They start so young...

The Mail reports that:

'Six pupils have been excluded from school for making death threats to a classmate on Facebook after he admitted supporting British troops.

Five Muslim boys and one white girl, all aged 12, have been disciplined following the incident.

The yobs threatened to attack attack terrified Darius Gill, 13, with knuckle dusters and knives in revenge for not supporting Islamic extremists.

The chilling threats came hours after Darius - whose father is Asian - posted a touching tribute to the thousands of squaddies who have lost their lives defending Britain.

But a gang of pupils expressed outrage at Darius' patriotism.

One message - littered with spelling mistakes - said: 'Fight on Monday gonna be heavy knuckle dusters nd knifes hopefully I don't die.'

His friend added: 'ill bang him ma slef am a terrorist.' One of the thugs also posted a chilling picture of himself holding a rifle.

Shockingly, other pupils - who have set up a Muslim Defence League which celebrates British deaths in Afghanistan - also added comments condemning Daruis.'

So what sort of people will these proto-thugs turn into? Doesn't the future look rosy?

What has happened to this country?

Please read the always excellent Anna Raccoon's piece about Sheila Martin and despair at what England has become. Here's an extract:

'Today, Sheila is once more fragile; she is 70 years old and was widowed 30 years ago. She tells me she has survived five heart attacks; she suffers from asthma, angina and high blood pressure. She only smokes the occasional cigarette these days, partly for health reasons, partly because her minimal state pension doesn’t stretch to any more.

...

In common with other ‘Smokers’ who may not like the new laws prohibiting them from smoking where others may be offended by the practice, she respected the law of the land, and complied. She is no campaigner against such laws.

Thus it was that she found herself standing at a bus stop, waiting for the bus which would take her home, and taking the opportunity to smoke a cigarette in the open air – there was no bus shelter.

...


She only smoked half the cigarette; as the time drew close for the bus to arrive, she ‘nibbed’ the cigarette, letting the lit end fall to the ground, and thriftily stowing the other half of the cigarette in her handbag for a later occasion. It was her last cigarette until pension day.

Two of Sandwell’s famed ‘enforcement wardens’ approached her – a man and a woman. They told her that they were issuing a ‘Fixed Penalty Fine’ of £75 under Section 87 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by Section 18 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This mouthful of gobblygook was lost on Sheila; she had no idea what she had done wrong and put the piece of paper in her pocket.

...

On Friday, the threatening ‘Final Demand’ from Sandwell Council, warning her that she now faces a £2,500 fine plus costs (and possible imprisonment if she does not pay that) expired. The next opportunity for Mrs Martin to contest this matter will come in ‘some months time’ – the council cannot tell me when her case will arrive at the top of their back log of cases to appear in the Magistrates court.'

Do read the whole of Anna Raccoon's piece and get angry and then be reassured by the news that Sheila Martin's legal defence is being taken care of. But then take a read of The Metropolitan Borough council of Sandwell's Wardens Enforcement Policy document. 15 pages of 'Good Enforcement Practice', reference to The Human Rights Act, Equal Opportunities,
Service Standards' and the rest of the usual language of the town hall apparatchik. Here's a few excerpts from this document, so you can get a flavour of the bollocks that local government officers promulgate and speak with such ease as they persecute the easy prey whilst letting real criminals get away with much worse:

'The Council has adopted the Cabinet Office’s “Enforcement Concordat” which offers best practice guidance and promotes good standards of enforcement.'

'The policy is a generic policy intended to apply to all service areas, but it must be recognised that there will be service specific requirements which apply to specific enforcement activity relevant only to that service area, e.g. health and safety, trading standards. This policy deals with the Sandwell Warden scheme.'

'Enforcement action, by the use of fixed penalty notices, penalty notices for disorder, but including prosecution where appropriate, will be taken against those who deliberately or recklessly flout the law.' - Was Sheila Martin reckless or deliberately flouting the law?

