"...several scones short of a cream tea"

At last it's the Derek Draper "Downfall" video.

If you are not a fan of strong language then I suggest you do not read the subtitles.



Thanks to Donal Blaney for the spot.

Bank bonuses explained

Why do so many City workers get what seems to be such huge bonuses?

Ignoring the very few "Bank bosses" and "supertraders" the majority of City workers get bonuses that are such a high proportion of salary because they aren't just bonuses.

You see if you are a bank employing hundreds or thousands of highly skilled professionals, your wage costs are enormous and so are the add-on costs for pensions, sick pay, paid maternity pay etc. So if you and your competitors all only pay (say) 80% of your staff's income as "salary" and the remaining 20% as a "bonus" in January then you have cut your pensionable (and allowanceable) pay by 20% and you have staff who might work a little harder to ensure they get this bonus. So whilst the "salary" is the true "salary" and the "bonus" is a true "bonus" and everything is above board for PAYE and NIc purposes, there is a reason for the size of the bonus.

Of course in the current climate of "bash the bankers" journalism, I don't expect anyone to look at the subject from this angle, just as I don't expect anyone to point out that the vast majority of City workers are not reckless traders but dedicated Middle and Back Office staff who don't earn six or even seven figure salaries but have come to rely on their annual bonus. They haven't been working less hard since the credit-crunch, indeed with all the City lay-offs most have been working harder and longer.


So if the BBC could look beyond their support for Gordon Brown they might find that all bankers are not bad and that some of the causes and exacerbating factors for this recession are home-grown and can be laid at the feet of Gordon Brown.

Remember this coverage

Take a look at the BBC news front page and you will see the top story is entitled

"Driver guilty of M6 family deaths"

with the subtext

"A lorry driver is jailed for three years for causing the deaths of a family of six in a crash on the M6."

and the three further links entitled

"Grief for 'model' crash family
Fatal crash driver 'used laptop'
Funeral for M6 crash family "

This is the full text(at the moment) of the page devoted to the story:

"A Portuguese lorry driver has been jailed for causing the deaths of a family of six by careless driving.

David and Michelle Statham and their four children, from Llandudno, north Wales, died when a lorry hit their car as they travelled home from Birmingham.

Paulo Jorge Nogueira da Silva, 46, had denied causing the deaths by dangerous driving or by careless driving on the M6 in Cheshire last October.

He was jailed for three years by a judge at Chester Crown Court.

Da Silva was convicted of six counts of causing death by careless driving by a majority verdict of 11-1. He was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.

After the verdict, Michelle's father Peter Hagans said his family had been devastated Da Silva was found guilty of the "lesser charge".

He said: "I think from the night of the accident when Mr da Silva butchered our family, which I believe he did, it was not possible to get justice in a British court."

Thirty-eight-year-old chef Mr Statham and Michelle, 33, who were originally from Sutton Coldfield, made the journey to the Midlands partly to introduce their 10-week-old baby, Ellouise, to family and friends.

They were also travelling with sons Reece, 13, Jay, nine, and Mason, 20 months as they headed home from visiting Mrs Statham's parents.

However, the family died when their silver people carrier burst into flames after it was involved in a five-vehicle pile-up between junctions 16 and 17 on the M6.

CPS statement on M6 verdict

Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, had told the jury there was a possibility that at the time of the crash Da Silva was using a global positioning system on his laptop computer to work out an alternative route.

Da Silva denied using the computer while he was driving, but police found it by the driver's seat with the screen turned to face the driver.

Speaking to the court the judge, Mr Justice Irwin, said: "Anyone who has heard of the case could not help but have strong, indeed overwhelming, sympathy for the families of those who died, a whole family wiped out."

Sentencing da Silva, the judge said: "I bear in mind the maximum sentence is five years.

"Although six deaths, this was one episode and the prison sentences must be concurrent.

"This was one of the most serious offences of its kind."

Da Silva was told he would serve at least 18 months of his sentence in jail.

Court 'a circus'

Outside court, Cheshire chief crown prosecutor Ian Rushton said evidence showed the Stathams' car was crushed between a large lorry, which had been queuing in a long tailback because of an earlier accident, and Da Silva's truck.

