated €1 billion (about £700 million) in the current EU budget. But the complete withdrawal of funding from commercial companies has left Galileo in urgent need of a further €2.4 billion to stay on schedule for completion by 2012. With just one satellite in orbit, four more need to be launched as soon as possible to get the system back on track.
Britain has found itself powerless to stop the spiralling costs – initially €915 million – because all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects – including France, Germany, Italy and Spain – have consistently voted in favour."
So now the French have decided to bail out the project with a €2.1 billion raid on the EU farming budget. This would of course break many EU budgetary rules and set an alarming precedent. However, with European prestige and Gallic pride at stake the French government has won the backing of the European Commission to use public money.
How is this possible you may ask? The answer is that all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, have consistently voted in favour.
Boris Johnson's web site
If you are looking for Boris Johnson's web site today you will not find it. http://www.boris-johnson.com/ has disappeared. Why? Well the answer is most intriguing and can be found at Iain Dale's Diary: In Support of Tim Ireland and Craig Murray#links#links. Most intriguing and worrying.
UPDATE: This story is all over the blogosphere but not being covered much by the MSM, I wonder why? You can read more and find more links here and here.
UPDATE: This story is all over the blogosphere but not being covered much by the MSM, I wonder why? You can read more and find more links here and here.
The coming General Election
Next week is the Conservative Party Conference, I think that in contrast to their generally favourable coverage of Menzies Cambell's speech and the Liberal Democrat's conference in general the BBC will be covering the Conservative conference rather more critically and especially questioning the leadership of David Cameron and the presence of splits within the party over grammar schools and Europe. The Labour government need a resurgent Liberal Democrat party to reduce Conservative gains in the coming election and the BBC will oblige their masters.
I have a feeling that Gordon Brown may be readying himself to announce a snap election and may do so on the day of David Cameron's conference speech so taking the spotlight away from David Cameron and rousing the spirits of his party. Announcing an election then would also reduce the chances of opposition to his policies being voiced at the Labour conference.
Of course the main reason to call an election now is that the economy is on the edge of disaster and the economic and political climate will not be as positive for a long while.
I have a feeling that Gordon Brown may be readying himself to announce a snap election and may do so on the day of David Cameron's conference speech so taking the spotlight away from David Cameron and rousing the spirits of his party. Announcing an election then would also reduce the chances of opposition to his policies being voiced at the Labour conference.
Of course the main reason to call an election now is that the economy is on the edge of disaster and the economic and political climate will not be as positive for a long while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