'2.5.4
This policy should be read in conjunction with the Wardens Standard Operating Procedures, which provides details of the way in which the Warden Service will operate.
2.5.5
Due regard will also be taken of the following advice and guidance:
o The Code for Crown Prosecutors
o Home Office Police Operational Guidance for issuing Penalty Notices for Disorder to persons 18yrs and over
o The use of Penalty Notices for Disorder for offences committed by Young People aged 16 and 17yrs.
o The use of Penalty Notices for Disorder for offences committed by Young People aged 10 – 15 yrs.
o Home Office guidance on the issue of Fixed Penalty notices
o Supplementary Operational Guidance for Accredited Persons
o DEFRA Guidance on Issuing Fixed Penalty Notices
o DEFRA Guidance on Issuing Fixed Penalty Notices to Juveniles'

'2.5.9
Prosecution is the last resort, but the Authority is committed to making a difference and will be robust in targeting those areas, and those people who continually flout the law, adversely affecting the lives of people and businesses in our community.' Was Sheila Martin adversely affecting the lives of anyone?

But it is the section on Enforcement that has really irked me, read the policy and see if you can see why on earth poor Sheila Martin was issued a penalty notice, if not to raise money or maybe bully an old woman who would not fight back. How much easier to issue a penalty notice to a frail old woman than a 'youf'!

'3 Enforcement
3.1.1
Enforcement is not simply focused on prosecution, and officers are trained to assess and decide on which course of action is the most appropriate for any given set of circumstances. Consistency and fairness are critical to ensure that public support and confidence in the scheme are maintained.
3.1.2
In making their decisions, enforcement officers will consider:
o The nature and seriousness of the offence
o Any explanation offered by the defendant
o The age of the defendant
o The known history of the defendant
o The likely impact of enforcement action being taken there and then
o The likelihood of a statutory defence
o Witnesses and their willingness to make a statement
o The advice contained in the CPS Guidance
o The advice contained in the Guidance for Young People

3.1.3
Having considered the relevant issues and applied them to the circumstances of the incident being dealt with, the following options are available for consideration:
No action
Informal action
Formal Action'

I wonder if the staff of the Metropolitan Borough council of Sandwell are happy with the way their council operates against the old and frail? I wonder if the people responsible for prosecuting Sheila Martin and for framing the policies that lead to her prosecution are proud of their contributions to the well-being of Sandwell? I wonder if the two ‘enforcement wardens’ are happy with their actions?

I despair of this country, I really do.

If you want to make your feelings known to Sandwell Council then you will find relevant contact information here including their telephone number of 0845 358 2200 and complaints email address of contact@sandwell.gov.uk

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

This week's prize relates to something said a while back but I read this article today and it reminded me.

The prize goes to Barry Sheerman, the Children, Schools and Families Committee chairman, who described Ed Balls thus: "He is a bit of a bully, he likes to get his own way."

"He is a bit of a bully, he likes to get his own way." - No shit, Sherlock!

"Mr Brown is ‘routinely rude’"

The Mail has more revelations about Gordon Brown's behaviur; have a read and make up your own mind.

Sir Gus O'Donnell speaks

So whilst Sir Gus O'Donnell did not warn Gordon Brown over bullying but did feel he had to talk to him about his behaviour towards staff. Nick Robinson grows a pair; I am staggered.

Any more unbiased character references?

So we've had Peter Mandelson and Sarah Brown; who next? The Ranting Penguin has the answer:

"James Fraser Brown (aged 4) has toddled to his father's defence, furious that daddy has been accused of being a bully.

"I know I said I'd never stoop so low as to use my position as the Prime Mentalist's sick child to gain a platform in the media, " said James, "but I think that these completley baseless allegations against my dad are just too sick-making to ignore. And no, Uncle Peter has not been coaching me to say this, honest he hasn't!"

He then ran from the room waving a brand new radio-controlled model of Thomas the Tank Engine, and shouting "Thank you, Uncle Peter!""

Is this man the Number 10 'Deep Throat'?