Mr Rushton said Da Silva admitted in court he had seen the electronic signs warning the M6 was closed and slowed down as a result "but could not explain how the collision happened".

"The prosecution said that it was clear that for a period of around a minute, Paulo da Silva was not paying proper attention to the road and fatally hit the Stathams' van with his 40-tonne lorry," Mr Rushton said.

Expressing his anger at the sentence, Mr Hagans told a news conference the court was "not much more than a circus".

He said: "The only difference being that the man in red in the circus wears a top hat and not a wig."

Mr Stratham's uncle, Alan Moult, added the deaths had left all his family "very empty". "

Now compare this with what the BBC published when Lord Ahmed was found guilty of a similar offence:

"The sentencing of a Labour peer who sent and received text messages while driving on the M1 where he was involved in a fatal crash has been adjourned.

Lord Ahmed, 51, of Rotherham, was driving his Jaguar when he collided with another car on Christmas Day 2007.

The driver of the vehicle, Martyn Gombar, 28, was killed.

Lord Ahmed, who admits driving dangerously, appeared before Sheffield magistrates on Monday. The case will go before the crown court on 19 January.

Sheffield Magistrates' Court heard how Lord Ahmed received three text messages and sent two while driving on the M1, between junctions 40 and 35, near Rotherham.

Some time after sending and receiving the text messages, he collided with Mr Gombar's Audi, which had stopped in the outside lane after crashing into the central reservation.

Steve Smith, Lord Ahmed's solicitor, told the court the peer was "rendered momentarily unconscious" by the impact of the crash and suffered a very serious head injury.

Lord Ahmed was never charged over the crash but admitted one charge of dangerous driving in connection with sending and receiving the text messages while driving.

Mr Smith said: "This man is not responsible for any accident. What he is responsible for is stupidity. I say that because it is a word he has used himself."

'Bad driving'

The solicitor said that despite being told otherwise, his client still felt responsible for Mr Gombar's death.

"He still walks within that shadow and I think he always will," he said.

District Judge Mark Hadfield said this was a case of "prolonged driving, which is clearly bad driving and dangerous driving".

He told Lord Ahmed he drove "without regard to yourself, your passengers and other road users".

He said the aggravating features meant Lord Ahmed should be sentenced in the crown court.

He was released on bail and an interim driving ban, imposed at an earlier hearing, was extended until his next court appearance.

Lord Ahmed was appointed to the House of Lords in 1998 and has lived in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, since childhood."

And get ready to compare it with the page that may appear once Lord Ahmed is sentenced on 25 February. Lord Ahmed faces a maximum of two years in jail.


Somehow I think that Lord Ahmed's case will be covered more sympathetically by the Labour loving, minorities protecting BBC.


UPDATE:
I am informed that one difference is that:

"It would seem Ahmed got himself a good lawyer. He wasn't done for 'causing death by dangerous driving' but pleaded guilty to simple "dangerous driving".

This means that there has been no linkage in evidence between the texting and the death.

That means Ahmed must be treated like anyone else who is done simply for texting while driving, as opposed to someone who has caused death while texting. His lawyer (Steve Smith) is very hot on the point that his client was not done for causing the death. No doubt he has made this clear to the meejah."

Thank heavens for lawyers.

I'm as mad as hell

"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth; banks are going bust; shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter; punks are running wild in the street, and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it.

We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. And we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be!

We all know things are bad -- worse than bad -- they're crazy.

It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, "Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone."

Well, I'm not going to leave you alone.

I want you to get mad!

I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your Congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.

All I know is that first, you've got to get mad.

You've gotta say, "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!"

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell,

"I'm as mad as hell,

and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"

I put this video up in back in October and said:

"Gordon Brown's consistent lies and mismanagement of the economy, the appointing of Peter Mandelson to a Cabinet post for the third time, the EU's relentless march to Empire, the media's deliberate soft-soaping of Barack Obama and the BBC's more and more brazen bias...

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more""

So are we "as mad as hell yet"?

Robert Peston on the Lloyds/HBOS merger

When you read anything that Robert Peston says now about the Lloyds/HBOS merger, remember this: On the 1st October 2008, Robert Peston (the man with very close links to Gordon Brown) wrote (my emphasis):

"First things first: if Lloyds TSB's takeover of HBOS were to collapse, HBOS itself would collapse and we'd all be staring into the abyss.

