I blogged recently that if the EU Treaty is agreed then Heads of Government when sitting as "The European Council" are required to owe their primary loyalty must be to the Union and as such their primary aim will be to "promote its values, advance its interests, its objectives, serve its interests."
Now I read at English Democrats that Gordon Brown was one of the Scottish MPs who in 1989 signed the "Scottish Claim of Right". This stated (my emphasis) that ""We, gathered as the
Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign
right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount. We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends: To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland; To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure the implementation of that scheme."
For a man who has made such a big play of his Britishness this pledge should raise eyebrows.
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Taken out of context?
There was a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary a while back called "Undercover Mosque" which showed several Muslim preachers using rather inflammatory language. You can watch the documentary on You Tube from this page, either in bits or as one piece.
The West Midlands Police investigated the preachers but the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was no case to answer by the preachers and to instead report Channel 4 to Ofcom over the way the programme was edited. This is clearly a sensitive subject, so before I comment I think you should watch the original programme
The BBC article on this matter can be read here.
Also please watch the Channel 4 news coverage of this affair yesterday, here and here.
Now think carefully about what you have watched and read and now give your considered comments on this blog.
The West Midlands Police investigated the preachers but the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was no case to answer by the preachers and to instead report Channel 4 to Ofcom over the way the programme was edited. This is clearly a sensitive subject, so before I comment I think you should watch the original programme
The BBC article on this matter can be read here.
Also please watch the Channel 4 news coverage of this affair yesterday, here and here.
Now think carefully about what you have watched and read and now give your considered comments on this blog.
European Constitution to European Reform Treaty
The Treaty had the cumbersome working title "Draft Treaty Amending The Treaty On European Union And The Treaty Establishing The European Community" - but it will most likely be called "Reform Treaty," a term used by EU leaders in June.
The core of the text has 145 pages, accompanied by 132 pages of protocols and declarations. There are a total of 12 protocols and 51 declarations.
The rejected Constitution had 475 pages of text, but this document was intended to replace all EU Treaties from the past. The newly-proposed Reform Treaty merely amends the existing Maastricht and Rome Treaties, which will legally continue to exist under different names.
Think of the Constitution and Treaty as equations, don't worry this will make sense. Let us assume that the old treaties are T1, T2, T3, T4 etc. and the Constitution is C, if the new treaty is Tz and the minor differences are D. We can see that:
T1..x+Tz=C-D
According to various European bigwigs T1..x+Tz=C-D=C*0.90 or T1..x+Tz=C-D=C*0.95 or even T1..x+Tz=C-D=C*0.99
Come on Gordon, I remember you recently said "I did maths at school and for one year at university but I don’t think I was ever very good at it - and some people would say it shows," , However this was back when you must have learnt something at school, so what would your formula be? One of your MPs recently commented in a letter to a constituent that the Treaty and Constitution were as different as "Fish and Fowl", what do you say?
The core of the text has 145 pages, accompanied by 132 pages of protocols and declarations. There are a total of 12 protocols and 51 declarations.
The rejected Constitution had 475 pages of text, but this document was intended to replace all EU Treaties from the past. The newly-proposed Reform Treaty merely amends the existing Maastricht and Rome Treaties, which will legally continue to exist under different names.
Think of the Constitution and Treaty as equations, don't worry this will make sense. Let us assume that the old treaties are T1, T2, T3, T4 etc. and the Constitution is C, if the new treaty is Tz and the minor differences are D. We can see that:
T1..x+Tz=C-D
According to various European bigwigs T1..x+Tz=C-D=C*0.90 or T1..x+Tz=C-D=C*0.95 or even T1..x+Tz=C-D=C*0.99
Come on Gordon, I remember you recently said "I did maths at school and for one year at university but I don’t think I was ever very good at it - and some people would say it shows," , However this was back when you must have learnt something at school, so what would your formula be? One of your MPs recently commented in a letter to a constituent that the Treaty and Constitution were as different as "Fish and Fowl", what do you say?
