More Tim Minchin

Do watch the whole video...

Fauxtography

10 examples of Fauxtography that you should examine so that you realise that pictures do lie.

Terrorists?

From my "Comments board" in response to my recent piece on the news that

"one out of every seven, terrorism suspects formerly held at the U.S. detention site at Guantanamo Bay are confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism"

:

"Anonymous said...
They are terrorism suspects - not proven terrorists. So how can they 'return' to terrorism. Still their experience would be a fine recruiting theme.


Not a sheep said...
If you want to split hairs, they are "enemy combatants" but in reality they are terrorists. You and other useful idiots can spout all you like about "not proven" and how Guantanamo is a "recruiting" agent for terrorists, so pushing the blame onto the US but the facts are somewhat different.

There are many who blame the actions of "the West" (particularly the US, UK and Israel) for causing terrorism but seem to ignore the inconvenient truth. This truth is that there are followers of a branch of Islam who hate the West, want to destroy the West (from without or within) and will use any "provocation" as a reason. Unfortunately there are also a lot of people in "the West" whose main aim is the destruction of capitalism and western culture. These people are either happy to temporarily make alliances with Islamic terrorists in order to fulfil their aims or have a world view that is so distorted that they believe that Islamic terrorists are better people than the existing Countries."

A Satire on 7/7 Conspiracy Theories

Rachel from North London has devised her own Conspiracy Theory/Satire re 7/7, and well worth a read it is too.

Is criminality genetic?

Just wondered...

The police investigation of MPs expenses - The get out

This Is London excitedly report that:

"Detectives examining complaints about MPs' expenses are to seek a meeting in the Commons with officials from the Parliamentary fees office.

Commons officials are to be asked by police for an explanation of the rules governing MPs' expenses. The move is part of an exercise to help Scotland Yard's fraud squad decide on whether to launch a full-scale inquiry. "

But before we start to think that maybe, just maybe, justice will prevail and some of the lying, cheating, fraudsters in the House of Commons might actually get their comeuppance, read this (my emphasis)

"Inquiries have been carried out by a team led by acting commander Nigel Mawer. Police say it is crucial to establish details of the arrangements between the fees office and MPs.

One senior Yard source said: "On the face of it there would appear to be cases of fraud but the difficulty we face is we have to prove a criminal intent and we have to understand the relationship between the fees office and MPs.""

They are all going to get off, aren't they. The Cabinet multi-flippers, the up to the maximum with no required receipts Ministers; all of them will get off on this technicality and then laugh their heads off at those members of the public who actually thought that the police would dare to charge a Labour cabinet minister. Maybe one Labour MP might be considered expendable and of course all Conservative MPs are fair game, but Labour ministers are the bosses and it seems that not only do they consider themselves above the law, the police consider them to be so too.

The thirty ninth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award goes to The Pentagon who Yahoo.com report as having discovered that:

"one out of every seven, terrorism suspects formerly held at the U.S. detention site at Guantanamo Bay are confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism"

Terrorists return to terrorism - "No shit, Sherlock"

Sharia Law in action

This video is from the Swat area of Pakistan, but rest assured this is what many want to see as our future in the UK. Any comments from Lord Phillips, Rowan Williams or Stephen Hockman?

Racism scandal

News reaches me that a US Supreme Court Judge has been recorded as saying that

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

It is believed that Barack Obama is looking into ways of dismissing this Judge as he quite clearly has racist tendencies...

In fact the above is not quite true, but nearly... The real story is that Barack Obama's first appointment to the Supreme Court, Sonia "the court of appeals is where policy is made" Sotomayor is reported in the Wall Street Journal as having said that:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Of course as a non-white woman Sonia Sotomayor is beyond reproach and Barack Obama will take no action. What you have to ask yourself is "is this fair"?

What can we ban drivers from doing next?

The ban drivers from doing anything brigade have a new target - listening to the radio whilst driving. How long before drivers have to sit in a sound proof booth in the car so that they cannot be distracted by anything? More likely though is - how long before private cars are banned and all driving has to be done by licensed state employed drivers of buses or trains? Of course an exception will be made for our betters in the perpetual Labour government who will be allocated suitably qualified chauffeurs.

Is time running out for Gordon Brown?

An almost unbelievable leader article in today's Times. It is headlined "The Choice for Labour" and has the subtitle

"The Labour party is about to suffer a serious electoral defeat. The Cabinet now has a big decision to make - whether or not to act"

Do go and read the whole piece but here are some key extracts:

"A week today the country goes to the polls for European and local elections that will almost certainly result in an historic drubbing for Gordon Brown's Labour Party.

