The BBC "helpfully" have an article that tells us that it is fine for Sharia law to be used in the UK after all those Jews have their own courts - take a look at this article.
There is a subtle difference, but the BBC are as always out to look after their constituency not the whole country. As Melanie Phillips wrote recently "Jewish couples who divorce have to do so under English law for their divorce to be recognised by the state. The separate Jewish religious divorce (which incidentally causes much distress to women in certain circumstances to whom it does not grant a divorce, precisely because it does not correspond to English law) is just that, an entirely separate and culturally private matter. Although there are Jewish religious courts giving judgments over a wide range of issues, the whole point is that they have the status of informal arbitration and do not impinge at all upon the laws or customs of the country. They are based on the acknowledgement that, where Jewish religious law conflicts with English law, Jewish law gives way. Wherever they have settled over the centuries, Jews have always accepted that, as citizens of that country, they are bound by its laws. They have never required the host country to change its laws or customs to accommodate them; nor do they set their own religious laws above those of their country.
It is very important that people realise the crucial difference between allowing a minority the right to practise its own precepts while fitting in with the law of the land, and allowing members of a minority to force the law of the land to fit in with them. It is very important that people understand that the pressure to sharia-ise Britain is far more dangerous even than terrorism because – see the government’s embrace of ‘sharia finance’ – its implications simply aren’t understood and it is likely therefore to be accepted. Salami-slice by salami slice, this is how British society will be dismembered."
Thursday, 7 February 2008
The Flanagan Report
The BBC are reporting that at the same time as the Flanagan Report was published, "the home secretary scrapped forms recording stop and search incidents in three areas, and across England and Wales by the end of 2008."
Just remind me which party was responsible for introducing these forms and then take a look at the two main pages devoted to the matter here and here and show me where the BBC mention this fact. Maybe whilst you are at it you could show me where they explain that the Conservative party have been saying this should happen for some time now.
The BBC - really just the propaganda arm of the Labour party.
Just remind me which party was responsible for introducing these forms and then take a look at the two main pages devoted to the matter here and here and show me where the BBC mention this fact. Maybe whilst you are at it you could show me where they explain that the Conservative party have been saying this should happen for some time now.
The BBC - really just the propaganda arm of the Labour party.
Sharia law in the UK seems "unavoidable"
So said the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, today. I have been boring friends and colleagues for some years now about the coming of Sharia law to areas of the UK. Indeed I blogged in September that "I have been predicting for a few years now that by 2020 some of our northern towns, such as Burnley and Oldham, would be run under a system of Sharia law as well as the law of the United Kingdom. Three years ago my more "right on" friends said I was mad to think this was possible, later they said I was massively exaggerating the situation, more recently they said maybe Sharia law running alongside United Kingdom law wouldn't be too bad and anyway it won't affect us in London..."
The BBC report that "Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens do not relate to the British legal system. He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."
Now the BBC are in a bit of a bind here; they really want to be nice to the Muslim community but also they must support Gordon Brown and the BBC report that Gordon has come out with the following response "Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values". Also "the prime minister's official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia law be applied in a civil case. He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.
The spokesman also said: "There are instances where government has made changes for example on stamp duty but the general position is that Sharia cannot be used as justification for committing breaches of English law nor can its principles be used in civil courts.""
Sorry, what changes have been made on stamp duty for followers of Islam?
I find myself in agreement with Baroness Warsi who said "...let's be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts." and also with Nick Clegg who said "Whilst having an enormous amount of respect for Rowan Williams, I cannot agree with his conclusions on this issue. Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another."
I think the NotaSheeps may be leaving the Uk for foreign climes sooner rather than later, the end game seems to be starting sooner than even I imagined.
UPDATE: I think Devils Kitchen might be a tad upset with Dr Williams. Nice Clash reference as well, I wish I had thought of it as a title.
The BBC report that "Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens do not relate to the British legal system. He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."
Now the BBC are in a bit of a bind here; they really want to be nice to the Muslim community but also they must support Gordon Brown and the BBC report that Gordon has come out with the following response "Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values". Also "the prime minister's official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia law be applied in a civil case. He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.
The spokesman also said: "There are instances where government has made changes for example on stamp duty but the general position is that Sharia cannot be used as justification for committing breaches of English law nor can its principles be used in civil courts.""
Sorry, what changes have been made on stamp duty for followers of Islam?
I find myself in agreement with Baroness Warsi who said "...let's be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts." and also with Nick Clegg who said "Whilst having an enormous amount of respect for Rowan Williams, I cannot agree with his conclusions on this issue. Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another."
I think the NotaSheeps may be leaving the Uk for foreign climes sooner rather than later, the end game seems to be starting sooner than even I imagined.
UPDATE: I think Devils Kitchen might be a tad upset with Dr Williams. Nice Clash reference as well, I wish I had thought of it as a title.
"manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation"
"not in the public interest"
Just as I predicted in my piece about why Peter Hain will not be prosecuted. I was fairly sure that Wendy Alexander would not be prosecuted for one of the same reasons "a prosecution would not be in the public interest" or "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
True to expectations the decision is reported today that "The Electoral Commission said it was "not in the public interest" to report to the Crown Office or Procurator Fiscal Service on the issue of whether accepting the donation was an offence.
By the way what a choice of photos of Wendy Alexander on the above page, currently these two are on display - the first is, as almost all photos of Wendy Alexander that I have seen are, shot from below, the second is just weird...
True to expectations the decision is reported today that "The Electoral Commission said it was "not in the public interest" to report to the Crown Office or Procurator Fiscal Service on the issue of whether accepting the donation was an offence.
By the way what a choice of photos of Wendy Alexander on the above page, currently these two are on display - the first is, as almost all photos of Wendy Alexander that I have seen are, shot from below, the second is just weird...
What a day to get busy!
A busy day at work, doing what NotaSheep does, and just look at the news that I wanted to blog about and couldn't as I didn't have a secure internet connection. So to come this evening will be Wendy Alexander, Sharia Law, The BBC coverage of the Flanagan review and the Conservatives Lottery proposals.
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Kenny Everett
I saw the Kenny Everett Bee Gees singing and interview sketch last night and thought that I would put it on this blog, only one problem I could not find it anywhere - if you know where I can find it, do let me know.
In the meantime, here's Kenny Everett "doing" Mick Jagger...
As a bonus here are the HeeBeeGeeBees including a very young Angus Deayton performing their "Meaningless songs in very high voices"...
In the meantime, here's Kenny Everett "doing" Mick Jagger...
As a bonus here are the HeeBeeGeeBees including a very young Angus Deayton performing their "Meaningless songs in very high voices"...
Lamborghini Reventon
Just watching a repeat of Top Gear and their quick review of of the Lamborghini Reventon, pronounced with a "b" not a "v", so Rebenton. As Jeremy Clarkson says "with this you would get a lot of bage" - well I thought it was funny...
You can watch it here...
You can watch it here...
About bloody time too
"UK to end submarine goat tests", the BBC report that "The Ministry of Defence says it will abandon deep-diving experiments which involve inducing decompression sickness in live goats...More than 400 such experiments have taken place since 2000...During the MoD tests, goats were subject to various pressures in a hyperbaric chamber..."
This sort of experimentation on the most intelligent of animals make my blood boil!
This sort of experimentation on the most intelligent of animals make my blood boil!
BBC hiding the story
The BBC feel they have to report the EU Treaty debate and associated matters but will not draw attention to these reports. Here is a hidden away report that tells us that "day three of the marathon debate about the Lisbon Treaty - or EU Reform Treaty - or European Constitution, which saw MPs at last focus their attention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The charter does not appear in the treaty but a reference to it in the document will make its rights legally binding.
When Tony Blair was prime minister he argued that Britain had secured an opt-out from the charter.
Now the government says that it neither sought nor achieved an opt-out."
Hold on, the government are directly contradicting a statement previously made by Tony Blair - so one or the opther is lying - and the BBC aren't reporting this as headline news! Sorry, I have just re-read that and the point is so obvious I missed it...
The EU Treaty is being railroaded through the Hosue of Commons under a three line whip with less than the promised line by line debate. We the public have got to make a stand before our rights and liberties are subsumed into the EU superstate.
The charter does not appear in the treaty but a reference to it in the document will make its rights legally binding.
When Tony Blair was prime minister he argued that Britain had secured an opt-out from the charter.
Now the government says that it neither sought nor achieved an opt-out."
Hold on, the government are directly contradicting a statement previously made by Tony Blair - so one or the opther is lying - and the BBC aren't reporting this as headline news! Sorry, I have just re-read that and the point is so obvious I missed it...
The EU Treaty is being railroaded through the Hosue of Commons under a three line whip with less than the promised line by line debate. We the public have got to make a stand before our rights and liberties are subsumed into the EU superstate.
Another day, another piece of news about Ken Livingstone
It's that Andrew Gilligan in the Standard again, this time reporting that "Dozens of apparently independent people or organisations which have praised Ken Livingstone or attacked Boris Johnson have received large sums of taxpayers' money from City Hall, a Standard investigation has revealed.
Those paid include newspapers, individual journalists, pressure groups and companies.
The revelations, condemned by the London MP Greg Hands as a "disgrace", come as the Electoral Commission launches an investigation into earlier claims that Mr Livingstone used taxpayer-funded officials for party political campaigning.
The first major attack on Mr Johnson during the campaign came from Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murdered teenager Stephen, who told The Guardian newspaper that he would "destroy the city's [multicultural] unity".
Ms Lawrence did not declare that her organisation, the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, has received at least £1.9 million from Mr Livingstone's London Development Agency to build a new headquarters in south-east London. The trust did not reply to inquiries by the Standard.
The following month, Mr Johnson was attacked, also in The Guardian, by John Sauven, director of Greenpeace, who accused him of "diplodocus rhetoric" and of "disappearing under the rising tide of environmental awareness".
Mr Sauven contrasted this with the "boldness" of Mr Livingstone, whose congestion charge, he claimed, "has delivered cuts in both pollution and congestion levels". In fact, after initially falling, both pollution and congestion have returned to their previous levels.
Mr Sauven failed to declare that Greenpeace has been paid at least £7,300 directly by Mr Livingstone and has also received substantial funding through the Mayor's London Energy Partnership. Greenpeace failed to return calls on the subject. "
Do read the rest of the article for the list of other organisations such as Forum For The Future, Peace Alliance, New Nation newspaper, that may be involved.
Those paid include newspapers, individual journalists, pressure groups and companies.
The revelations, condemned by the London MP Greg Hands as a "disgrace", come as the Electoral Commission launches an investigation into earlier claims that Mr Livingstone used taxpayer-funded officials for party political campaigning.
The first major attack on Mr Johnson during the campaign came from Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murdered teenager Stephen, who told The Guardian newspaper that he would "destroy the city's [multicultural] unity".
Ms Lawrence did not declare that her organisation, the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, has received at least £1.9 million from Mr Livingstone's London Development Agency to build a new headquarters in south-east London. The trust did not reply to inquiries by the Standard.
The following month, Mr Johnson was attacked, also in The Guardian, by John Sauven, director of Greenpeace, who accused him of "diplodocus rhetoric" and of "disappearing under the rising tide of environmental awareness".
Mr Sauven contrasted this with the "boldness" of Mr Livingstone, whose congestion charge, he claimed, "has delivered cuts in both pollution and congestion levels". In fact, after initially falling, both pollution and congestion have returned to their previous levels.
Mr Sauven failed to declare that Greenpeace has been paid at least £7,300 directly by Mr Livingstone and has also received substantial funding through the Mayor's London Energy Partnership. Greenpeace failed to return calls on the subject. "
Do read the rest of the article for the list of other organisations such as Forum For The Future, Peace Alliance, New Nation newspaper, that may be involved.
PMQs - 6 February 2008
Prediction - Gordon Brown to at least once say "Opportunity for all, not for some" and something about David Cameron practising in front of a mirror.
Gordon Brown repeats what Jack Straw stated but does not
David Cameron - How many reviews since he became PM?
Direct question on A'levels and Gordon does come back with "Education for all, not for some" - close enough...
Nice jibe there "I think he has been practising that sound bite all week, and it is still rubbish"
And Gordon Brown has to get "Education for all, not just for some" in again - why is he fixated on this line.
I see Gordon Brown is still sticking to asking David Cameron questions, despite it being PMQs.