European Constitution / Treaty - more comments
The quotes from EU movers and shakers regarding the Treaty and its similarities to the Constitution are becoming more numerous, here are two that I have not quoted before:
Miguel Angel Moratinis, the Spanish Foreign Minister - "The wrapping has been changed, but not the content"
Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach - "Thankfully they haven't changed the substance - 90% is still there"
Come on Gordon, your response to these comments, from your European buddies, would be welcome.
Miguel Angel Moratinis, the Spanish Foreign Minister - "The wrapping has been changed, but not the content"
Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach - "Thankfully they haven't changed the substance - 90% is still there"
Come on Gordon, your response to these comments, from your European buddies, would be welcome.
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
BBC job 'influenced' by Ministers
A staggering story in The Guardian today, staggering as in is it that surprising that this corrupt government puts its own supporters in positions of power and influence. Read the article and wonder at how brazen this Labour government are. Here is the text of the Press Association article from the Guardian:
"Government ministers were given too much opportunity to influence the selection process behind the appointment of BBC chairman Sir Michael Lyons, an all-party select committee has said.
The former market trader turned council chief's links with Gordon Brown, who was Chancellor at the time, sparked accusations of cronyism when he was appointed to the corporation.
Union bosses said they were "puzzled" that someone with little broadcasting experience had been selected for the £140,000-a-year post.
The House of Lords committee criticised the way the chairman was appointed, saying it gave "considerable opportunity" for Government ministers to influence the decision.
"Ministers appointed the selection panel, ministers were allowed to change the shortlist of candidates and ultimately ministers were able to choose between four candidates who passed the interview process," it said.
Referring to the row between the BBC and the Government following the death of Dr David Kelly, communications committee chairman Lord Fowler said: "The independence of the BBC is of paramount importance to its viewers and listeners. Recent history shows that it is possible for the Government of the day to come into conflict with the BBC.
"Yet Government ministers have considerable powers over the selection of the chairman of the BBC."
Before getting the BBC job, Sir Michael carried out three jobs for Mr Brown, including a review of the council tax system, which was shelved.
When Mr Lyons's name was announced in April, critics said appointing the chairman behind closed doors, when Parliament was in recess, had fuelled suspicions of cronyism.
Mr Lyons himself dismissed the allegations, pledging "absolute independence and impartiality"."
"Government ministers were given too much opportunity to influence the selection process behind the appointment of BBC chairman Sir Michael Lyons, an all-party select committee has said.
The former market trader turned council chief's links with Gordon Brown, who was Chancellor at the time, sparked accusations of cronyism when he was appointed to the corporation.
Union bosses said they were "puzzled" that someone with little broadcasting experience had been selected for the £140,000-a-year post.
The House of Lords committee criticised the way the chairman was appointed, saying it gave "considerable opportunity" for Government ministers to influence the decision.
"Ministers appointed the selection panel, ministers were allowed to change the shortlist of candidates and ultimately ministers were able to choose between four candidates who passed the interview process," it said.
Referring to the row between the BBC and the Government following the death of Dr David Kelly, communications committee chairman Lord Fowler said: "The independence of the BBC is of paramount importance to its viewers and listeners. Recent history shows that it is possible for the Government of the day to come into conflict with the BBC.
"Yet Government ministers have considerable powers over the selection of the chairman of the BBC."
Before getting the BBC job, Sir Michael carried out three jobs for Mr Brown, including a review of the council tax system, which was shelved.
When Mr Lyons's name was announced in April, critics said appointing the chairman behind closed doors, when Parliament was in recess, had fuelled suspicions of cronyism.
Mr Lyons himself dismissed the allegations, pledging "absolute independence and impartiality"."
The BBC, Labour MPs and Boris with added BBC revelation
I blogged recently about how the BBC covered the story that two black Labour MPs were condemning Boris Johnson's candidacy for London Mayor. The headline was "Black MPs spurn Boris mayoral bid" with the first line of the article reading "Conservative MP Boris Johnson's bid to become London mayor has been condemned by black MPs." Much fuss ensued, online at www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com and elsewhere. Almost three days later the BBC changed the headline to "Labour MPs spurn Boris mayor bid" and the first line of the article to "Conservative MP Boris Johnson's bid to become London mayor has been condemned by two Labour MPs." The BBC I am sure think this is fair and answers the criticisms that were made of them in the first place, I and others are not so sure. As "bodo" commented on the Biased-BBC blog forum "The BBC have changed the headline now, but it's too late, the story has been successfully spun, and somewhere a Labour party press officer will be sniggering at what they regard as a job well done. For three days the BBC colluded with the Labour Party in a nasty little piece of racial politics, and to change the headline now when the story is gone and forgotten is meaningless." He/she is correct and this is typical of the BBC, an organisation whose bias is so obvious it is laughable.