The Telegraph report that:

"Jeremy Heywood, the senior civil servant in Gordon Brown’s office, dined with Andrew Rawnsley, the author whose book sparked the bullying allegations against the Prime Minister, it can be disclosed.

Mr Heywood, the permanent secretary in 10 Downing Street, had dinner with the political writer in September.

The dinner emerged after Mr Brown’s allies questioned the source of Mr Rawnsley’s claim that Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, privately warned Mr Brown about his treatment of staff.

Sir Gus is also facing questions about his contacts with Mr Rawnsley. The Observer journalist has said he based his claim on information from “senior serving civil servants” but refused to identify them by name.

Mr Heywood declared a dinner with Mr Rawnsley under civil service rules on hospitality received by senior officials.

The event, dated as 17th September 2009, is listed in Mr Heywood’s declaration of expenses and hospitality for the third quarter of last year. "

Interesting, very interesting.

The 'Gordon Brown is a bully' story might just be about to get VERY interesting

I thought that Peter Mandelson and the Labour Party by skilfully using the tame BBC had won the battle over Christine Pratt's allegations but now I read that:

"Publicist Max Clifford is to represent the anti-bullying charity boss who said Downing Street staff contacted her organisation's helpline.

Mr Clifford told the BBC that Christine Pratt, chief executive of the National Bullying Helpline, had told him she had e-mail evidence to back up her claims. "

Mandelson v Clifford - this could be a seriously heavyweight bout and I am not sure who the winner will be. The only fly in the ointment may be that the BBC quote Max Clifford as saying that 'he was a "very big fan" of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.'

Gordon Brown's temper tantrums as envisaged by Taiwanese television

Gordon Brown in CGI looks a lot slimmer and less sulky than he does in real life.

I have said before that the way to destroy Gordon Brown is make him a figure of fun. Just as Alastair Campbell invented the John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants story, so Conservative Central Office need to have a team dedicated to turning Gordon Brown into a laughing stock. In fact this could be even more effective against Brown than against most politicians as whilst most politicians have a sense of humour about their failing, I dont't believe Gordon Brown has.



Thanks to Dizzy Thinks for the spot.

Now you see it, now you don't

LFAT has a fantastic spot that Number 10's spite is in full flow ans they remove the National Bullying Helpline from BIS's website - more specifically their list of 'useful organisations'. Hell hath no fury like a PM accused of bullying; what pathetic people.

Attack, attack, attack

The BBC are doing their best to move the 'Gordon Brown is a bully' story along this morning with the 08:10 BBC Radio 4 Today interview trying to turn the story into a negative one about the National Bullying Helpline. Take a listen to the interviews, and it was interviews because Anne Snelgrove seemed to have refused to appear with Christine Pratt and aren't the BBC doing well at muddying the waters and attacking Christine Pratt for breaching confidentiality. "Commercial gain" is one of the new angles and "angling for business" was the line of attack.

Why do I sense the malign influence of Peter Mandelson at work here? Throwing mud to obscure the original story and seeing what dirt sticks to the people who dare to attack the 'Dear Leader'.

Nick Robinson who summed up the matter went a little off-message though, I'll post his exact words when Listen Again is a available and I have some free time; it's going to be a long work day today...

Moving the story along

The contrast between how the BBC report a story detrimental to Gordon Brown and one detrimental to a leading Conservative is starkly illustrated this morning. Whereas evil Tory stories are reported from the point of view of the accusers and kept running for days, the 'Gordon Brown is a bully' story was very quickly turned into a 'Labour goes on the offensive' story, and this morning's BBC Radio 4 07:30 news bulletin contained the unanswered challenge from Gordon Brown's PPS,Anne Snelgrove, asking why Christine Pratt had gone public now. Anyone who has followed this story will know that Christine Pratt explained why yesterday; Christine Pratt decided she had to come forward because 'Mandelson' had been so categorical in stating that no bullying had taken place in Number 10.

Of course this was a Sunday afternoon/evening news story and so for many (maybe most) people the first they will have heard of this story are the Labour party responses and that's just the way the Labour government and the BBC want it.