Gordon Brown has got a tactic at PMQs when answering David Cameron's question; he doesn't answer the question, he blusters, he asks David Cameron questions and he gets in his favourite quote ".. for all, not for some" as often as possible.
Now Gordon Brown resorts to asking Nick Clegg questions
Does anyone else find Ed Milliband's staring just a little scary, has he taken some sort of "How to intimidate people" course? If so, it doesn't work, he just looks slightly vacant.
Robert Gidwell asks a good question linking the EU Referendum and keeping manifesto problems.
Gordon Brown says the questions are for the Conservative party.
James Arbuthnot's question is at odds with the debate pre PMQs last week that I still mean to blog about when i get the time.
Peter Lilley asks a good question regarding Gordon Brown's broken promise re line by line scrutiny of the EU Treaty.
Gordon Brown says it is being discussed day by day - as though that is the same and brings up the Marstricht Treaty
Patrick Mercer's question about troops to Afghanistan asks for a commitment from Gordon Brown, he doesn't get it.
Jack Straw is doing his serious statesman look - it doesn't wash Jack
Gordon Brown is on the subject of Police numbers and safety on the streets, I hope he doesn't accuse anyone incorrectly this week
Mr James Gray asks a question about equipping the army
Ian Lucas asks a question about inward investment and Gordon Brown comes up with the predictable sound bites that mis-state the position regarding trade with Europe as usual
An idea for next week, David Cameron to wait until almost the end of PMQs and then get up and say that since Gordon Brown has failed to answer any questions asked in previous weeks PMQs he has decided not to bother asking any more questions until Gordon Brown commits to answering questions.
Gordon Brown repeats what Jack Straw stated but does not
David Cameron - How many reviews since he became PM?
Direct question on A'levels and Gordon does come back with "Education for all, not for some" - close enough...
Nice jibe there "I think he has been practising that sound bite all week, and it is still rubbish"
And Gordon Brown has to get "Education for all, not just for some" in again - why is he fixated on this line.
I see Gordon Brown is still sticking to asking David Cameron questions, despite it being PMQs.
Gordon Brown has got a tactic at PMQs when answering David Cameron's question; he doesn't answer the question, he blusters, he asks David Cameron questions and he gets in his favourite quote ".. for all, not for some" as often as possible.
Now Gordon Brown resorts to asking Nick Clegg questions
Does anyone else find Ed Milliband's staring just a little scary, has he taken some sort of "How to intimidate people" course? If so, it doesn't work, he just looks slightly vacant.
Robert Gidwell asks a good question linking the EU Referendum and keeping manifesto problems.
Gordon Brown says the questions are for the Conservative party.
James Arbuthnot's question is at odds with the debate pre PMQs last week that I still mean to blog about when i get the time.
Peter Lilley asks a good question regarding Gordon Brown's broken promise re line by line scrutiny of the EU Treaty.
Gordon Brown says it is being discussed day by day - as though that is the same and brings up the Marstricht Treaty
Patrick Mercer's question about troops to Afghanistan asks for a commitment from Gordon Brown, he doesn't get it.
Jack Straw is doing his serious statesman look - it doesn't wash Jack
Gordon Brown is on the subject of Police numbers and safety on the streets, I hope he doesn't accuse anyone incorrectly this week
Mr James Gray asks a question about equipping the army
Ian Lucas asks a question about inward investment and Gordon Brown comes up with the predictable sound bites that mis-state the position regarding trade with Europe as usual
An idea for next week, David Cameron to wait until almost the end of PMQs and then get up and say that since Gordon Brown has failed to answer any questions asked in previous weeks PMQs he has decided not to bother asking any more questions until Gordon Brown commits to answering questions.
Jack Straw 'knew about Muslim MP bugging scandal two months ago'
So claims the Daily Mail today. The Mail's article begins "Justice Secretary Jack Straw knew about the MP bugging scandal in December, it was claimed today. In a fresh revelation, Sky News reported that the minister had had a meeting about the operation weeks before it exploded into the public domain."
It's all rather confusing as Jack Straw has stated that the first he knew about bugging at the prison was over the weekend just gone.
It's all rather confusing as Jack Straw has stated that the first he knew about bugging at the prison was over the weekend just gone.
What did Jack Straw know?
The line that the BBC are pushing this morning is that:
"Ministry of Justice officials were told on 14 December about allegations that Labour MP Sadiq Khan had been bugged, an internal investigation has revealed.
They and Justice Secretary Jack Straw's special adviser were told of press interest - but Mr Straw was not told.
He was only informed there was a story about Mr Khan and Woodhill Prison, and assumed it was a political smear...
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Straw was not told about the allegations that conversations between Mr Khan and Babar Ahmad had been bugged."
Very strange indeed:
1) officials from Jack Straw's department were told about allegations that Sadiq Khan had been bugged
2) officials from Jack Straw's department and Jack Straw's special advisor were told of press interest
3) Jack Straw was only told that there was a story about Mr Khan and Woodhill Prison and he assumed that was a smear
Does this ring true? Will everyone involved (and I include the BBC) hold this line? Are there more revelations about Gordon Brown's knowledge of this matter to leak out today? What will the next development be? Has David Cameron got a surprise up his sleeve for PMQs at noon?
"Ministry of Justice officials were told on 14 December about allegations that Labour MP Sadiq Khan had been bugged, an internal investigation has revealed.
They and Justice Secretary Jack Straw's special adviser were told of press interest - but Mr Straw was not told.
He was only informed there was a story about Mr Khan and Woodhill Prison, and assumed it was a political smear...
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Straw was not told about the allegations that conversations between Mr Khan and Babar Ahmad had been bugged."
Very strange indeed:
1) officials from Jack Straw's department were told about allegations that Sadiq Khan had been bugged
2) officials from Jack Straw's department and Jack Straw's special advisor were told of press interest
3) Jack Straw was only told that there was a story about Mr Khan and Woodhill Prison and he assumed that was a smear
Does this ring true? Will everyone involved (and I include the BBC) hold this line? Are there more revelations about Gordon Brown's knowledge of this matter to leak out today? What will the next development be? Has David Cameron got a surprise up his sleeve for PMQs at noon?
Name one accomplishment by Obama
I think the Democrats may have found a candidate that truly is as poorly equipped to be President, albeit for completely different reasons, as Hilary Clinton. Another thing that I have noticed is the real anguish many Democrat voters exhibit when interviewed as they realise they have to choose between a "black man" and a "woman". You can almost hear them thinking that it would have been so much easier if only one of the two candidates left had been a "white man".
Thanks to Last of the Few for the spot.
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Why are undersea telecoms cables being damaged (update)
I blogged earlier today that "Is it just coincidence that in the last week four major undersea telecoms cables have been damaged thus cutting internet connectivity to Egypt, Gulf Arab states and south Asia including India? Cables have now been damaged in the Mediterranean and off the coasts of Dubai and Qatar."
Tonight I read on Sky News that "Firms in the Middle East and India say they are facing big losses after undersea cables were cut, disrupting internet services.
The damage - under the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Egypt - could take a week to repair. It has cost India half its bandwidth.and is hitting the country's lucrative outsourcing industry. The cables carry computer traffic from Europe. Smaller firms which don't have back-up systems have been the worst affected. Many have said they will lose business if full internet access is not quickly restored... he Mediterranean Sea cables, which lie north of the Egyptian port of Alexandria, snapped on Wednesday. The Internet Service Providers' Association of India said the country had lost half its bandwidth. TeleGeography, a US research group that tracks submarine cables, said the disruption reduced the capacity on the route from the Mideast to Europe by 75%."
As Goldfinger said to James Bond - "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence but the third time is enemy action". So what is four times?
Tonight I read on Sky News that "Firms in the Middle East and India say they are facing big losses after undersea cables were cut, disrupting internet services.
The damage - under the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Egypt - could take a week to repair. It has cost India half its bandwidth.and is hitting the country's lucrative outsourcing industry. The cables carry computer traffic from Europe. Smaller firms which don't have back-up systems have been the worst affected. Many have said they will lose business if full internet access is not quickly restored... he Mediterranean Sea cables, which lie north of the Egyptian port of Alexandria, snapped on Wednesday. The Internet Service Providers' Association of India said the country had lost half its bandwidth. TeleGeography, a US research group that tracks submarine cables, said the disruption reduced the capacity on the route from the Mideast to Europe by 75%."
As Goldfinger said to James Bond - "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence but the third time is enemy action". So what is four times?
HM Revenue & Customs in fine form
I read on Sky News that "Fraud and blunders by the HM Revenue and Customs are costing British taxpayers £1bn a year. Despite thousands of complaints and promises of improvements, there is "little evidence" HMRC has got the tax credit system under control, according to a committee of senior MPs.
Some £65bn has been paid out in tax credits since their introduction in 2003."
It is my belief that Tax Credits were brought in partly because Gordon Brown is a control freak and really wants to micro-manage everything and partly because if he can get a client base of people on tax credits then he has a much better than evens chance of keeping them as Labour voters.
Some £65bn has been paid out in tax credits since their introduction in 2003."
It is my belief that Tax Credits were brought in partly because Gordon Brown is a control freak and really wants to micro-manage everything and partly because if he can get a client base of people on tax credits then he has a much better than evens chance of keeping them as Labour voters.
Trouble 't mill for Jack Straw
I blogged about Jack Straw's problems and that "I just heard Channel 4 News report that Jack Straw was told that there were concerns about Sadiq Khan visiting a terrorist suspect in jail but not that any conversations were being bugged. I think this story has further to run... When the BBC start to cover this news, I wonder how they will be asked to spin it?"
Now Sky news are reporting that "Sky sources have revealed Jack Straw was told about press interest in meetings between a Labour MP and a terrorist suspect two months ago. Yesterday the Justice Secretary said he did not know of allegations the meetings had been bugged, until last weekend. Last night, the Ministry of Justice said officials, but not ministers, knew the pair's conversations had been intercepted.
"Ministry of Justice officials became aware in December of issues concerning visits to Woodhill Prison by Sadiq Khan MP," a spokesperson said...Shadow home secretary David Davis says he wrote to the Prime Minister about the allegations in December but Downing Street denies receiving the letter."
This is all unravelling for Jack Straw and maybe Gordon Brown isn't it? What further revelations are on the way?
Now Sky news are reporting that "Sky sources have revealed Jack Straw was told about press interest in meetings between a Labour MP and a terrorist suspect two months ago. Yesterday the Justice Secretary said he did not know of allegations the meetings had been bugged, until last weekend. Last night, the Ministry of Justice said officials, but not ministers, knew the pair's conversations had been intercepted.
"Ministry of Justice officials became aware in December of issues concerning visits to Woodhill Prison by Sadiq Khan MP," a spokesperson said...Shadow home secretary David Davis says he wrote to the Prime Minister about the allegations in December but Downing Street denies receiving the letter."
This is all unravelling for Jack Straw and maybe Gordon Brown isn't it? What further revelations are on the way?
Vote now for your favourite moment in British politics from the last decade
Channel 4 are asking for viewers to "Vote now for your favourite moment in British politics from the last decade". The 10 short-listed clips are:
"1. The Good Friday Agreement
1998: Northern Ireland is perhaps Blair's greatest success story. But days before Good Friday, it barely seemed possible.
2. Blair in Kosovo
1999: When foreign wars go well... Blair hailed as a hero in Kosovo.
3. Devolution night
1999: A historic election night for the new assemblies in Scotland and Wales.
4. Prescott punch
2001: Bif! Bash! Wap! It's the amazing egg-defying John Prescott punch!
5. Dodgy Dossier
2003: Alastair Campbell invites himself on air to attack the BBC's coverage of the 'dodgy' Iraq intelligence dossier.
6. Teather wins Brent
2003: The Lib Dems take their first by-election scalp of the Blair era.
7. Boris in Liverpool
2004: A hilarious moment from a hilarious politican. Make sure you watch to the end...
8. Cameron leadership contest speech
2005: A bravura speech (without notes) won him the top job - but at the time the party faithful thought he was too young.
9. Galloway's catsuit
2006: The 'best debater of his generation' does his most memorable turn Credit: Celebrity Big Brother.
10. Brown's shaky hands
2007: From the 'big clunking fist' to quivers at the dispatch box after the Queen's speech. Was this the moment power started to slip away? "
So no Gordon Brown nose picking, what a surprise - well take a look at Channel 4's clips and then this one..