Interestingly I read in yesterday's Evening Standard that the BBC's plans to send 16,500 staff on honesty courses are in chaos as many have vowed not to attend. Many BBC staff see themselves as at the forefront of a liberal Cultural revolution - as Andrew Marr said in 2006 "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias".
UPDATE:
Another comment from Biased-BBC that I just had to repeat here, it's from "Anonanon" and reads :
"Labour MPs spurn Boris mayor bid"
"Catholics spurn non-Catholic Pope suggestion"
"Bears spurn indoor toilets, prefer wooded areas"
Excellent...
Interestingly I read in yesterday's Evening Standard that the BBC's plans to send 16,500 staff on honesty courses are in chaos as many have vowed not to attend. Many BBC staff see themselves as at the forefront of a liberal Cultural revolution - as Andrew Marr said in 2006 "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias".
UPDATE:
Another comment from Biased-BBC that I just had to repeat here, it's from "Anonanon" and reads :
"Labour MPs spurn Boris mayor bid"
"Catholics spurn non-Catholic Pope suggestion"
"Bears spurn indoor toilets, prefer wooded areas"
Excellent...
UN Security Council seat
The EU wants our Security Council seat and Lord Malloch-Brown wants to give it to them. Lord Malloch-Brown is Gordon Brown's "Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN attending Cabinet" and is renowned as being anti the current US government if not the US in general. He stated recently regarding the UK's seat on the UN Security Council that "I think it will go in stages. We are going to see a growing spread of it institution by institution," and that he hoped it would happen "as quickly as possible. I'm a huge fan of it.". This is the man who thinks we should be more independent of the US, obviously he's happy for us to become less independent of Europe, why the double standard?
Anyone who believed that Gordon Brown was less in favour of closer integration with Europe than Tony Blair must be a trifle confused now.
Anyone who believed that Gordon Brown was less in favour of closer integration with Europe than Tony Blair must be a trifle confused now.
European Constitution - from the horses mouth
Gisela Stauart was a Labour government representative on the EU group that drew up the EU Constitution so she knows what is what regarding this matter. She says that it is clear from the text of the Treaty that the European Council, see my earlier article, will get massively increased powers and that it will be the body that used to meet "in order to co-ordinate the interest of the nation states" will now become "the body where heads of state meet... subordinate to the union's interests". She claimed that ministers (which must include the Prime Minister) are either being "deliberately disingenuous or ill-informed" when they claim the treaty is not substantial enough to merit a referendum.
A rare show of independence of thought from a Labour MP, I wish there were more like her.
A rare show of independence of thought from a Labour MP, I wish there were more like her.
European Constitution - an update
More has emerged regarding the EU Treaty since my last post on the matter. That ost was following PMQs when Gordon Brown just ignored David Cameron's questions about what percentagw of the Constitution he felt was in the Treaty, preferring to bang on about David Cameron returning to the "old agenda". Unfortunately Parliament is in recess at the moment so there are no PMQs for quite a while, it would be interesting to see how Gordon Brown would react to the following.
The European Council (not the Council of Europe) is the body that meets at what the press call "summits". It is comprised of the Head of Government of each of the EU member countries (or their representative) and has been the place where much debate over EU budget and structure has taken place over the years. The European Council was one of Jean Monnet's ideas, he being one of the French architects of the European project in the 1970s. His idea was that the European Council be the "provisional government of Europe". However, as the European Council was a forum for the individual government heads it fell outside of the EU structure. June's meeting of this body when they adopted the Treaty decided that the European Council become an "institution of the Union". If you examine the various parts of the Treaty that pertain to this European Council then you discover the following:
1. Presiding of meetings, instead of the host Head of Government as previously, will be a new President of Europe (serving a five year term), also present will be the High Representative (the new title for European Foreign Minister)
2. The Heads of Governments have previously been at these meetings to represent their own governments. Following implementation of the Treaty and the body becoming a "Union institution" their first loyalty must be to the Union and as such their primary aim will be to "promote its values, advance its interests, its objectives, serve its interests."