The likelihood is that Labour will end up at best as loser and at worst as a laughing stock... The vital choice lies with his Cabinet colleagues. This, if they choose to seize it, is their moment.

The likes of John Denham and Jack Straw, David Miliband and James Purnell, John Hutton and Hazel Blears, Geoff Hoon and Alistair Darling must spend the next week asking themselves what they will do in the event of a shattering defeat. Mr Denham has grown tired of being promised funds that never materialise. Mr Miliband and Mr Purnell are exasperated at being regular victims of the self-harming tendencies of Downing Street briefings. Ms Blears has not been the only member of the Cabinet to have something to say about the Prime Minister's performance on YouTube. Mr Darling has made his frustration plain, in private at least, about being made to sell plans handed to him by his next-door neighbour. It is open to them to translate these private frustrations into public action. The fact is that Cabinet members have the power and, within a few days, the opportunity to change Labour's course and they now has to decide.

They could choose action. This would involve a Cabinet minister (or ministers) resigning, voicing in public the frustration with Mr Brown's leadership that is common currency among them. Senior resignations would trigger a leadership contest that, with the slightly mysterious emergence of Alan Johnson as the likely winner, would lead in short order to a general election.

The disadvantage of this course is that the electorate may punish a party that changed its leader for a second time in the course of a single Parliament. It may be that every potential assassin fears the charge of disloyalty. But the advantages suddenly look very marked...

Of course, Cabinet members may choose not to act. This would involve closing ranks around Mr Brown on the ground that economic recovery will provide a political dividend...

The question is now whether any of them is prepared to act. For a long while they have steadfastly maintained, at least in public, that the cost of removing the Prime Minister from office was greater than the benefit. Perhaps the verdict of the electorate will steel one or more of them to speak the truth about power. But doing nothing is itself a choice. Either way, Labour's future is not just Mr Brown's but the Cabinet's collective responsibility. "

I am not sure what the Cabinet will do after the EU and local elections. The result will be dire for Labour; they will almost certainly finish with less of the popular vote than the Lib Dems. Rumours that UKIP might overtake Labour are widespread but in my view unlikely, although if that was the result then Gordon Brown's Labour party would be humiliated and all hell could be let loose within the Labour party.

Let us assume for a moment that Labour finish a poor third, maybe with less than 18% of the popular vote, what then? Could Gordon Brown fight back with just a reshuffle? If bringing back David Blunkett is the answer then what is the question? Would any of the current Cabinet have the courage to openly challenge the Great Clunking Fist? Would Jack Straw and Peter Mandelson wield their knives in private and persuade Gordon Brown that time is up? Would a "big beast" no longer in the Cabinet have to stand as a stalking horse? Is Charles Clarke a "big beast" or just big? Would Jack Straw stand as a temporary "safe pair of hands" candidate? Would he do that just for the ex-Prime Minister extra pension? Would Alan Johnston stand in a leadership election after saying he wasn't up to the job? Does David Miliband really think he could be Prime Minister? Is Ed Balls so deluded that he thinks the British public could imagine him as Prime Minister? Does Harriet Harman really think? If Gordon Brown does get replaced by a new man/woman/Ed Balls how long could they realistically delay calling a general election? Does the new leader really want to go into history as the man/woman/Ed Balls who lead Labour to their worst ever election defeat? Who really wants to be portrayed as a bigger electoral liability than Michael Foot?

Many, many questions all of which may be answered over the next few months; it will be interesting?

More selective reporting by the BBC

I see that the BBC are "going big" on the story of Sir John Butterfill's expenses whilst showing not an iota of interest in the news that so far

"Just five of the 40 ministers who have been reimbursed for the cost of employing private accountants have explicitly confirmed paying tax on the amounts they received."

Why the difference in coverage? Is one backbencher more newsworthy that 35 Labour Ministers? Or does the fact that the backbencher is a Conservative mean that coverage of this story might help Gordon Brown's Labour party to avoid total annihilation in the upcoming EU and local elections?

Justice?

This Is London report that:

"Major shopping centres such as Westfield in White City are to get “cyber courts” to hand out instant justice to petty offenders such as shoplifters.

Police are in talks about setting up “virtual” courtrooms where offenders will be sentenced via video links to magistrates. The plan was revealed today as Justice Secretary Jack Straw opened London's first such scheme at Camberwell Green magistrates' court.

Mr Straw said: “Virtual courts have the potential to transform how the justice system deals with crimes.”

The Camberwell court is linked to Charing Cross police station and has already dealt with two drink-driving cases while the system was being tested last week. One driver pleaded guilty at a police station and was sentenced less than four hours after he was caught.