Why not email news@channel4.com to nominate the nose picking clip!
Failing that which of the above 10 do you think I will be voting for?
"1. The Good Friday Agreement
1998: Northern Ireland is perhaps Blair's greatest success story. But days before Good Friday, it barely seemed possible.
2. Blair in Kosovo
1999: When foreign wars go well... Blair hailed as a hero in Kosovo.
3. Devolution night
1999: A historic election night for the new assemblies in Scotland and Wales.
4. Prescott punch
2001: Bif! Bash! Wap! It's the amazing egg-defying John Prescott punch!
5. Dodgy Dossier
2003: Alastair Campbell invites himself on air to attack the BBC's coverage of the 'dodgy' Iraq intelligence dossier.
6. Teather wins Brent
2003: The Lib Dems take their first by-election scalp of the Blair era.
7. Boris in Liverpool
2004: A hilarious moment from a hilarious politican. Make sure you watch to the end...
8. Cameron leadership contest speech
2005: A bravura speech (without notes) won him the top job - but at the time the party faithful thought he was too young.
9. Galloway's catsuit
2006: The 'best debater of his generation' does his most memorable turn Credit: Celebrity Big Brother.
10. Brown's shaky hands
2007: From the 'big clunking fist' to quivers at the dispatch box after the Queen's speech. Was this the moment power started to slip away? "
So no Gordon Brown nose picking, what a surprise - well take a look at Channel 4's clips and then this one..
Why not email news@channel4.com to nominate the nose picking clip!
Failing that which of the above 10 do you think I will be voting for?
Plausible deniability?
The BBC are reporting that "Ministry of Justice officials were told on 14 December that Labour MP Sadiq Khan had been bugged, an internal investigation has revealed. They and his special adviser were told that a journalist was pursuing the story, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw and other ministers were not told."
Plausible deniability or the whole truth?
Meanwhile I believe I just heard Channel 4 News report that Jack Straw was told that there were concerns about Sadiq Khan visiting a terrorist suspect in jail but not that any conversations were being bugged. I think this story has further to run... When the BBC start to cover this news, I wonder how they will be asked to spin it?
Plausible deniability or the whole truth?
Meanwhile I believe I just heard Channel 4 News report that Jack Straw was told that there were concerns about Sadiq Khan visiting a terrorist suspect in jail but not that any conversations were being bugged. I think this story has further to run... When the BBC start to cover this news, I wonder how they will be asked to spin it?
Many a true word spoken in jest
The BBC's political correspondent, Nick Assinder, reports on his blog that "there is one issue on which they (MPs) simply will not speak publicly. It is on the relative merits of Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who will lead the review of the current system...Why are they so afraid to speak out? Just listen to Tory leader David Cameron when asked just such a question as he unveiled his proposals to publish his frontbenchers' expenses details. "I want to make sure I am called tomorrow at Prime Minister's Questions," he joked. At least, I think it was a joke."
Speaker Martin has little option other than to call upon David Cameron and Nick Clegg
at PMQs and other front bench spokesman at relevant debates, other MPs may feel less secure of being called if they speak out about Speaker Martin's position leading the review of the MPs expenses system.
Speaker Martin is renowned for many things but avoidance of political bias does not seem to be one of them. I wonder if he can be prevailed upon to quit his job at the next election or will his wife, Mary, miss the taxi allowance and free flights too much and persuade him to stay in post?
Speaker Martin has little option other than to call upon David Cameron and Nick Clegg
at PMQs and other front bench spokesman at relevant debates, other MPs may feel less secure of being called if they speak out about Speaker Martin's position leading the review of the MPs expenses system.
Speaker Martin is renowned for many things but avoidance of political bias does not seem to be one of them. I wonder if he can be prevailed upon to quit his job at the next election or will his wife, Mary, miss the taxi allowance and free flights too much and persuade him to stay in post?
Police red tape
Just remind me which bunch of centralising bureaucratic statist pillocks have been in government for the last nearly 11 years and have handicapped the police with forem-filling and red-tape.
Today I read on the BBC that "Sir Ronnie Flanagan's year-long review will say up to six million police hours a week are wasted on bureaucracy. A leaked version seen by the BBC also says police forces target less serious crimes to boost performance figures."
So Ronnie Flanagan will say that the police "target less serious crimes to boost performance figures." Isn't that we "right of centre" bloggers and commentators have been saying for some time and government ministers have always denied?
"He will call for a shift in priorities and perspective, including an end to the lengthy form officers have to fill in whenever they stop someone for questioning - which would be replaced by a business card."
Just remind me who introduced this "stop and account" form? Was it by any chance one of the slew of useless Labour Home Secretaries that we have been inflicted with over the last 11 years. Hasn't the leader of an opposition party recently been calling for these forms to be withdrawn? Maybe this will be another opportunity for this intellectually bankrupt government to steal another Conservative policy.
Today I read on the BBC that "Sir Ronnie Flanagan's year-long review will say up to six million police hours a week are wasted on bureaucracy. A leaked version seen by the BBC also says police forces target less serious crimes to boost performance figures."
So Ronnie Flanagan will say that the police "target less serious crimes to boost performance figures." Isn't that we "right of centre" bloggers and commentators have been saying for some time and government ministers have always denied?
"He will call for a shift in priorities and perspective, including an end to the lengthy form officers have to fill in whenever they stop someone for questioning - which would be replaced by a business card."
Just remind me who introduced this "stop and account" form? Was it by any chance one of the slew of useless Labour Home Secretaries that we have been inflicted with over the last 11 years. Hasn't the leader of an opposition party recently been calling for these forms to be withdrawn? Maybe this will be another opportunity for this intellectually bankrupt government to steal another Conservative policy.
How rare?
I blogged here and here about the BBC's rather strange title for their news piece about the recent suicide bombing in Israel. At that time I believed that the original headline had been "Rare suicide bombing hits Israel". I have just done some digging on News Sniffer and the results are odd.
The original title for the piece as posted at Mon Feb 04 09:10:17 UTC 2008 was "Blast rocks southern Israel town"
Half an hour later at Mon Feb 04 09:40:33 UTC 2008 the title was changed to "Suicide bomb kills three Israelis"
It was only 40 minutes later at Mon Feb 04 10:20:26 UTC 2008, by the time that more senior BBC staff had finished their first skinny latte of the morning that the BBC changed the headline to "Rare suicide bombing hits Israel"
It was another 8 hours and 40 minutes later at Mon Feb 04 19:01:39 UTC 2008 that the headline was changed to the less controversial "Israeli killed in suicide bombing"
Oddly at the same time as the headline was changed, the final "the blockades have been condemned as "collective punishment" by the UN." was added.
The original title for the piece as posted at Mon Feb 04 09:10:17 UTC 2008 was "Blast rocks southern Israel town"
Half an hour later at Mon Feb 04 09:40:33 UTC 2008 the title was changed to "Suicide bomb kills three Israelis"
It was only 40 minutes later at Mon Feb 04 10:20:26 UTC 2008, by the time that more senior BBC staff had finished their first skinny latte of the morning that the BBC changed the headline to "Rare suicide bombing hits Israel"
It was another 8 hours and 40 minutes later at Mon Feb 04 19:01:39 UTC 2008 that the headline was changed to the less controversial "Israeli killed in suicide bombing"
Oddly at the same time as the headline was changed, the final "the blockades have been condemned as "collective punishment" by the UN." was added.
Radio 5 stumble on the truth about "falling crime"
An interesting article on PC Copperfield's blog about Sheila Fogarty's report on a trip to Liverpool "to find out whether Jacqui Smith was right not to want to walk around Hackney after midnight (answer: Yes, and you don't need a TV crew to find out), she went up to Liverpool, her home town, and started asking people.
She explained how after she approached a group ('I won't say gang') of six or seven youths to ask permission to film them, the street was suddenly blocked off at both ends by two more 'groups' of 20 or so youths. They proceeded to bottle them. 'The thing that astonished me,' said Sheila (I'm paraphrasing), 'was that there were ordinary people there... mums in pushchairs and so on and there's all this glass everywhere.'
They got the hell out of there immediately.
Shortly afterwards, they plotted up in another street and tried to ask another group of kids if they could interview them. As they stood there, a car cruised slowly past, the window came out and a man pointed a pistol at them. 'There was a police CCTV van only 15 metres away,' said Sheila, a note of incredulity in her voice. 'It was so brazen. And this is five minutes from where I went to school.'
This tells the uninitiated (of whom Sheila was obviously one) several things:
1. CCTV cameras don't really work as a deterrent.
2. Criminal gangs in Liverpool are not all that frightened of the police (or what will happen to them if they're caught).
3. Yobs who throw bottles at TV crews don't care if they blind, or even kill, young children.
4. Whatever successive governments say, things are getting much worse (hence Sheila's incredulity that this could happen 'five minutes from where I went to school').
5. Kids who went to Sheila's school are perhaps less likely to follow her into the national media , or any decent job, than they were a few years ago.
6. Sheila and her TV crew were able to get the hell out of there and now have some nice war stories to tell in the bars of Notting Hill (or wherever). But the mums who dodged those flying bottles are there today, and they'll be there tomorrow and for the next six months, and six years."
She explained how after she approached a group ('I won't say gang') of six or seven youths to ask permission to film them, the street was suddenly blocked off at both ends by two more 'groups' of 20 or so youths. They proceeded to bottle them. 'The thing that astonished me,' said Sheila (I'm paraphrasing), 'was that there were ordinary people there... mums in pushchairs and so on and there's all this glass everywhere.'
They got the hell out of there immediately.
Shortly afterwards, they plotted up in another street and tried to ask another group of kids if they could interview them. As they stood there, a car cruised slowly past, the window came out and a man pointed a pistol at them. 'There was a police CCTV van only 15 metres away,' said Sheila, a note of incredulity in her voice. 'It was so brazen. And this is five minutes from where I went to school.'
This tells the uninitiated (of whom Sheila was obviously one) several things:
1. CCTV cameras don't really work as a deterrent.
2. Criminal gangs in Liverpool are not all that frightened of the police (or what will happen to them if they're caught).
3. Yobs who throw bottles at TV crews don't care if they blind, or even kill, young children.
4. Whatever successive governments say, things are getting much worse (hence Sheila's incredulity that this could happen 'five minutes from where I went to school').
5. Kids who went to Sheila's school are perhaps less likely to follow her into the national media , or any decent job, than they were a few years ago.
6. Sheila and her TV crew were able to get the hell out of there and now have some nice war stories to tell in the bars of Notting Hill (or wherever). But the mums who dodged those flying bottles are there today, and they'll be there tomorrow and for the next six months, and six years."
"ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage"
I am a monarchist not a republican but Oliver Cromwell's Speech on the Dissolution of the Long Parliament Given to the House of Commons seems pertinent now to both the current House of Commons and their putative masters in the EU.
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone!
So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"
Thanks to The Appalling Strangeness and Devils Kitchen for this thought and link.
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone!
So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"
Thanks to The Appalling Strangeness and Devils Kitchen for this thought and link.
Treason?
Here is a somewhat underwhelming speech from Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP speaking in Strasbourg soon after Gordon Brown signed up to the E.U. constitution, the video was released for Bonfire Night but is worth a watch at any time. Unlike his leader, Nigel Farage, Gerard Batten is not a great speaker but what he says is true and worth repeating...
Pope removes 'anti-Semitic' text from prayer
Interesting news from the Vatican, via the Daily Telegraph:
"The Pope is to rewrite the Good Friday prayer in the traditional Latin Missal to remove derogatory references to Jews after protests that they could damage relations between the faiths.
Pope Benedict XVI is to excise references to the "blindness" and "darkness" of the Jews in a prayer that calls for their conversion to Christianity, according to reports in Rome.
The Pope has been under pressure to change the wording of the prayer since he permitted the widespread use of the Tridentine Rite in the 1962 Latin Missal last year.
The prayer in the rite's Good Friday liturgy reads: "Almightly and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."
The German-based International Council for Christians and Jews wrote to the Pope last year complaining that such language was "profoundly demeaning".
Its British branch, whose presidents include Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, was also critical."
Are there any other world religions that should look at their prayers and religious texts to see if they could do with any amending? Are there any that refer to followers of another religion as "descendants of apes and pigs"?
"The Pope is to rewrite the Good Friday prayer in the traditional Latin Missal to remove derogatory references to Jews after protests that they could damage relations between the faiths.