If you look at those parts of the Treaty that set out the "objectives of the Union" you will see how far they extend so as to encompass most of European life including foreign policy, defence policy, economic policy and taxation. Even more worrying is the clause that allows the EU to take any further powers that it sees fit (but that are not specifically authorised to do by the Treaty) so long as the new power is in accordance with the "objectives of the Union".
This Treaty is a takeover of the individual countries of the EU by the EU and is as big a transfer of powers as was envisaged by the EU Constitution - there must be a referendum.
The European Council (not the Council of Europe) is the body that meets at what the press call "summits". It is comprised of the Head of Government of each of the EU member countries (or their representative) and has been the place where much debate over EU budget and structure has taken place over the years. The European Council was one of Jean Monnet's ideas, he being one of the French architects of the European project in the 1970s. His idea was that the European Council be the "provisional government of Europe". However, as the European Council was a forum for the individual government heads it fell outside of the EU structure. June's meeting of this body when they adopted the Treaty decided that the European Council become an "institution of the Union". If you examine the various parts of the Treaty that pertain to this European Council then you discover the following:
1. Presiding of meetings, instead of the host Head of Government as previously, will be a new President of Europe (serving a five year term), also present will be the High Representative (the new title for European Foreign Minister)
2. The Heads of Governments have previously been at these meetings to represent their own governments. Following implementation of the Treaty and the body becoming a "Union institution" their first loyalty must be to the Union and as such their primary aim will be to "promote its values, advance its interests, its objectives, serve its interests."
If you look at those parts of the Treaty that set out the "objectives of the Union" you will see how far they extend so as to encompass most of European life including foreign policy, defence policy, economic policy and taxation. Even more worrying is the clause that allows the EU to take any further powers that it sees fit (but that are not specifically authorised to do by the Treaty) so long as the new power is in accordance with the "objectives of the Union".
This Treaty is a takeover of the individual countries of the EU by the EU and is as big a transfer of powers as was envisaged by the EU Constitution - there must be a referendum.
Monday, 6 August 2007
Shock horror - 2 Labour MPs don't support a Conservative
Here's my post on Biased-BBC from 14:12 today when I read that two London Labour MPs were condemning a Conservative Mayoral candidate.
NotaSheep:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6931359.stm - "Conservative MP Boris Johnson's bid to become London mayor has been condemned by black MPs.
Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott, Labour MPs for Brent South and Hackney North respectively, said his views on race harked back to the 1950s." Surely the pertinent word in that passage is not "black" but "Labour.
As a postscript to this I also really detest the way that the left try to shut down any argument by using the word, or the insinuation of, racist.
You can read more about this matter here and at Iain Dale's Diary: Andrew Gilligan on Doreen Lawrence
NotaSheep:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6931359.stm - "Conservative MP Boris Johnson's bid to become London mayor has been condemned by black MPs.
Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott, Labour MPs for Brent South and Hackney North respectively, said his views on race harked back to the 1950s." Surely the pertinent word in that passage is not "black" but "Labour.
As a postscript to this I also really detest the way that the left try to shut down any argument by using the word, or the insinuation of, racist.
You can read more about this matter here and at Iain Dale's Diary: Andrew Gilligan on Doreen Lawrence
Emissions Influenced Charging (EIC) in London
Further to my previous post about the Low Emission Zone, it would appear that the Sunday Times had got hold of slightly the wrong end of the stick with regard to Ken Livingstone's proposals. It would appear from the TFL website that the increased charges are only being proposed for using the existing Congestion Charging Zone not the whole LEZ. However, I predict that if Ken gets this increase through then it is only a matter of time before he tries to get some sort of charge for "gas guzzling" "most polluting cars" driving within the whole LEZ.
