If any accounts are published, then I doubt that they will be transparent. Many local councils use parking fines as a form of transgression tax that doesn't show up as an increase in local taxation.'Councils in England should publish annual parking-charge accounts if they want to prove they are not being used as a "cash cow", MPs have said.
The Transport Committee warned it was "neither acceptable nor legal" to use fines to increase revenue.
Councils made a surplus of hundreds of millions of pounds each year, it added.
The MPs urged ministers to freeze charges, currently capped at £130 in London and £70 outside. Councils said money raised went back into services.
Committee chairman, Labour MP Louise Ellman, said: "There is a deep-rooted public perception that parking enforcement is used as a cash cow, so it's essential that local authorities apply stringent transparency."'
'by what reasoning was the original 10:10 Richard Curtis film ever deemed to be morally acceptable? Does this communicate truth, or is it a perversion of a creed? Does it incite hatred, or is it legitimate expression of belief?
What would be the response if those being exploded were homosexuals?
Or Muslims?
Or Socialists?
Isn't this precisely what the 'Islamist' in our midst did on 7th July 2005? You take your bombs onto London underground, identify the unbeliever, press a button and blow him to smithereens. Why is it 'funny' to blow up those who happen to believe that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon, yet grossly offensive to liquidate others for their sincerely-held beliefs?
Perhaps blowing 'the Right' to kingdom come is a legitimate pursuit: the world would doubtless be a far better place without heterosexual homophobes, Christian Islamophobes and Thatcherites.
And you can count on the pathologically-socialist luvvies and darlings to donate their time and talent free of charge in this righteous pursuit.
But this parody poses a searching question: what is the difference between 10:10 and 7/7, other than that one group thinks it 'funny'?'
'The U.N. commission into Israel’s May 31 flotilla clash declared during a U.N. Human Rights Council debate today that “even if Bin Laden himself were on the Mavi Maramara, Israel’s blockade would still be illegal.”Anti-Israel bias at the United nations, I am shocked...
The statement was made by commissioner Desmond de Silva in response to questions posed in the council plenary by the Geneva-based UN Watch as to why the probe ignored voluminous evidence it submitted regarding the stated intentions of the Islamist flotilla members to physically confront Israel and become “Shahids,” or martyrs. (See below for statement and response from UN flotilla commission.)
The chair of the flotilla probe, Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, said that he had never heard the term “Shahid” before. However, he insisted that, in any event, the intentions of the IHH activists carried no legal relevance.
Some international lawyers disagree. “It is astonishing that the UN panel now openly admits to disregarding our evidence as to the violent, Jihadist and suicidal intentions of the IHH militants on the Mavi Marmara,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.
“That the head of the probe said he never heard the word ‘Shahid’ before today means that he never even looked at the numerous video testimonies and other compelling evidence that we submitted to his inquiry,” said Neuer.
“Contrary to the commissioners’ attempt to downplay this evidence, the truth is that the entire interpretation of the facts hinges on who was the aggressor, and whether Israel’s soldiers attacked peaceful activists or instead acted in self-defense in face of a violent mob seeking to lynch them.”
“The declared intentions and state of mind of the passengers is extremely relevant. Indeed, the report itself touches on the question of whether the passengers’ purpose was humanitarian or political. Evidence that seven of the nine passengers killed in the clash had previously declared their intent to become ‘martyrs’ is something the inquiry obviously should have examined, yet failed to do so,” said Neuer.
“Moreover, while we submitted over 40 items (see submissions here)-whose receipt the UN acknowledged-the commission chair said today that he looked at only two. This is absolutely unacceptable. UN Watch calls on the Chair of the Human Rights Council to urgently investigate this serious breach of due process before the council votes on the report tomorrow.”'
'Bono's anti-poverty foundation ONE is under pressure to explain its finances after it was revealed that only a small percentage of money it raises reaches the needy.1.2% sounds pathetic.
The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6million in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to good causes (1.2 per cent).
The figures published by the New York Post also show that £5.1million went towards paying salaries.'
'ONE spokesman Oliver Buston has now defended the way the organisation is run, insisting the money is used for promoting its campaign and raising awareness rather than being given straight to those who need help.£5.1 million split between 120 staff is an average of £43,333.
He said: 'We don't provide programmes on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organisation.'
Another spokesman in New York today dismissed the notion of lavish salaries being paid to its 120 members of staff and said the organisation was highly efficient in its raising of awareness.'
"Britain's automated parking and traffic fines system has been branded "close to theft" and "medieval" by a Tory peer."