Pope Benedict XVI is to excise references to the "blindness" and "darkness" of the Jews in a prayer that calls for their conversion to Christianity, according to reports in Rome.
The Pope has been under pressure to change the wording of the prayer since he permitted the widespread use of the Tridentine Rite in the 1962 Latin Missal last year.
The prayer in the rite's Good Friday liturgy reads: "Almightly and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."
The German-based International Council for Christians and Jews wrote to the Pope last year complaining that such language was "profoundly demeaning".
Its British branch, whose presidents include Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, was also critical."
Are there any other world religions that should look at their prayers and religious texts to see if they could do with any amending? Are there any that refer to followers of another religion as "descendants of apes and pigs"?
Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
This story from The Telegraph last week has been kicking about in my head and it just clicked.
"Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives."
Do you remember Neil Kinnock's comments just before the 1983 election "If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old."
Maybe Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are the true heirs of Margaret Thatcher after all. Mind you Neil Kinnock and his family will never have to rely upon the National Health Service as they age and wither; 13 years on the EU gravy waggon for Neil himself and 14 years of supping from that waggon by his wife Glenys will see to that. As I have explained previosuly the whole Kinnock family are nicely set-up in "public service" with the subsidised pensions and other benefits that that entails.
The full version of that part of the welsh windbag's speech runs :
"If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can't pay. I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.
I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient. I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up. I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.
If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old."
Take a read of that and see how much of that is coming true now under New Labour.
"Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives."
Do you remember Neil Kinnock's comments just before the 1983 election "If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old."
Maybe Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are the true heirs of Margaret Thatcher after all. Mind you Neil Kinnock and his family will never have to rely upon the National Health Service as they age and wither; 13 years on the EU gravy waggon for Neil himself and 14 years of supping from that waggon by his wife Glenys will see to that. As I have explained previosuly the whole Kinnock family are nicely set-up in "public service" with the subsidised pensions and other benefits that that entails.
The full version of that part of the welsh windbag's speech runs :
"If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can't pay. I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.
I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient. I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up. I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.
If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old."
Take a read of that and see how much of that is coming true now under New Labour.
A heartwarming Yasser Arafat story
From The National Review comes this piece:
"You remember the famous pictures of Yasser Arafat giving blood for the victims of 9/11? It was a hasty photo op arranged after CNN et al, in an accidental outbreak of moral clarity, broadcast all that footage of folks in Ramallah jumping up and down in the street celebrating the attacks while crazy old biddies passed around the candy.
In The Weekly Standard, Scott Johnson reports on the event's apparent exposure as a hoax. In the words of Charles Enderlin:
Arafat didn't like needles, and so the doctor put a needle near his arm and agitated a bag of blood. The reporters took the requisite photographs.
"The reporters" included Reuters, the Associated Press, and the BBC. I wonder if they'd care to comment."
Don't be stupid, Yasser Arafat was a great leader, his death provoked tears from at least one BBC reporter. If it hadn't had been for those war loving Israelis, Yasser Arafat would have been the President for life of a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. So the BBC, AP, Reuters mindset truly believe...
"You remember the famous pictures of Yasser Arafat giving blood for the victims of 9/11? It was a hasty photo op arranged after CNN et al, in an accidental outbreak of moral clarity, broadcast all that footage of folks in Ramallah jumping up and down in the street celebrating the attacks while crazy old biddies passed around the candy.
In The Weekly Standard, Scott Johnson reports on the event's apparent exposure as a hoax. In the words of Charles Enderlin:
Arafat didn't like needles, and so the doctor put a needle near his arm and agitated a bag of blood. The reporters took the requisite photographs.
"The reporters" included Reuters, the Associated Press, and the BBC. I wonder if they'd care to comment."
Don't be stupid, Yasser Arafat was a great leader, his death provoked tears from at least one BBC reporter. If it hadn't had been for those war loving Israelis, Yasser Arafat would have been the President for life of a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. So the BBC, AP, Reuters mindset truly believe...
What's the difference BBC?
Why did the BBC dedicate so much space on their news site to the Derek Conway sleaze story but no time at all to the Lord Hoyle story. I am afraid you will have to look this one up yourself as I rely on the BBC for all my news stories!
Mixed Sex Wards and Labour's broken promises (update)
I blogged back in December that the "Department of Health disclosed that eliminating mixed-sex wards is no longer an aim. A DoH spokesman said: "We have to get away from this idea of single-sex wards. That is not what it is all about. "Now we are in a situation where we are moving away from a set target on single-sex accommodation and moving towards the NHS locally taking privacy and dignity much more seriously. "It is possible to envisage patient privacy and dignity with patients of different sexes on the same wards but with proper segregation. "There are different ways of ensuring that. It's not about targets. Now it's much more about what the patient feels." The spokesman said a mixed ward divided into bays by fixed partitions - not necessarily fixed to the ceiling, but high enough that patients perceive they are in a separate room - counted as single-sex accommodation."" This being a total break with the Labour manifesto promises in 1997 and 2000 to eliminate mixed sex wards and also contrary to Patricia Hewitt's comments when she was still "in charge" of Health that partitioned bays were "not good enough".
Now I read on the BBC that "Lord Darzi said the government was committed to single-sex accommodation whereby wards are divided into male and female bays by fixed partitions... He said the goal was never to create single-sex wards as this was not achievable...A Department of Health spokesman said Lord Darzi's comments were "fully in line" with the government's "long-standing commitment on mixed-sex accommodation"...Ministers were insisting as recently as November 2006 that 99% of patients were being seen in single-sex accommodation."
More Labour broken promises, "quelle surprise".
Now I read on the BBC that "Lord Darzi said the government was committed to single-sex accommodation whereby wards are divided into male and female bays by fixed partitions... He said the goal was never to create single-sex wards as this was not achievable...A Department of Health spokesman said Lord Darzi's comments were "fully in line" with the government's "long-standing commitment on mixed-sex accommodation"...Ministers were insisting as recently as November 2006 that 99% of patients were being seen in single-sex accommodation."
More Labour broken promises, "quelle surprise".
Gordon Brown - "a liar"
The BBC are reporting that "The Conservatives are demanding a fresh Commons statement over the bugging of an MP which they say has made a "liar" of the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It followed the revelation Home Office and Ministry of Justice officials were told about the incident in December. Shadow home secretary David Davis said the case made the PM a "liar" as it countered prime ministerial pledges to protect MPs from bugging."
So far the BBC are reporting the Conservative claims and then the Labour response. I wonder how long before the story becomes about the response not the claim?. Already the BBC have put very prominently "Commons leader Harriet Harman says Mr Davis should "apologise" to Mr Brown. She told BBC Radio 4's World at One there was "no justification" for his accusation."
So far the BBC are reporting the Conservative claims and then the Labour response. I wonder how long before the story becomes about the response not the claim?. Already the BBC have put very prominently "Commons leader Harriet Harman says Mr Davis should "apologise" to Mr Brown. She told BBC Radio 4's World at One there was "no justification" for his accusation."
Labour's Golden Couple
Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper have received quite a few mentions on this blog before, but today I can mention them in the same article. It has been common knowledge that this pair of Labour ministers have been using their parliamentary allowances to fund their house purchases and now it has come into the open. Take a read of this article from The Daily Mail; here are the key points:
Ed Balls the Schools Secretary and his wife the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have been accused of 'breaking the spirit or even the letter' of Commons rules by using the allowance to help pay for a new £655,000 home in North London.
"The pair, who represent neighbouring constituencies in West Yorkshire, sold their house in Lambeth, South London, for £545,000 in April and bought a more expensive four-bedroom home in Stoke Newington, North London. Between 1999 and 2005, Miss Cooper had declared another property in Castleford, West Yorkshire, as their second home. By switching to designating the London property as their second home, they qualified for up to £44,000 a year to subsidise a £438,000 mortgage."
The Commons "Green Book" which sets out the rules on MPs' allowances states: "If you have more than one home, your main home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than any other."
"A friend of the pair said that while their three children went school in London, and they spent weeknights in the capital, they genuinely considered the Yorkshire property their main family home."
If this is going to be their defence, that they genuinely consider the Yorkshire home to be their main home, then it is no real defence. The Green Book states "your main home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than any other". Even if they only spend weeknights at the London home and return to Yorkshire every Friday evening they are still spending more nights in London than Yorkshire. So MP spotters, what sightings of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper do you have on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings for the last year?
Ed Balls the Schools Secretary and his wife the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have been accused of 'breaking the spirit or even the letter' of Commons rules by using the allowance to help pay for a new £655,000 home in North London.
"The pair, who represent neighbouring constituencies in West Yorkshire, sold their house in Lambeth, South London, for £545,000 in April and bought a more expensive four-bedroom home in Stoke Newington, North London. Between 1999 and 2005, Miss Cooper had declared another property in Castleford, West Yorkshire, as their second home. By switching to designating the London property as their second home, they qualified for up to £44,000 a year to subsidise a £438,000 mortgage."
The Commons "Green Book" which sets out the rules on MPs' allowances states: "If you have more than one home, your main home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than any other."
"A friend of the pair said that while their three children went school in London, and they spent weeknights in the capital, they genuinely considered the Yorkshire property their main family home."
If this is going to be their defence, that they genuinely consider the Yorkshire home to be their main home, then it is no real defence. The Green Book states "your main home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than any other". Even if they only spend weeknights at the London home and return to Yorkshire every Friday evening they are still spending more nights in London than Yorkshire. So MP spotters, what sightings of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper do you have on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings for the last year?
Why are undersea telecoms cables being damaged
Is it just coincidence that in the last week four major undersea telecoms cables have been damaged thus cutting internet connectivity to Egypt, Gulf Arab states and south Asia including India? Cables have now been damaged in the Mediterranean and off the coasts of Dubai and Qatar.
EU democracy
From The Telegraph "In another sign of mounting tension, Michael Connarty, the chairman of the all-party European Scrutiny Committee, said: "We are concerned by the Prime Minister's apparent ability to commit the UK to binding European Council conclusions without needing to call for parliamentary scrutiny." The committee found that summit "conclusions" are drawn up in Brussels weeks in advance and are kept from MPs and peers who are responsible for scrutinising EU laws in Parliament. Other EU governments including Sweden, allow their MPs to see the documents in advance. A spokesman for Open Europe, a eurosceptic pressure group, said last night: "MPs are not shown important EU documents until it is too late to do anything about them. It makes a joke of the parliamentary process.""
Democracy, listening to the people - don't make me laugh.
Democracy, listening to the people - don't make me laugh.
Iranian justice
I read in Breitbart that "Iranian sisters face stoning for adultery". The report tells us that "Two Iranian sisters convicted of adultery face being stoned to death after the supreme court upheld the death sentences against them, the Etemad newspaper Monday quoted their lawyer as saying. The two were found guilty of adultery -- a capital crime in Islamic Iran -- after the husband of one sister presented video evidence showing them in the company of other men while he was away. "Branch 23 of the supreme court has confirmed the stoning sentence," said their lawyer, Jabbar Solati. The penal court of Tehran province had already sentenced the sisters identified only as Zohreh, 27, and Azar (no age given) to stoning, the daily said. Solati explained that the two sisters had initially been tried for "illegal relations" and received 99 lashes. However in a second trial they were convicted of "adultery." "
99 lashes and now to be stoned to death, that's Iranian justice. In case you wonder how this sentence will be carried out, you can read at Europe News about "Article 104 of the Iranian Penal code. This deals with the size of stones to be used in the punishment of the Adulterer. Specifying that the stones used should "Not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones." Evidently over enthusiastic Muslims were using stones too large for purpose and the whole event was over too quickly. Women in this scenario are buried up to their chests before the stoning begins. Hardly worth coming out for if its over with the first, second, or third stone." This process is designed to inflict grievous pain on the victim, in a process leading to his or her slow death.
Here is a picture of Hajiyeh Esmaelvand being readied for her being stoned to death in Iran in 2004
There are plenty of places on the web where you can see actual video of people being stoned to death in Iran or other Arab Muslim countries and I thought long and hard about whether to include such videos on this blog. In the end I have decided not to include them here but to tell you where they are to be found. The videos are harrowing to watch but I think people need to know what is happening in the world.
Iranian stonings from 1994
Iraqi stoning of a Kurdish girl you can read the UK report of this incident here.