It should be noted that just eight days after the congestion charge started, on 25 February 2003, Ken Livingstone stated "I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps ten years down the line it may be necessary". Of course, by November 2004, Livingstone directly contradicted his earlier stance and said in an interview with BBC London, "I have always said that during this term it will go up to at least £6." Of course, Ken "consistency" Livingstone changed his story again by the end of that month saying in an announcement that in fact the rise would be to £8 for private vehicles; the rise to £8 was announced formally on 1 April 2005. That must be enough rises; don't be daft Ken "I hate cars, if I ever get any power again I'd ban the lot" Livingstone in a live TV debate on 10 May 2006 supported a rise in the charge to £10 by 2008. That would be a doubling of the charge (a 100% increase) in five and a half years.
Oddly enough Ken when the Congestion Charging scheme was originally proposed the £5 charge was predicted not to have to increase. Interestingly when the charge was increased to £8, "The Mayor stated that whilst confirming the proposed increase to £8, it is his intention that there will be no further increases in the congestion charge during this current mayoral term, which runs until May 2008." With the caveat that "The Mayor's Transport Strategy stated that the (congestion) charge (including discounts and exemptions) would be kept under review in order to identify whether any adjustments were needed to maintain the objective of reducing traffic congestion or to respond to changes in circumstances."
It should be noted that just eight days after the congestion charge started, on 25 February 2003, Ken Livingstone stated "I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps ten years down the line it may be necessary". Of course, by November 2004, Livingstone directly contradicted his earlier stance and said in an interview with BBC London, "I have always said that during this term it will go up to at least £6." Of course, Ken "consistency" Livingstone changed his story again by the end of that month saying in an announcement that in fact the rise would be to £8 for private vehicles; the rise to £8 was announced formally on 1 April 2005. That must be enough rises; don't be daft Ken "I hate cars, if I ever get any power again I'd ban the lot" Livingstone in a live TV debate on 10 May 2006 supported a rise in the charge to £10 by 2008. That would be a doubling of the charge (a 100% increase) in five and a half years.
Oddly enough Ken when the Congestion Charging scheme was originally proposed the £5 charge was predicted not to have to increase. Interestingly when the charge was increased to £8, "The Mayor stated that whilst confirming the proposed increase to £8, it is his intention that there will be no further increases in the congestion charge during this current mayoral term, which runs until May 2008." With the caveat that "The Mayor's Transport Strategy stated that the (congestion) charge (including discounts and exemptions) would be kept under review in order to identify whether any adjustments were needed to maintain the objective of reducing traffic congestion or to respond to changes in circumstances."
I am a very angry NotaSheep today
More EU crap and the LEZ revelations have left me fuming. When I can calm down I will post some more articles but in the meantime - WHAT THE F**K IS GOING ON, WHY ARE WE SO COMPLIANT, I AM REALLY P****D OFF
Sunday, 5 August 2007
Gordon Brown - spinning round (part 2)
I blogged recently about how Gordon Brown's spin fest was out of control. Today I see that Iain Dale's Diary: Brown's Spin & The Small Print has a very detailed document showing how much Gordon Brown has lied spun over the past month. Take a read of it and if you get the opportunity raise one or more items with your MP, your MEP or any passing journalist. I confidently predict that this list will get zero publicity on the BBC as they continue to promote Gordon Brown as the new Messiah, when he is in reality "a very naughty boy".
I will cover some of these items in more detail soon, but for now going to the The Simpsons movie takes priority...
I will cover some of these items in more detail soon, but for now going to the The Simpsons movie takes priority...
Identified Cameras (pt 2) - London's Low Emissions Zone and/or Increase in the Congestion Charge
Ken, Ken, Ken, it would appear that the cameras I queried and then identified here are part of the Low Emissions Zone but that zone will not apply just to HGVs as originally and until recently claimed, it will also according to today's Sunday Times apply to non "low emitting" cars as well. Low emitting cars will pay nothing to enter London, middling emitting cars will be charged £8 a day and high emitting cars £25 a day. As yet there is no definition as to what "entering London" means, but from the location of the cameras that have been reported here and elsewhere I would predict that "entering London" will mean driving on any of the A roads or motorways (inside the M25) that encircle London. So that will be £25 to drive 10 miles around the North Circular every day, a 20 minute drive. The alternative will be to spend over an hour on public transport at £4 or so a day. Full details will be announced this week but the LEZ will be introduced in February 2008.