Eventually the scheme is designed to save £10 million a year in courtroom administration and prison transport costs. Over the summer 14 police stations across London will be linked to the system, handling an estimated 15,000 cases a year.

For anyone accused of an offence, taking part in the pilot scheme is voluntary. Defendants could also be bailed or remanded in custody at the courts if they are suspected of a more serious offence.

Senior police sources say they are examining the possibility of extending the scheme to shopping centres which deal with a high volume of petty offenders. Critics of the plan say it could limit the ability of defence lawyers to put together a strong case and undermine the gravitas of the judicial process by making it appear like a reality TV game.

But Mr Straw said the courts “are vital in the Government's drive to deliver swift justice — resolving cases faster, freeing up police time and improving the service given to victims, witnesses and defendants”.

He added: “Although at an early stage, this pilot helps the courts, police, prosecutors, defence lawyers and the judiciary work better together to deliver quicker and more effective justice without any loss of quality.

“The faster we get justice done, the more we improve public confidence in the criminal justice system as whole.”

If successful, the London pilot could save £2.2 million a year. Other police stations taking part include Brixton, Kennington, Streatham, Peckham, Walworth, Lewisham, Plumstead, Bromley, Croydon, South Norwood, Sutton, Paddington Green, Belgravia and Bexleyheath."

15 years ago if somebody had told you this was going to happen you'd have laughed wouldn't you? Now do you see what 12 years of Labour misrule have done to this Country?

HMRC step in

The Labour Ministers who claimed the cost of their accountancy/taxation advice on expenses may have a problem. It seems that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have declared that:

"It’s a general principle of tax law that accountancy fees incurred in connection with the completion of a personal tax return are not deductible.

...

This is because the costs of complying with the law are not an allowable expense against tax. This rule applies across the board."

Quite clear but maybe MPs thought they had an exemption? Nice try but HMRC issued a guide to all MPs in 2005 "MPs, Ministers and tax" which gave specific guidance to MPs and Ministers and prohibited such tax- free claims, which accountants say constitute a "benefit in kind" and should be taxed. The booklet states very clearly that: "accountancy fees incurred in the preparation of the self assessment tax return or related expense claims... not allowed" as tax expenses.

It is rumoured that HMRC are looking to launch investigations into the tax affairs of some Labour Ministers.


As an aside; when I awoke this morning to hear nothing on the Today programme about the Telegraph's expenses story I assumed that today must be a bad day for Labour. I was right... In fact it seems that I missed the whole three minutes the Today programme allocated to the story at 07:12

"Revenue officials are investigating whether MPs have broken the law by not paying tax after claiming personal accounting costs on expenses, the BBC understands. David Gardner, a former assistant general secretary of the Labour Party, discusses a Labour committee set up to look into the expenses scandal. "

Slightly less emphasis than the Today programme have used on moats etc.

Sonia Sotomayor misspeaks

"the court of appeals is where policy is made"

Can Barack Obama not make one just one decent appointment?

"The central deceit behind Budget 2009"

Fraser Nelson explodes the deceit at the heart of Alistair Darling/Gordon Brown's 2009 budget:

"The central deceit behind Budget 2009 – Alistair Darling’s trampoline recovery theory – is steadily crumbling. CoffeeHousers will remember the scam. He pretends that Britain will, from April 2011, enjoy three years of turbo-charged growth averaging 3.5 per cent a year, hence justifying his pre-election splurge. It was, in my view, an extraordinary moment – where the Treasury didn’t even pretend to be operating within the parameters of the possible."

Do read the rest of Fraser Nelson's piece and the transcript of the Treasury briefing.

The more I think about it the more I think that my comment from November 2007 that

"This government and its advisers are rapidly losing the plot, maybe they realise that their time in power is coming to an end and they are now pursuing a scorched earth policy."

might be rather accurate. It seems that Gordon Brown and his cabal are quite prepared to drive the UK economy and society into dust so as to make the Conservatives' job as hard as possible, in the hope of re-election in 2015.

In July 2008 Fraser Nelson wrote that:

"The Scorched Earth policy has begun... In the vernacular, Brown has realised that if the Tories win the next election the he is now spending with Cameron’s Gold Card – every by-election bribe, every union sellout will be funded by borrowing with the bill sent to D. Cameron Esq. Cameron will have to tax us to pay for what Brown is today spending.

...

My take is that Brown doesn’t care, not any more. Like a retreating army, he doesn’t want the advancing Cameroons to have any advantage at all.

...

Brown, however, is on a mission to raise state spending - and, right now, it looks likely to be a Tory government that pays tomorrow for the money he borrows today. It is impossible to understand Gordon Brown without understanding his approach to debt. It is his weapon of choice, and if he loses the next election he can right now start turning that weapon on the Tories. So he will have to feast on humble pie, and his own words, as he tears up his rules and lets debt soar above 40%. Yes, he may lose the election. But he has realised one upside to this inevitability: he can start spending David Cameron's budget now."