99 lashes and now to be stoned to death, that's Iranian justice. In case you wonder how this sentence will be carried out, you can read at Europe News about "Article 104 of the Iranian Penal code. This deals with the size of stones to be used in the punishment of the Adulterer. Specifying that the stones used should "Not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones." Evidently over enthusiastic Muslims were using stones too large for purpose and the whole event was over too quickly. Women in this scenario are buried up to their chests before the stoning begins. Hardly worth coming out for if its over with the first, second, or third stone." This process is designed to inflict grievous pain on the victim, in a process leading to his or her slow death.
Here is a picture of Hajiyeh Esmaelvand being readied for her being stoned to death in Iran in 2004
There are plenty of places on the web where you can see actual video of people being stoned to death in Iran or other Arab Muslim countries and I thought long and hard about whether to include such videos on this blog. In the end I have decided not to include them here but to tell you where they are to be found. The videos are harrowing to watch but I think people need to know what is happening in the world.
Iranian stonings from 1994
Iraqi stoning of a Kurdish girl you can read the UK report of this incident here.
Suicide bomb suspects held at Gatwick after tip-off
It is reported in The Sunday Times that "SCOTLAND YARD is braced for a fresh wave of possible terrorist attacks against public transport after a group of suspected Islamist suicide bombers were arrested in a secret security operation at Gatwick airport. Six Pakistani men were held under anti-terrorism laws 10 days ago after they flew in from Barcelona. The arrests were prompted by a tip-off from the Spanish intelligence services after the discovery of a suspected Al-Qaeda terror cell in the city. The cell is alleged to have planned to detonate suicide bombs on the Barcelona Metro. The Spanish warned a similar attack was being planned here. The six Pakistanis were taken to Paddington Green police station in west London and were questioned by detectives from the Yard’s counter-terrorism unit. After being held overnight they were driven under police escort back to the airport and escorted onto a flight back to Pakistan. Soon after the arrests MI5’s Centre for the Protection of National Infra-structure warned of a possible terrorist attack on bridges, tunnels and the Channel tunnel."
Strange how the BBC don't seem to have covered this story, maybe it doesn't fit into their and their Labour government partners' narrative.
Strange how the BBC don't seem to have covered this story, maybe it doesn't fit into their and their Labour government partners' narrative.
Hilary must be behind in the polls
I see that Hilary Clinton has had a teary moment again "Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s. Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that the sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president. "Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction."
You will remember that the last time Hilary Clinton "cried" was when she thought she might have been about to lose any chance of the nomination. Hilary Clinton.
The Baltimore Sun continues " When Clinton got misty-eyed at an event in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, politicos and pundits filled hours discussing if it helped her, and Clinton eventually pointed to the moment as when she "found her voice" and turned the corner in the Granite State. At the time, there was much debate if the candidate's emotional response to a question -- "How do you do it?"" -- was genuine or calculated." Hilary Clinton fake an emotion, surely not!
You will remember that the last time Hilary Clinton "cried" was when she thought she might have been about to lose any chance of the nomination. Hilary Clinton.
The Baltimore Sun continues " When Clinton got misty-eyed at an event in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, politicos and pundits filled hours discussing if it helped her, and Clinton eventually pointed to the moment as when she "found her voice" and turned the corner in the Granite State. At the time, there was much debate if the candidate's emotional response to a question -- "How do you do it?"" -- was genuine or calculated." Hilary Clinton fake an emotion, surely not!
A suicide bomber gets through and kills in Israel
Terrible, horrible - but not to these Palestinians
Here's the text that Reuters place with this photo - "A Palestinian boy distributes sweets and flowers to people in the southern Gaza Strip after a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in southern Israel February 4, 2008. A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up and police shot dead his accomplice in an attack in a shopping centre in southern Israel on Monday that killed at least one Israeli, emergency services said.
REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)"
Lovely people, they really want to live in peace with Israel don't they.
Here's the text that Reuters place with this photo - "A Palestinian boy distributes sweets and flowers to people in the southern Gaza Strip after a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in southern Israel February 4, 2008. A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up and police shot dead his accomplice in an attack in a shopping centre in southern Israel on Monday that killed at least one Israeli, emergency services said.
REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)"
Lovely people, they really want to live in peace with Israel don't they.
A must watch video about the EU
Please watch this video, it's a little long but well worth your time.
Caroline Flint
I was amazed to hear this morning that Labour's new Hosuing Minister, Caroline Flint was shocked to learn that half of all households paid for by benefits are without work. Amazed because the scale of this problem has been apparent to many people for many years now.
What do I think of Caroline Flint? I must admit I knew little about her, so I had a dig around the web and found this short biography from 2002. "Caroline Flint was first elected in 1997, and was soon noticed by political commentators and sketch writers as standing out as one of the most loyal Labour MPs on the backbenches. She quickly became parliamentary private secretary to Peter Hain, whom she followed from the Foreign Office to the DTI and back again... Ms Flint has a strongly political background, having worked both as a local government officer (in Lambeth) and as a union official - she remains close to the GMB. She is also associated with the Blairite journal Renewal and is a member of the Fabian Society... She was a surprising choice for the former mining community of Don Valley, but has put a lot of effort in pursuing constituency subjects, especially on the issues of economic regeneration and the environment."
So her interest in economic regeneration didn't include an examination of the links between not working and social housing? Don't forget that we pay her and her colleagues salaries.
What do I think of Caroline Flint? I must admit I knew little about her, so I had a dig around the web and found this short biography from 2002. "Caroline Flint was first elected in 1997, and was soon noticed by political commentators and sketch writers as standing out as one of the most loyal Labour MPs on the backbenches. She quickly became parliamentary private secretary to Peter Hain, whom she followed from the Foreign Office to the DTI and back again... Ms Flint has a strongly political background, having worked both as a local government officer (in Lambeth) and as a union official - she remains close to the GMB. She is also associated with the Blairite journal Renewal and is a member of the Fabian Society... She was a surprising choice for the former mining community of Don Valley, but has put a lot of effort in pursuing constituency subjects, especially on the issues of economic regeneration and the environment."
So her interest in economic regeneration didn't include an examination of the links between not working and social housing? Don't forget that we pay her and her colleagues salaries.
A Labour split on Europe
My how the Labour party and their propaganda wing the BBC love to portray any disagreement over Europe as a "SPLIT". The BBC seem less keen to report the current serious disagreements within the Labour party as a split. In case you don't know what is happening, here's a summary. Four Labour MPs and ex-Ministers Frank Field, Kate Hoey , Gisella Stuart & Graham Stringer are supporting local referendums, as part of the I Want A Referendum campaign, on the EU Treaty/Constitution in marginal seats held by prominent Labour MPs and ministers. Last week the "rebels" were called by Labour Chief Whip Geoff Hoon and threatened with having the party whip withdrawn from them, the same punishment David Cameron handed out to Derek Conway.
It is rumoured that Geoff Hoon has reported the new "Gang of Four" to Labour's Parliamentary Committee, which meets on Wednesdays after PMQs. I recall the Gang of Four, because it was the leaving of the Labour party by Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rogers in 1981 that doomed their old party to many years out of government. In 2008 I do not see the new Gang of Four starting their own party or even joining the Liberal Democrats (being the party that has evolved from the original Gang of Four's SDP). What I could see is Kate Hoey and Frank Field joining the Conservative party, a party that seems to share more of their political views than the statist Labour party.
It is rumoured that Geoff Hoon has reported the new "Gang of Four" to Labour's Parliamentary Committee, which meets on Wednesdays after PMQs. I recall the Gang of Four, because it was the leaving of the Labour party by Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rogers in 1981 that doomed their old party to many years out of government. In 2008 I do not see the new Gang of Four starting their own party or even joining the Liberal Democrats (being the party that has evolved from the original Gang of Four's SDP). What I could see is Kate Hoey and Frank Field joining the Conservative party, a party that seems to share more of their political views than the statist Labour party.
Paddick a life-long Liberal Democrat supporter?
Not according to this Times article - "Brian Paddick - Lib Dem candidate for London mayor - had a meeting with the Conservatives about standing for them last spring. The former Met deputy assistant commissioner discussed running as the Tory candidate with Francis Maude, then Tory party chair. The discussions were amicable but went nowhere.
So much for being a life-long Lib Dem, then. When he was selected, Paddick told reporters that his police job precluded party membership, but he had always been an "undercover" Lib Dem. Not so Lib Dem that he didn't consider flipping sides, though."
A politician with no fixed loyalties, well I never.
So much for being a life-long Lib Dem, then. When he was selected, Paddick told reporters that his police job precluded party membership, but he had always been an "undercover" Lib Dem. Not so Lib Dem that he didn't consider flipping sides, though."
A politician with no fixed loyalties, well I never.
The BBC just spew bias (update)
The BBC have updated the story that I blogged about earlier - the headline has now dropped the word "rare" and now reads "Israeli killed in suicide bombing". So that's good news, isn't it? Well not really, first I'd like to know why the headline was worded that way in the first place and why it was then changed. Secondly I am no impressed by the phrase added in the following sentence "Israel argues that restrictions it imposes on about four million Palestinians in Gaza and large parts of the occupied West Bank are crucial in preventing such attacks, though the blockades have been condemned as "collective punishment" by the UN.".
Monday, 4 February 2008
Wendy Alexander - update 2
Go and read Guido Fawkes for his update on the Wendy Alexander investigations and it doesn't look good for Wendy.
Five jailed for helping 21/7 plot
According to this BBC report "Five men who helped the bombers in the aftermath of the failed London attacks on 21 July 2005 have been jailed on terror charges.
Kingston Crown Court heard they had provided the plotters with safe houses, passports, clothing and food.
Their efforts enabled the bombers to evade being caught for some time.
Muhedin Ali, 29, Wahbi Mohammed, 25, Ismail Abdurahman, 25, Siraj Ali, 32, and Abdul Sherif, 30, all from London, were given between seven and 17 years.
Between them, they were convicted of 22 charges of failing to disclose information about terrorism and assisting an offender..."
The BBC do report that "Judge Paul Worsley QC, sentencing, said none of the men had shown any remorse and they must serve lengthy prison sentences to protect the public.
But he said the sentences at the court's disposal were "woefully inadequate to reflect the enormity" of the case.
He also said the need for armed police to enter Stockwell tube station on the 22 July when an innocent Brazilian was shot dead could have been avoided if the men had disclosed information about the bombers' identity and whereabouts."
The sentences are indeed ridiculously low, between 7 and 17 years, bearing in mind the crimes committed.
Please read the whole article and see if you can spot what common factor that links these five men is not mentioned.
Kingston Crown Court heard they had provided the plotters with safe houses, passports, clothing and food.
Their efforts enabled the bombers to evade being caught for some time.
Muhedin Ali, 29, Wahbi Mohammed, 25, Ismail Abdurahman, 25, Siraj Ali, 32, and Abdul Sherif, 30, all from London, were given between seven and 17 years.
Between them, they were convicted of 22 charges of failing to disclose information about terrorism and assisting an offender..."
The BBC do report that "Judge Paul Worsley QC, sentencing, said none of the men had shown any remorse and they must serve lengthy prison sentences to protect the public.
But he said the sentences at the court's disposal were "woefully inadequate to reflect the enormity" of the case.
He also said the need for armed police to enter Stockwell tube station on the 22 July when an innocent Brazilian was shot dead could have been avoided if the men had disclosed information about the bombers' identity and whereabouts."
The sentences are indeed ridiculously low, between 7 and 17 years, bearing in mind the crimes committed.
Please read the whole article and see if you can spot what common factor that links these five men is not mentioned.
Why am I not surprised?
From The Sun, "A ROW broke out yesterday over dangerous foreign criminals being held in the lap of luxury.
Killers and rapists are among those enjoying a host of lavish perks while they await deportation.
Their taxpayer-funded comforts include:
Giant plasma TVs;
Nintendo Wii game consoles;
A music room with expensive gear; "
Read the rest, but you can probbaly write the article yourself.
Killers and rapists are among those enjoying a host of lavish perks while they await deportation.
Their taxpayer-funded comforts include:
Giant plasma TVs;
Nintendo Wii game consoles;
A music room with expensive gear; "
Read the rest, but you can probbaly write the article yourself.