Back in 1989 I seem to remember Ken Livingstone being quoted as saying something along the lines of: "I hate cars, if I ever get any power again I'd ban the lot". It looks as though this is yet another part of this plan that has so far included the introduction of cycle lanes and changing the phasing of traffic lights in central London to increase congestion so as to "justify" the introduction of the congestion charge zone and then the extension of the zone to Kensington & Chelsea despite a consultation coming out against this. Let's see if Boris can get off his famous cycling posterior and use the introduction of this money grabbing and anti-car measure as part of his campaign for London Mayor.
Puzzlingly the TFL website still describes the LEZ thus "The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone has confirmed his plans to introduce a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) across London... The aim of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) is to improve air quality in London by deterring the most polluting vehicles from being driven in the area. The vehicles affected are older diesel-engined lorries, buses, coaches, large vans, minibuses and other heavy vehicles that are derived from lorries and vans such as motor caravans and motorised horse boxes." No mention of cars there... Indeed a footer on this page says "Cars, motorcycles and small vans are not included in the LEZ. " What is the actual truth here? Elsewhere the TFL website says "All roads, including certain motorways within the LEZ boundary are included within the Zone. The M25 motorway is not included in the LEZ even where it passes within the boundary." that fits in with my thoughts above.
This page includes the caveat "There will be a phased introduction of the LEZ from 4 February 2008 through to January 2012...Different vehicles will be affected over time and increasingly tougher emissions standards will apply ...The vehicles affected by the LEZ, the relevant emissions standards and the date on which standards come into effect are outlined in Emissions standards" My bet would be that Ken is about to announce the extension of the scope of the LEZ to include all vehicles, contrary to what the published information stated and still states. We Londoners will be charged for driving on any main road in London. The law of unintended consequences dictates that traffic on roads that don't have the LEZ cameras on will suffer increased traffic and pollution levels.
There is much confusion today about this scheme: will it include the whole LEZ area (virtually everything within the M25) or just the Congestion Charge Area? Will the Congestion Charge Area be extended again? Will Ken get away with yet another tax on the motor car? Will Ken listen to reason? Sorry, that last one has an obvious "No" as the answer.
Back in 1989 I seem to remember Ken Livingstone being quoted as saying something along the lines of: "I hate cars, if I ever get any power again I'd ban the lot". It looks as though this is yet another part of this plan that has so far included the introduction of cycle lanes and changing the phasing of traffic lights in central London to increase congestion so as to "justify" the introduction of the congestion charge zone and then the extension of the zone to Kensington & Chelsea despite a consultation coming out against this. Let's see if Boris can get off his famous cycling posterior and use the introduction of this money grabbing and anti-car measure as part of his campaign for London Mayor.
Puzzlingly the TFL website still describes the LEZ thus "The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone has confirmed his plans to introduce a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) across London... The aim of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) is to improve air quality in London by deterring the most polluting vehicles from being driven in the area. The vehicles affected are older diesel-engined lorries, buses, coaches, large vans, minibuses and other heavy vehicles that are derived from lorries and vans such as motor caravans and motorised horse boxes." No mention of cars there... Indeed a footer on this page says "Cars, motorcycles and small vans are not included in the LEZ. " What is the actual truth here? Elsewhere the TFL website says "All roads, including certain motorways within the LEZ boundary are included within the Zone. The M25 motorway is not included in the LEZ even where it passes within the boundary." that fits in with my thoughts above.
This page includes the caveat "There will be a phased introduction of the LEZ from 4 February 2008 through to January 2012...Different vehicles will be affected over time and increasingly tougher emissions standards will apply ...The vehicles affected by the LEZ, the relevant emissions standards and the date on which standards come into effect are outlined in Emissions standards" My bet would be that Ken is about to announce the extension of the scope of the LEZ to include all vehicles, contrary to what the published information stated and still states. We Londoners will be charged for driving on any main road in London. The law of unintended consequences dictates that traffic on roads that don't have the LEZ cameras on will suffer increased traffic and pollution levels.