At the time I commented that:

"...when times are tough, any sensible person looks at their income and spending and adjusts them until there is a small surplus or at least balance. The alternative is to run up short term debt which is not a sensible long term solution. The trouble is that Gordon Brown now realises that one way or another he isn't going to be around in the political long term. So why not spend, spend, spend and let those two "toffs" David Cameron and George Osborne take the flak for having to cut public spending and increase taxation. It's a cynical strategy but then Gordon Brown is a deeply cynical politician. Gordon Brown's whole political career since the death of John Smith has been about what is best for Gordon Brown, he doesn't really care about the United Kingdom except as that links up to his future. Gordon was prudent only for a short time, but long enough to persuade the easily suggestible in Fleet Street and the rest of the media that he was "prudence" incarnate. Gordon Brown then went on a spending spree that has probably screwed the economy for the foreseeable future; however thanks to his friends at the BBC, blame for the necessary rises in taxation and cuts in public spending will be laid at the feet of the 2010-2014 Conservative government. If the policy wasn't quite so cynically deceitful you might even grudgingly admire it.

In a fair world Gordon Brown would be made to pay for his deception and destruction, but this is not a fair world. Gordon Brown will retire on his fat publicly funded pension to live a life of some luxury whilst we, the poor shmucks who funded his wastefulness, will suffer the economic consequences of his cynical decisions.

There has been much press about the opposition to a state funeral being given to Lady Margaret Thatcher. However I think it fair to say that there will no support for a state funeral for Gordon Brown when he dies. I for one hope that when he does die; it is painful, humiliating and public. "

I sense that the UK population may be nearing the point where they fling open their windows and shout "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more" More on that tomorrow... In the meantime here's that extract:

Our rulers

Peter Oborne from 2007 on the people that rule over us. A great read, I think it should be made compulsory reading...

The rise of the UK's very own Stasi State

The news that:

"A growing army of private security guards and town hall snoopers with sweeping police-style powers is being quietly established, the Daily Mail can reveal.

Under a Home Office-run scheme, people such as park wardens, dog wardens, car park attendants and shopping centre guards receive the powers if they undergo training, and pay a small fee to their local police force.

Their powers include issuing £60 fines for truancy and dropping litter, and being able to demand a person's name and address on the street.

Under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, the number of civilians wearing a special badge, and a uniform approved by the local chief constable, has rocketed by almost 30 per cent in a year and there are now 1,406.

Critics claim Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is quietly seeking to create a third-tier within the 'policing family', with even less training and accountability than the controversial Police Community Support Officers. "

What is Labour's end game? A CCTV camera in every room of every house? Each citizen implanted with a GPS tracking device? Checkpoints every few hundred yard metres where citizens' ID can be checked and DNA samples taken? This Labour government really scare me, I think they are capable of almost anything as they try to keep their hands on power. The idea that a UK Government might postpone a General Election would have seemed incredible 10 years ago, now it is common currency.

Could this be the useful wrinkle for the Conservatives on the Lisbon Treaty referendum

There has been some discussion as to how David Cameron's Conservatives will be able to call a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if the Irish vote for the Treaty in their October re-vote. So it was with some interest that I read this BBC article. The article is mostly full of the usual EU nonsense, "18 virtual MPs" etc. but then I read this

"The Lisbon Treaty's progress is further complicated by the fact that legal "guarantees" for Ireland, covering sovereignty, neutrality and some social issues such as abortion, are being bolted onto the treaty. This extra text then also has to be ratified by all member states. "

Does that mean that every EU "member state" has to re-ratify the Treaty and if so could that be the reason to give the UK electorate the referendum that Labour promised but failed to deliver?

Richard Littlejohn on the real expenses scandal

Richard Littlejohn has Alistair Darling in his sights...

"We're talking here about the Chancellor of the Exchequer not just claiming back his stamp duty but charging the taxpayer for an accountant to advise him how to avoid paying tax on his ill-gotten gains.

If this story had come out in isolation, Darling would not only have been forced to resign, the Old Bill would be beating a path to his door.

Think about it for a moment. The man responsible for hiking taxes is using public money to buy the best advice on how not to pay those very same taxes himself.

He has also lied about where he lives to claim the maximum amount in expenses. Darling flipped his address not just once, but four times. One of the flats in question was passed like a tray of biscuits from Gordon Brown to Darling via a dodgy peer called Moonie, last seen being investigated as part of the cash-for-influence scandal. "