The BBC just spew bias
A suicide bomber blows themselves and an Israeli up whilst a second bomber is shot dead before he could explode himself. So what's the BBC headline? Take a look here and you will see that it is "Rare suicide bombing hits Israel". Where does the word "rare" come from? Why is the word "rare" used here? What are the BBC trying to suggest, that this is so unusual because most of Hamas and Fatah just want to live peacefully with Israel.
The BBC article ends "Israel was pummelled by series of suicide bombings in the 1990s and 2000s, peaking after the Palestinian intifada or uprising broke out in 2000.
However, there were only two such attacks between April 2006 and now, the last being in January 2007 when a bomber blew himself up in a bakery in Eilat, killing three people.
Monday's blast is also the first since renewed efforts to come to an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal were launched with US support last November.
Israel argues that its blockade of about four million Palestinians in Gaza and large parts of the occupied West Bank is necessary to prevent such attacks. "
I wonder why the number of successful suicide bombers is down, could it be to be with the installation of the barrier between Israel and Gaza? The wall that the BBC do their best to vilify whilst ignoring, until they had to recognise it, the barrier between Egypt and Gaza.
The BBC article ends "Israel was pummelled by series of suicide bombings in the 1990s and 2000s, peaking after the Palestinian intifada or uprising broke out in 2000.
However, there were only two such attacks between April 2006 and now, the last being in January 2007 when a bomber blew himself up in a bakery in Eilat, killing three people.
Monday's blast is also the first since renewed efforts to come to an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal were launched with US support last November.
Israel argues that its blockade of about four million Palestinians in Gaza and large parts of the occupied West Bank is necessary to prevent such attacks. "
I wonder why the number of successful suicide bombers is down, could it be to be with the installation of the barrier between Israel and Gaza? The wall that the BBC do their best to vilify whilst ignoring, until they had to recognise it, the barrier between Egypt and Gaza.
Worrying
If true, this article from The Telegraph is one of the most worrying I have read recently.
"Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.
Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections to removing their arm coverings in theatre and to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam."
"at Leicester University. Minutes from a medical school committee said that "a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate handwashing".
Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed."
"Dr Charles Tannock, a Conservative MEP and former hospital consultant, said: "These students are being trained using taxpayers' money and they have a duty of care to their patients not to put their health at risk.
"Perhaps these women should not be choosing medicine as a career if they feel unable to abide by the guidelines that everyone else has to follow."
But the Islamic Medical Association insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam.
"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," it said."
NCF - No comment follows
"Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.
Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections to removing their arm coverings in theatre and to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam."
"at Leicester University. Minutes from a medical school committee said that "a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate handwashing".
Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed."
"Dr Charles Tannock, a Conservative MEP and former hospital consultant, said: "These students are being trained using taxpayers' money and they have a duty of care to their patients not to put their health at risk.
"Perhaps these women should not be choosing medicine as a career if they feel unable to abide by the guidelines that everyone else has to follow."
But the Islamic Medical Association insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam.
"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," it said."
NCF - No comment follows
More Labour sleaze?
This from The Daily Mail about Speaker Martin. Plenty to read, here are a few highlights "he must be well aware of allegations that where predecessors were punctilious about maintaining impartiality, Mr Speaker Martin is seen winking at Labour MPs and leaning over the side of his chair, gossiping with former party colleagues.
For example, late last year, he leaned forward once and murmured: "Thank you, Gordon" at the end of Prime Minister's Questions.
He also stumbles over his words and has managed to call Conservative leader David Cameron "Mr Campbell".
In one astonishing scene, when the distinguished former Tory cabinet minister David Heathcoat-Amory approached the Speaker's assistants to express disappointment that he hadn't been called to speak during a debate on one of his specialist topics, he was subjected to a bizarre rant, with the Speaker even jabbing his finger at him.
Many MPs are too frightened of Martin's power to speak their mind openly about him.
"I might not get called for months," said a leading backbencher yesterday, "and I might get a writ from Carter-Ruck" - a reference to the Speaker's recent use of the famous libel lawyers to defend himself against critics, at a cost to the taxpayer of an estimated £3,000. "
"So, what to make of Mary Martin, as she seeks to arrange her life in the Palace of Westminster - with the gilded carriage, four-poster bed and extensive staff at her husband's disposal - to be just a little more tolerable?
MPs who may in future have to fully justify putting close relatives on their pay-rolls in the wake of the Derek Conway affair, felt justified in wondering yesterday just how tolerant the taxpayer has to be towards the wife of Mr Speaker.
It recently emerged that over the last three years, she has run up a bill of almost £50,000 on air travel expenses - having been given special permission to support her husband in his official duties.
This comprises a staggering £25,000 of taxpayers' money on foreign flights, and a further £24,000 flying from the couple's Glasgow home to their Westminster grace-and-favour apartment.
Earlier it was disclosed that she had run up £4,280 of taxpayers' money going shopping by taxi - shopping, it was hastily explained, "in connection with household expenditure that supports the Speaker's duties".
And for at least the first three years, when Mrs Martin was sharing her husband's official residence in London as £136,677-a-year Speaker of the House, she was being paid an estimated £20,000 a year for secretarial duties involving his Glasgow North-East constituency.
He never made a full public statement about how much work she was able to carry out, but she no longer does it.
Last year, in the row over public access to details of MPs' travel expenses, Mr Martin was accused of trying to silence opposition to the exemption of Parliament from Freedom of Information rules.
Just a few months ago it was revealed that, after disputes with security staff, Mr Speaker's wife had been given special immunity from normal parliamentary checks. "
The Mail also gives a nice insight into the family links - "Paul (Michael Martin's son) is a member of the Scottish parliament, sitting for Springburn, roughly the same comfortably safe Labour Glasgow area held by his father at Westminster, and their daughter, Mary, is her father's constituency secretary.
For example, late last year, he leaned forward once and murmured: "Thank you, Gordon" at the end of Prime Minister's Questions.
He also stumbles over his words and has managed to call Conservative leader David Cameron "Mr Campbell".
In one astonishing scene, when the distinguished former Tory cabinet minister David Heathcoat-Amory approached the Speaker's assistants to express disappointment that he hadn't been called to speak during a debate on one of his specialist topics, he was subjected to a bizarre rant, with the Speaker even jabbing his finger at him.
Many MPs are too frightened of Martin's power to speak their mind openly about him.
"I might not get called for months," said a leading backbencher yesterday, "and I might get a writ from Carter-Ruck" - a reference to the Speaker's recent use of the famous libel lawyers to defend himself against critics, at a cost to the taxpayer of an estimated £3,000. "
"So, what to make of Mary Martin, as she seeks to arrange her life in the Palace of Westminster - with the gilded carriage, four-poster bed and extensive staff at her husband's disposal - to be just a little more tolerable?
MPs who may in future have to fully justify putting close relatives on their pay-rolls in the wake of the Derek Conway affair, felt justified in wondering yesterday just how tolerant the taxpayer has to be towards the wife of Mr Speaker.
It recently emerged that over the last three years, she has run up a bill of almost £50,000 on air travel expenses - having been given special permission to support her husband in his official duties.
This comprises a staggering £25,000 of taxpayers' money on foreign flights, and a further £24,000 flying from the couple's Glasgow home to their Westminster grace-and-favour apartment.
Earlier it was disclosed that she had run up £4,280 of taxpayers' money going shopping by taxi - shopping, it was hastily explained, "in connection with household expenditure that supports the Speaker's duties".
And for at least the first three years, when Mrs Martin was sharing her husband's official residence in London as £136,677-a-year Speaker of the House, she was being paid an estimated £20,000 a year for secretarial duties involving his Glasgow North-East constituency.
He never made a full public statement about how much work she was able to carry out, but she no longer does it.
Last year, in the row over public access to details of MPs' travel expenses, Mr Martin was accused of trying to silence opposition to the exemption of Parliament from Freedom of Information rules.
Just a few months ago it was revealed that, after disputes with security staff, Mr Speaker's wife had been given special immunity from normal parliamentary checks. "
The Mail also gives a nice insight into the family links - "Paul (Michael Martin's son) is a member of the Scottish parliament, sitting for Springburn, roughly the same comfortably safe Labour Glasgow area held by his father at Westminster, and their daughter, Mary, is her father's constituency secretary.
Who was being bugged?
In all the coverage regarding the allegations that Scotland Yard is alleged to have bugged meetings between Sadiq Khan, a Government whip, and a terrorist suspect currently being held in prison, I have yet to see anyone point out that Sadiq Khan was not the person being bugged, if anyone was being bugged it was the terrorist suspect. Sadiq Khan was not being bugged in his role as MP, it was a terrorist suspect that was being bugged.
Sadiq Khan is a prominent Muslim figure charged with reaching out to the Muslim community who was previously a civil-rights lawyer. The MP is the former chairman of the human-rights group Liberty and a legal adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain.
Of course Labour government incompetence had to appear in this story and so it does. David Davis the shadow Shadow Secretary sent a letter to Gordon Brown on 11 December raising the question of a constituent being bugged, no reply was received and now "a spokesman for Mr Brown insisted he was unaware of it. Downing Street said they could not find any evidence it had been received."
I await Jack Straw's mealy mouthed statement today with interest. Remember that when Jack Straw speaks you have to very carefully consider what he is not saying as well as what he is saying - he is one of the trickiest of this most tricky Labour government.
Sadiq Khan is a prominent Muslim figure charged with reaching out to the Muslim community who was previously a civil-rights lawyer. The MP is the former chairman of the human-rights group Liberty and a legal adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain.
Of course Labour government incompetence had to appear in this story and so it does. David Davis the shadow Shadow Secretary sent a letter to Gordon Brown on 11 December raising the question of a constituent being bugged, no reply was received and now "a spokesman for Mr Brown insisted he was unaware of it. Downing Street said they could not find any evidence it had been received."
I await Jack Straw's mealy mouthed statement today with interest. Remember that when Jack Straw speaks you have to very carefully consider what he is not saying as well as what he is saying - he is one of the trickiest of this most tricky Labour government.
Guido's Sunday Sleaze roundup
Take a look at Guido's Sunday Sleaze roundup; there's more sleaze news about Peter Hain as well as Bob Spink, the Wintertons, plenty on Alan Johnson and of course Wendy Alexander.
Our state collects more data than the Stasi ever did. We need to fight back
From Thursday's Guardian comes an article that you really should read. It starts "This has got to stop. Britain's snooper state is getting completely out of hand. We are sleepwalking into a surveillance society, and we must wake up. When the Stasi started spying on me, as I moved around East Germany 30 years ago, I travelled on the assumption that I was coming from one of the freest countries in the world to one of the least free. I don't think I was wrong then, but I would certainly be wrong now. Today, the people of East Germany are much less spied upon than the people of Britain. The human rights group Privacy International rates Britain as an "endemic surveillance society", along with China and Russia, whereas Germany scores much better."
Do read the rest.
Do read the rest.
The Low Emission Zone (LEZ) operates from today
Another of Ken Livingstone's taxes on productive members of society starts today. From today the owners of Lorries, motor caravans & horseboxes exceeding 12 tonnes that do not meet the LEZ emissions standards and are not exempt from the scheme or registered for a 100 per cent discount will have to pay £200 per day to enter the London area. This is just the start of the scheme; it will extend to buses & coaches exceeding 5 tonnes and to lorries, motor caravans & horseboxes weighing between 3.5 & 12 tonnes on 7 July 2008. A further extension on 4 October 2010 will bring in a £100 a day charge for large vans & horseboxes between 1.205 unladen & 3.5 tonnes as well as Motor caravans between 2.5 & 3.5 tonnes and Minibuses below 5 tonnes.
Of course the above are just the daily charges, the fines for non-compliance are even more onerous, currently £1,000, generously reduced to £500 if paid within 14 days but increased to £1,500 if unpaid within 28 days.
I predict that the car hating Ken Livingstone if re-elected in May will bring in a charge for all of the "most polluting cars" entering the London LEZ. I have blogged before about his plan to drive the private motor car from the roads of London and the LEZ will be another part of this plan.
Of course the above are just the daily charges, the fines for non-compliance are even more onerous, currently £1,000, generously reduced to £500 if paid within 14 days but increased to £1,500 if unpaid within 28 days.
I predict that the car hating Ken Livingstone if re-elected in May will bring in a charge for all of the "most polluting cars" entering the London LEZ. I have blogged before about his plan to drive the private motor car from the roads of London and the LEZ will be another part of this plan.