There is much confusion today about this scheme: will it include the whole LEZ area (virtually everything within the M25) or just the Congestion Charge Area? Will the Congestion Charge Area be extended again? Will Ken get away with yet another tax on the motor car? Will Ken listen to reason? Sorry, that last one has an obvious "No" as the answer.
Saturday, 4 August 2007
A brave musical?
The Edinburgh Festival includes a new musical called "Jihad the Musical". The satire about Islamic terrorism includes such classic tunes as "Building a bomb today, what does the manual say" and "I wanna be like Osama" which you can watch here. The production is billed as a "madcap gallop through the wacky world of international terrorism", It has of course sparked protests, including a petition on the Number 10 website asking the Prime Minister to condemn the musical. Tasteless and sick or brave satire, you decide?
Foot and Mouth disease
The last major outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 saw this Labour Government at its most inept. They managed to mishandle practically every aspect of the outbreak especially by refusing to allow vaccinations of livestock and culminating in the killing of many thousands of uninfected animals and their mass burial. At least Gordon can come back from a "normal family holiday" to get back in the saddle in Downing Street and take control of the outbreak. I wonder if Gordon will make as much of a mess of dealing with foot and mouth as Tony did. I also wonder if Gordon Brown will let Hilary Benn (in charge at DEFRA) make any decisions or does all power now reside at Number 10?
Friday, 3 August 2007
Reverse the Polarity
Thanks to rpfreeman on Outpost Gallifrey for this:
"I just saw on Economist.com an article about a new precision approach to radiotherapy that included the following "The dielectric-wall accelerator (DWA) that lies at the heart of Dr Mackie's machine was designed in the 1990s at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California as a portable X-ray source. At first, it was used to accelerate electrons rather than protons. Those electrons were crashed into a metal target to generate the high-energy X-rays that Livermore's physicists needed to peek inside ageing bombs and check that they were still in working order. All of which was fine and dandy for the weapons scientists, but not much use to anybody else. Fortunately Dennis Matthews, one of Livermore's more medically minded programme directors, realised that by changing the polarity of the machine it could be used to accelerate positively charged protons, rather than negatively charged electrons. He then teamed up with the cancer centre at the University of California, Davis, to investigate the possibility of using a DWA for proton therapy. "
Wonder where he got that idea?
The full article is http://www.economist.com/research/ar...y_id=953755 3 although I'm not sure if you ned a subscription to get to it."
If you don't watch Dr Who or rather didn't watch Dr Who in the 1970s and 1980s then please ignore this post!
"I just saw on Economist.com an article about a new precision approach to radiotherapy that included the following "The dielectric-wall accelerator (DWA) that lies at the heart of Dr Mackie's machine was designed in the 1990s at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California as a portable X-ray source. At first, it was used to accelerate electrons rather than protons. Those electrons were crashed into a metal target to generate the high-energy X-rays that Livermore's physicists needed to peek inside ageing bombs and check that they were still in working order. All of which was fine and dandy for the weapons scientists, but not much use to anybody else. Fortunately Dennis Matthews, one of Livermore's more medically minded programme directors, realised that by changing the polarity of the machine it could be used to accelerate positively charged protons, rather than negatively charged electrons. He then teamed up with the cancer centre at the University of California, Davis, to investigate the possibility of using a DWA for proton therapy. "
Wonder where he got that idea?
The full article is http://www.economist.com/research/ar...y_id=953755 3 although I'm not sure if you ned a subscription to get to it."
If you don't watch Dr Who or rather didn't watch Dr Who in the 1970s and 1980s then please ignore this post!
Watch this and have a think
If you don't know what this is in reference to then you are paying too much attention to the MSM and not enough to what is happening in the real world.