Sunday, 3 February 2008
More on the joys of multiculturalism
Take a read of this from The Mail, it appears that "Some Asians in the police and in Government jobs have been accused of blocking the crackdown against so-called honour killings.
It is alleged they are not only failing to help desperate women trying to flee abuse and arranged marriages but are actively encouraging punishment for those they believe are breaking traditional taboos.
Terrified victims who seek official help are even being tracked down by a network of Asian men working in Government departments and social services, according to a study written by the think-tank Social Cohesion.
One woman was found by her family after she signed on at a Jobcentre where a member of the Asian community was working."
Read the rest, I've had enough of reading these stories and am just so fed-up with the UK.
It is alleged they are not only failing to help desperate women trying to flee abuse and arranged marriages but are actively encouraging punishment for those they believe are breaking traditional taboos.
Terrified victims who seek official help are even being tracked down by a network of Asian men working in Government departments and social services, according to a study written by the think-tank Social Cohesion.
One woman was found by her family after she signed on at a Jobcentre where a member of the Asian community was working."
Read the rest, I've had enough of reading these stories and am just so fed-up with the UK.
More trouble for Wendy
"Scotland's standards watchdog has reported the Scottish Labour leader to the procurator fiscal for failing to publicly declare campaign donations.
Dr Jim Dyer reported Wendy Alexander for not recording gifts to her leadership campaign in the MSPs' register of interests.
The fiscal will decide whether the case merits police investigation. "
Read the rest on the BBC here as even they can't ignore this piece of Labour sleaze. The story will receive less coverage than MP Conway though as he is a hated Tory.
Dr Jim Dyer reported Wendy Alexander for not recording gifts to her leadership campaign in the MSPs' register of interests.
The fiscal will decide whether the case merits police investigation. "
Read the rest on the BBC here as even they can't ignore this piece of Labour sleaze. The story will receive less coverage than MP Conway though as he is a hated Tory.
Saturday, 2 February 2008
A new low (update)
I blogged earlier that "Al-Qaeda have hit a new low, they apparently strapped bombs to two mentally disabled women and detonated the bombs remotely. That's disgusting, is it not? Maybe the BBC will consider calling Al-Qaeda terrorists now, maybe not."
It seems as though not everyone agrees with me. Libby Spencer atNewshoggers writes "For the record, assuming it's true, I think it's just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down's women to perpetrate the bombings but I don't see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that."
Brilliant adaptation is it Libby? I suppose using mothers to load their pushchairs with explosives and blow them, their babies and anyone nearby to pieces would also be brilliant adaptation - would it? Maybe packing explosives into disabled peoples' wheelchairs would also be brilliant adaptation - would it? People like you disgust me; your "liberalism" seems to be a thin veneer covering facististic tendencies.
It seems as though not everyone agrees with me. Libby Spencer atNewshoggers writes "For the record, assuming it's true, I think it's just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down's women to perpetrate the bombings but I don't see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that."
Brilliant adaptation is it Libby? I suppose using mothers to load their pushchairs with explosives and blow them, their babies and anyone nearby to pieces would also be brilliant adaptation - would it? Maybe packing explosives into disabled peoples' wheelchairs would also be brilliant adaptation - would it? People like you disgust me; your "liberalism" seems to be a thin veneer covering facististic tendencies.
Please make sure you are sitting down before reading this story
Accoring to The Telegraph it seems as though this Labour government has finally lost all sense. I quote the article is full because it is just so typical of the way this Labour government kowtow to cultural political correctness. The Labour government has been trying to build a client population that will vote Labour, so enabling them to keep their greasy hands on the levers of power and the money that goes with this power (my emphasis).
"Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.
The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.
The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.
New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."
Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.
The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.
The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.
Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.
Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.
A DWP spokesman claimed that the number of people in polygamous marriages entering Britain had fallen since the 1988 Immigration Act, which "generally prevents a man from bringing a second or subsequent wife with him to this country if another woman is already living as his wife in the UK".
While a married man cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain, some multiple partners may be able to enter the country via other legal routes such as tourist visas, student visas or work permits.
In addition, officials have identified a potential loophole by which a man can divorce his wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law, and obtain a spouse visa for a foreign woman who he can legally marry.
"Entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience," an immigration rulebook advises. "This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household."
Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".
"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.
"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."
Mr Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial."
Words all but fail me, this needs publicising as widely as possible.
"Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.
The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.
The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.
New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."
Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.
The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.
The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.
Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.
Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.
A DWP spokesman claimed that the number of people in polygamous marriages entering Britain had fallen since the 1988 Immigration Act, which "generally prevents a man from bringing a second or subsequent wife with him to this country if another woman is already living as his wife in the UK".
While a married man cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain, some multiple partners may be able to enter the country via other legal routes such as tourist visas, student visas or work permits.
In addition, officials have identified a potential loophole by which a man can divorce his wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law, and obtain a spouse visa for a foreign woman who he can legally marry.
"Entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience," an immigration rulebook advises. "This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household."
Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".
"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.
"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."
Mr Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial."
Words all but fail me, this needs publicising as widely as possible.
The Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali has received threats against himself and his family - I wonder who from...
According to the BBC "A bishop who claimed Islamic extremism has turned some communities into no-go areas for non-Muslims has received threats against himself and his family. The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said last month non-Muslims may find it hard to live or work in some areas. Now he says he has received threats which have been reported to police... Writing in the Sunday Telegraph on 6 January, Dr Nazir-Ali said there had been a worldwide resurgence of Islamic extremism, leading to young people growing up alienated from the country they lived in.
He said there was "hostility" in some areas and described the government's multicultural policies as divisive.
But he did not name any such areas and Muslim leaders and some politicians accused him of scaremongering."
I wonder who the threats may have emanated from, the BBC does not speculate. Surely they could not come from followers of the "Religion of Peace".
He said there was "hostility" in some areas and described the government's multicultural policies as divisive.
But he did not name any such areas and Muslim leaders and some politicians accused him of scaremongering."
I wonder who the threats may have emanated from, the BBC does not speculate. Surely they could not come from followers of the "Religion of Peace".
No frills airline?
It would appear that a new risk has appeared in European aviation - the nude passenger.
I read this BBC article and am now very worried about doing up my seatbelt on my next flight. I am a fan of naturism but only on the beach or balcony not on board a plane - unless it is in the cockpit!
I read this BBC article and am now very worried about doing up my seatbelt on my next flight. I am a fan of naturism but only on the beach or balcony not on board a plane - unless it is in the cockpit!
England Rugby
England v Wales, how England manage to cock-up games like this is beyond me. In control and cruising, albeit with less points than they should have and then they implode and suddenly are 7 points down with 7 minutes to go. Mistake after mistake follow and England once again return from an excellent World Cup and screw up the Six Nations.
Suddenly we are in overtime and England finally get the ball 15 yards from their own line...It isn't going to happen is it? No it isn't.... What a balls-up, Ashton got lucky at the World Cup when the team demanded changes and got them, maybe now people will realise that he is not a strong enough man. Mind you the players must shoulder much of the blame as they just couldn't keep control of the game.
Suddenly we are in overtime and England finally get the ball 15 yards from their own line...It isn't going to happen is it? No it isn't.... What a balls-up, Ashton got lucky at the World Cup when the team demanded changes and got them, maybe now people will realise that he is not a strong enough man. Mind you the players must shoulder much of the blame as they just couldn't keep control of the game.
Crime and Punishment (again)
I blogged a while back that "It appears that 51.7% of crimes in London are "screened out" by the police. That is of course an average and some crimes are being all but ignored by the police - 43.4% of burglaries are "screened out", 71.4% of criminal damage offences are "screened out" and 77% of theft/handling stolen goods are "screened out". I wonder what percentage of the cases that are not "screened out" result in a prosecution. I further wonder what percentage of the cases that are actually prosecuted eventually result in a conviction. Finally I wonder what percentage of convictions result in a prison sentence of long enough to be a punishment or a deterrent. Now what percentage of crimes do you think result in a prison sentence? Now do you wonder why crime is so high? The chances of a thief getting caught are slim, the chances of their case being proceeded with are less than 25%, the chance of getting convicted slim and the chance of actually being meaningfully punished even slimmer."
Today I read from Simon Heffer that "Jack Straw, is planning to compensate for the Government's pitiful record on law and order by making it more pitiful still. Those criminals who would normally receive less than a year in jail will instead get community punishments of "supervision and activity". At the moment, 60,000 criminals a year receive such short sentences. With 80,000 in prison in total, this means virtually emptying the jails, and pouring out on to the streets scum from whom the public should be protected. Community punishments are often branded as soft, and with good reason. We heard this week that oversleeping is accepted as an excuse for not turning up for them. Mr Straw claimed the work that criminals would be asked to do would be "physically demanding". It apparently includes making nesting boxes for birds, something so physically demanding and unpleasant that children do it in their woodwork lessons. Is it any wonder that this country is enduring an epidemic of crime? Can there possibly be any outcome to this demented proposal than burglary, mugging, violent assault and other crimes that are routinely punished with sentences of less than a year becoming career options, or hobbies, for the brutal young men that some of our state schools specialise in turning out? Let us be clear why Mr Straw is embarking upon this disgraceful policy. The Government should have been aware ever since it came to power that its policies were leading to a serious rise in crimes that need to be punished by a custodial sentence. It isn't just the zoo-like schools in which many teachers are the de facto hostages of their pupils. It is also the deliberate decision not to encourage stable family life, the excessive welfarism that strips people of incentive, round-the-clock drinking, permissive attitudes to drugs and, above all, a clear indication from on high that bad behaviour will be tolerated by the courts, and treated excessively leniently."
This government just don't care about the law abiding public, they are beneath contempt.
Today I read from Simon Heffer that "Jack Straw, is planning to compensate for the Government's pitiful record on law and order by making it more pitiful still. Those criminals who would normally receive less than a year in jail will instead get community punishments of "supervision and activity". At the moment, 60,000 criminals a year receive such short sentences. With 80,000 in prison in total, this means virtually emptying the jails, and pouring out on to the streets scum from whom the public should be protected. Community punishments are often branded as soft, and with good reason. We heard this week that oversleeping is accepted as an excuse for not turning up for them. Mr Straw claimed the work that criminals would be asked to do would be "physically demanding". It apparently includes making nesting boxes for birds, something so physically demanding and unpleasant that children do it in their woodwork lessons. Is it any wonder that this country is enduring an epidemic of crime? Can there possibly be any outcome to this demented proposal than burglary, mugging, violent assault and other crimes that are routinely punished with sentences of less than a year becoming career options, or hobbies, for the brutal young men that some of our state schools specialise in turning out? Let us be clear why Mr Straw is embarking upon this disgraceful policy. The Government should have been aware ever since it came to power that its policies were leading to a serious rise in crimes that need to be punished by a custodial sentence. It isn't just the zoo-like schools in which many teachers are the de facto hostages of their pupils. It is also the deliberate decision not to encourage stable family life, the excessive welfarism that strips people of incentive, round-the-clock drinking, permissive attitudes to drugs and, above all, a clear indication from on high that bad behaviour will be tolerated by the courts, and treated excessively leniently."
This government just don't care about the law abiding public, they are beneath contempt.
A new low?
Al-Qaeda have hit a new low, they apparently strapped bombs to two mentally disabled women and detonated the bombs remotely. That's disgusting, is it not? Maybe the BBC will consider calling Al-Qaeda terrorists now, maybe not.
The plan
For longer than I can remember, I have bored Mrs NotaSheep and friends with my theory that Tony Blair's long term plan was to retire as Prime Minister and then become President of Europe. Yes, dear was the usual reply as Mrs NotaSheep takes all of my political theories with a large pinch of salt. Well the momentum towards this happening has been growing and today you can read in the Guardian that "Tony Blair has been holding discussions with some of his oldest allies on how he could mount a campaign later this year to become full-time president of the EU council, the prestigious new job characterised as "president of Europe". Blair, currently the Middle East envoy for the US, Russia, EU and the UN, has told friends he has made no final decision, but is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."
Tony Blair's dream may come true and his conversion to Catholicism was part of the plan.
Tony Blair's dream may come true and his conversion to Catholicism was part of the plan.
Two million 'wrongly get benefit'
Oh what a surprise, the British taxpayer is being royally screwed. Here's the BBC report "Fewer than a third of the 2.7 million or so people claiming incapacity benefit are legitimate claimants, a government welfare adviser has said.