Poor Gordon, poor us
Gordon Brown has some very difficult decisions to make over the coming weeks. He really wants to get a mandate from the electorate but he is a very very cautious man; he is aware of the historical precedents when delaying holding an election in the UK but he really fears losing. Adding to his problems is the EU Constitution Treaty becoming a newsworthy story and the increasing calls for a referendum. If he calls an election soon enough then maybe he can have the election before the referendum calls become even louder, or perhaps he can do a Tony and promise a referendum to reduce the Conservative vote. Another problem is that the economy really does look as though it is about to go "belly up". First the housing market is poised to crash as repossessions rise and the warnings of more interest rate rises and calls to make sure you can afford the repayments before taking on a mortgage increase in stridency. Second, the sub-prime lending market in the USA is failing and the UK market seems doomed to follow. Third the world debt markets are tightening, $60bn of deals have been pulled in the last month from the corporate credit markets and $87bn has been wiped off the value of 10 of the world's largest corporate lending banks since January. More worryingly it is reported that banks in both the USA and Europe have been left with $500bn in leveraged loans that have been agreed but they cannot syndicate out. If this all unravels then the fallout could be very very messy for all of us in the UK. Fourth, the fall of the US economy is very close and when it happens Gordon Brown's decision to put so much of the UK reserves into US Treasuries over the last 12 months - UK investments have almost trebled from $55bn to $167bn - whilst other European countries have not followed suit and the Chinese look set to dump dollars. Looked at another way Gordon has "invested" $110bn in the US over the last year whilst the exchange rate has moved so far against the dollar, that could be around $2bn that he has lost us over 2007 so far. That can be added to the lost he made when he sold off much of the UK gold reserves in such an inept way.
I really think this could be the big one, the economy looks in a bad way and if Gordon's PFI fiddles finally have to be reported on the UK balance sheet due to changes in International Accounting Standards then the truth about "Prudence" will come out.
I said in 1992 that that was the election that the Conservative party didn't think it would win and secretly hoped it wouldn't as the ERM disaster beckoned. This time it might be best, if Gordon does call an election, for the Conservatives not to win it. A Conservative election victory followed by the economy collapsing would be blamed by the MSM on the incoming Conservative Government, unless the incoming administration really go to town over the fiddles they have discovered in the Treasury files and there will be a lot to discover. Maybe it would be better for the country for Labour under Gordon Brown to win with a reduced majority and for him to take all of the flack when the economy dives. The recovery will be even more painful than it was in the 1980's when a Conservative Government last had to pull the UK out of a Labour economic mess but at least everyone would know who to blame - Gordon "Prudence" Brown.
So as you enjoy the warm weather this weekend, spare a thought for Gordon in Dorset. He has a lot to think about, I hope he's packed a teddy to cuddle for comfort.
I really think this could be the big one, the economy looks in a bad way and if Gordon's PFI fiddles finally have to be reported on the UK balance sheet due to changes in International Accounting Standards then the truth about "Prudence" will come out.
I said in 1992 that that was the election that the Conservative party didn't think it would win and secretly hoped it wouldn't as the ERM disaster beckoned. This time it might be best, if Gordon does call an election, for the Conservatives not to win it. A Conservative election victory followed by the economy collapsing would be blamed by the MSM on the incoming Conservative Government, unless the incoming administration really go to town over the fiddles they have discovered in the Treasury files and there will be a lot to discover. Maybe it would be better for the country for Labour under Gordon Brown to win with a reduced majority and for him to take all of the flack when the economy dives. The recovery will be even more painful than it was in the 1980's when a Conservative Government last had to pull the UK out of a Labour economic mess but at least everyone would know who to blame - Gordon "Prudence" Brown.
So as you enjoy the warm weather this weekend, spare a thought for Gordon in Dorset. He has a lot to think about, I hope he's packed a teddy to cuddle for comfort.
The "streamlined planning process"
I am sure that you are aware that this ever more controlling Labour Government have published plans to streamline the planning process in England. The needs of businesses will be put above those of local residents. The perceived need for fighting Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) by building ridiculously inefficient wind farms wherever someone wants to will override any local protests. If you want to see what is being planned and fight against the ever rising tide of buildings then visit the Planning Disaster web site. This website is a Google Map containing all of the 100 or so major new developments that could be forced through if the planned planning laws come into force. Why not write to your MP regarding the matter, use They work for you to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