David Freud, an investment banker, said up to 185,000 claimants work illegally while on the benefit.
He told the Daily Telegraph it was "ludicrous" medical checks were carried out by a claimant's own GP."
Everyone knows how people work the system, but nothing is done about it.
David Freud, an investment banker, said up to 185,000 claimants work illegally while on the benefit.
He told the Daily Telegraph it was "ludicrous" medical checks were carried out by a claimant's own GP."
Everyone knows how people work the system, but nothing is done about it.
Islamaphobia on the rise?
I read in the East London Advertiser that community harmony is not what it should be. "THE Holocaust Memorial Day marking the genocides of the 20th century was marred on Sunday when a gang of youths stoned Jewish tourists on a guided tour of London's East End.
A group of 96 visitors looking at sites of Jewish interest were attacked by youths hiding behind a fence in a back street in Whitechapel.
Two were struck by the missiles, an American woman just starting a new post at London's Metropolitan University and a Canadian lecturer.
The woman had blood pouring from her head and needed hospital treatment.
The tour was organised by leading local historian Clive Bettington, who was later asked by police if he wanted officers to accompany him in future, but declined.
"That would be admitting there are 'no go' areas," he said.
"I won't be intimidated. We have a right to walk our streets unmolested."...
An eye-witness said: "Stones started to come down on us and some in the group were scared and ducked.
"I looked over the fence and saw four Asian youths throwing stones. They were laughing, then ran away.""
Somehow I doubt that the BBC will cover this story; the victims were Jewish and partly American and the "youths" Asian (for which I think you can read Muslim). However if the story was about "BNP yobs" throwing stones at Muslims touring East End Mosques then I think the BBC would have this as headline news.
The BBC, they know what's news and don't you forget that.
A group of 96 visitors looking at sites of Jewish interest were attacked by youths hiding behind a fence in a back street in Whitechapel.
Two were struck by the missiles, an American woman just starting a new post at London's Metropolitan University and a Canadian lecturer.
The woman had blood pouring from her head and needed hospital treatment.
The tour was organised by leading local historian Clive Bettington, who was later asked by police if he wanted officers to accompany him in future, but declined.
"That would be admitting there are 'no go' areas," he said.
"I won't be intimidated. We have a right to walk our streets unmolested."...
An eye-witness said: "Stones started to come down on us and some in the group were scared and ducked.
"I looked over the fence and saw four Asian youths throwing stones. They were laughing, then ran away.""
Somehow I doubt that the BBC will cover this story; the victims were Jewish and partly American and the "youths" Asian (for which I think you can read Muslim). However if the story was about "BNP yobs" throwing stones at Muslims touring East End Mosques then I think the BBC would have this as headline news.
The BBC, they know what's news and don't you forget that.
Friday, 1 February 2008
The new Enabling Act?
Archbishop Cranmer is understandably irritated by the recent events in the EU Parliament. Do read it and if you want you can refer back to this and this from my blog.
Hilary's past comes back to haunt her
Hilary's past as a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart is coming back to haunt her. ABC report that (my emphasis) "In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers. Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her.
Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.
Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
Wal-Mart says Tate's comments "were his own and do not reflect Wal-Mart's views."
But Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and other company officials often recounted how they relied on Tate to lead the company's successful anti-union efforts.
An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.
The tapes, broadcast this morning on "Good Morning America," were provided to ABC News from the archives of Flagler Productions, a Lenexa, Kan., company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings and events.
A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.
The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.
Clinton would not agree to be interviewed on the subject but now says she no longer shares Wal-Mart's values and believes unions "have been essential to our nation's success.""
Hilary Clinton, tut tut.
Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.
Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
Wal-Mart says Tate's comments "were his own and do not reflect Wal-Mart's views."
But Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and other company officials often recounted how they relied on Tate to lead the company's successful anti-union efforts.
An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.
The tapes, broadcast this morning on "Good Morning America," were provided to ABC News from the archives of Flagler Productions, a Lenexa, Kan., company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings and events.
A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.
The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.
Clinton would not agree to be interviewed on the subject but now says she no longer shares Wal-Mart's values and believes unions "have been essential to our nation's success.""
Hilary Clinton, tut tut.
Wendy Alexander - update
It's not over yet, here's the BBC's latest. "Holyrood's standards watchdog has told Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander she was wrong not to declare donations to her leadership campaign.
Labour said Dr Jim Dyer had advised Ms Alexander that gifts in excess of £520 needed to be declared at Holyrood.
All donations to her campaign were less than £1,000 which do not need published through the Electoral Commission.
However, the commission is currently investigating a £950 donation from a Jersey-based businessman.
Ms Alexander said parliament officials told her donations to her leadership campaign did not have to be recorded in her MSP register of interests.
But Standards Commissioner Dr Dyer has taken advice from a QC and has told the Labour leader all donations over £520 are classed as "gifts" and should have been declared."
Labour said Dr Jim Dyer had advised Ms Alexander that gifts in excess of £520 needed to be declared at Holyrood.
All donations to her campaign were less than £1,000 which do not need published through the Electoral Commission.
However, the commission is currently investigating a £950 donation from a Jersey-based businessman.
Ms Alexander said parliament officials told her donations to her leadership campaign did not have to be recorded in her MSP register of interests.
But Standards Commissioner Dr Dyer has taken advice from a QC and has told the Labour leader all donations over £520 are classed as "gifts" and should have been declared."
Iain Dale has had a redesign
Well his website has, I am not 100% - what do you think?
In case you don't know the address off by heart, Iain Dale is here.
In case you don't know the address off by heart, Iain Dale is here.
Confused by the Northern Rock debacle?
Don't be, read John Moir's article.
"We keep being reassured by the Prime Minister and his Chancellor that the assets owned by Northern Rock are high quality. The mortgages held by Northern Rock are sound, they say. This is patently untrue and all of the above-mentioned parties are aware of this crucial fact...As taxpayers, we are being asked to invest, in the form of guarantees, up to £50 billion (or is it £100 billion?) to keep afloat a busted company. The Prime Minister tells us that he does not expect to call on us for real cash because the business is sound. But he, his Chancellor, his FSA, the Bank and all their advisors know this is untrue. If a company issued a prospectus on grounds even remotely as misleading as this, the issuers would probably be going to jail. All we will be able to do is throw out Gordon Brown and his crew of liars and incompetents at the next election. By then, however, every taxpaying family in the UK will be thousands of pounds out of pocket and many of our irresponsible banks and building societies will feel comforted by the fact that the suckers (i.e, us) will always bail out the bad guys."
Now do you understand? Now are you worried? Now do you realise why many people think that Gordon Brown and his government are not only incompetent but liars as well?
"We keep being reassured by the Prime Minister and his Chancellor that the assets owned by Northern Rock are high quality. The mortgages held by Northern Rock are sound, they say. This is patently untrue and all of the above-mentioned parties are aware of this crucial fact...As taxpayers, we are being asked to invest, in the form of guarantees, up to £50 billion (or is it £100 billion?) to keep afloat a busted company. The Prime Minister tells us that he does not expect to call on us for real cash because the business is sound. But he, his Chancellor, his FSA, the Bank and all their advisors know this is untrue. If a company issued a prospectus on grounds even remotely as misleading as this, the issuers would probably be going to jail. All we will be able to do is throw out Gordon Brown and his crew of liars and incompetents at the next election. By then, however, every taxpaying family in the UK will be thousands of pounds out of pocket and many of our irresponsible banks and building societies will feel comforted by the fact that the suckers (i.e, us) will always bail out the bad guys."
Now do you understand? Now are you worried? Now do you realise why many people think that Gordon Brown and his government are not only incompetent but liars as well?
P.J. O'Rourke
One of the best political writers around, has a good description of US Politics "Democrats are in favor of higher taxes to pay for greater spending, while Republicans are in favor of greater spending, for which the taxpayers will pay.".
Go read the rest of his article here.
I also enjoyed "Hillary Clinton is Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown" and "Incidentally, there's a balanced position that all of America's presidential candidates could take on the controversial abortion issue. If they want votes they shouldn't campaign to make abortion illegal or legal. They should campaign to make it retroactive. If a kid reaches 25 and he or she is still jobless, feckless, and sitting around Starbucks acting like a--no offense--European, then whack."
Go read the rest of his article here.
I also enjoyed "Hillary Clinton is Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown" and "Incidentally, there's a balanced position that all of America's presidential candidates could take on the controversial abortion issue. If they want votes they shouldn't campaign to make abortion illegal or legal. They should campaign to make it retroactive. If a kid reaches 25 and he or she is still jobless, feckless, and sitting around Starbucks acting like a--no offense--European, then whack."
Flying
Following my recent post about the dangers of flying, I see from Last of the Few that the air crew are not always so stressed...
I believe this is an Air France crew but
I believe this is an Air France crew but
Another day brings us more Ken livingstone sleaze
I see from The Times that more evidence of Ken Livingstone's activities and the veracity of his denials has come to light. This time it concerns his use of "public servants to write articles in support of his last reelection as Mayor of London". It appears that "Documents passed to The Times prove that staff paid for by public money were told to carry out campaign work during office hours. One e-mail to the mayor’s former senior adviser on Asian affairs, Atma Singh, sent at 9.30am, explicitly asks that he write two articles in support of Mr Livingstone by noon that day.
The evidence directly contradicts the Mayor of London’s claim last week that senior public officials could not and did not carry out such work during the 2004 campaign. He said officials could engage in political activity “as long as they obey the law, which is that they can’t publicly campaign, which is they can’t make a speech for me or write an article for me”.
Asked if an investigation would find that no one had used office time to prepare articles in pursuit of his campaign, he replied: “Absolutely right.”
Yet on May 27, 2004, Mr Singh received an e-mail from the campaign office of the Ken4London based in the headquarters of the London Labour Party. It said: “We are still waiting for your article for the Asian Post . . . and the East Muslim News (400-500 words on Why should Muslims vote for Ken Livinsgtone? – this is urgent, publication date June 1st). Both required 12 noon today.”
Mr Singh also told The Times that he spent up to 90 per cent of his days during the campaign working for Mr Livingstone’s reelection, in contravention of electoral rules."
Apparently "Ken Livingstone’s spokeswoman for the Greater London Authority denied that he had been misleading in claiming that no senior City Hall staff had written articles for him during the campaign. She said that there had been a “misunderstanding” of the rules.
“Politically restricted staff are permitted to write articles on any topic in their own private time which are then published by Ken Livingstone but they are not allowed to publish any written or artistic work of which he is the author (or one of the authors) and which it appears to be intended to affect public support for a political party. Nor is the politically restricted staff member allowed to canvass or publicly call for support for a particular person,” she said."
Just three months until we can be rid of this odious man.
Oddly the BBC prefer to concentrate on minor Conservative MPs rather than the slew of stories about Ken Livingstone, I wonder why!
The evidence directly contradicts the Mayor of London’s claim last week that senior public officials could not and did not carry out such work during the 2004 campaign. He said officials could engage in political activity “as long as they obey the law, which is that they can’t publicly campaign, which is they can’t make a speech for me or write an article for me”.
Asked if an investigation would find that no one had used office time to prepare articles in pursuit of his campaign, he replied: “Absolutely right.”
Yet on May 27, 2004, Mr Singh received an e-mail from the campaign office of the Ken4London based in the headquarters of the London Labour Party. It said: “We are still waiting for your article for the Asian Post . . . and the East Muslim News (400-500 words on Why should Muslims vote for Ken Livinsgtone? – this is urgent, publication date June 1st). Both required 12 noon today.”
Mr Singh also told The Times that he spent up to 90 per cent of his days during the campaign working for Mr Livingstone’s reelection, in contravention of electoral rules."
Apparently "Ken Livingstone’s spokeswoman for the Greater London Authority denied that he had been misleading in claiming that no senior City Hall staff had written articles for him during the campaign. She said that there had been a “misunderstanding” of the rules.
“Politically restricted staff are permitted to write articles on any topic in their own private time which are then published by Ken Livingstone but they are not allowed to publish any written or artistic work of which he is the author (or one of the authors) and which it appears to be intended to affect public support for a political party. Nor is the politically restricted staff member allowed to canvass or publicly call for support for a particular person,” she said."
Just three months until we can be rid of this odious man.
Oddly the BBC prefer to concentrate on minor Conservative MPs rather than the slew of stories about Ken Livingstone, I wonder why!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