Halifax and Lloyds TSB signsSo that's not going to happen.

The deal has been agreed by both boards.

It's being backed with legislative help by the government.

The prime minister has staked his career on this rescue takeover.

It's going to happen."

And just a week or so earlier Robert Peston had written:

"UPDATE 10:32AM: I am hearing that this deal has been negotiated at a very high pay grade level, with the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, talking to Sir Victor Blank, chairman of Lloyds TSB, about how helpful it would be if Sir Victor could bring himself to end the uncertainty hanging over HBOS by buying it."

Draw your own conclusions as to the level of Gordon Brown's involvement in this deal.

Fraser Nelson - psychic, Gordon Brown - incompetent

The whole Lloyds/HBOS merger had me worried at the time and incredulous now as Gordon Brown and his team try and pretend that it was nothing to do with them. Just looking through some old Spectator articles reminded me of this from 17 September 2008 - "HBOS-Lloyds, as arranged by Gordon Brown?", Fraser Nelson wrote:

"Is Gordon Brown trying to take credit for the HBOS-Lloyds merger? Sounds implausible, but the blog of Robert Peston, Brown’s biographer, has this snippet:

“I am hearing that this deal has been negotiated at a very high pay grade level, with the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, talking to Sir Victor Blank, chairman of Lloyds TSB, about how helpful it would be if Sir Victor could bring himself to end the uncertainty hanging over HBOS by buying it.”

If this is true, I’m amazed the takeover went ahead, given that Brown tends to be 180 degrees wrong about any financial deal – whether it be selling gold at the bottom of the market or selling British Energy shares before they skyrocketed.

The truth, I suspect, is that Brown somehow got wind from the Bank of England that the deal was happening – or maybe he needed to give formal assurance that the Competition Commission would turn a blind eye. Then he’d have wanted to attach his name to it, so made the call to Victor Blank (ex-chairman of the Mirror Group) and then leaked it.

UPDATE: Ben Brogan has more: It wasn’t a phone call. Brown met Blank at a reception in the City on Monday and expressed his support for a takeover then (promising to keep it all secret, of course). NB, Blank is non-executive chairman (amongst his eight other jobs) and would have been in the business of approving, not negotiating, the takeover of HBOS. So his exchange with Brown would have had minimal significance."

Here's some excerpts from Robert Peston's blog as referenced at the time: "UPDATE 10:32AM: I am hearing that this deal has been negotiated at a very high pay grade level, with the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, talking to Sir Victor Blank, chairman of Lloyds TSB, about how helpful it would be if Sir Victor could bring himself to end the uncertainty hanging over HBOS by buying it.

It was not in the government's interest for there to be the faintest risk that it would have another Northern Rock on its hands"


"UPDATE 12:34PM: I now know more about how the competition obstacles to this deal will be surmounted. The government will announce that in the interests of financial stability it will legislate to over-ride the powers of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to block the deal.

And it won't be long before the formal terms of the takeover are announced. Both boards met this morning and are meeting again tonight to give their approval."

And whilst I am on Robert Peston's blog, here's just two comments of many that proved rather prescient:

"67. At 10:21am on 17 Sep 2008, U9461192 wrote:

Oh God.

Gordon Brown has got involved? Jonah Brown? That's HBoS doomed then. And possibly Lloyds too."

"86. At 11:33am on 17 Sep 2008, YummyCarolKirkwood wrote:

The main focus on the reporting of this story is completely wrong. I see that a few posters on this blog (sherwoodbandit, the_nutty_dragon, wykhamist) have picked up on the real issue that is at stake: if HBOS is too big to fail, what will be the case for a Lloyds-HBOS entity? We are only just at the beginning of a major recession and the collapse of the UK property market, so HBOS will be facing HUGE losses in the coming years. Lloyds would struggle to ride it out on its own, but I very much doubt the combined entity will be able to shoulder those losses, and we will simply end up with our own Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac situation. The eventual result: a massive bail-out from the UK taxpayer.

The saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket" has been around for a very long time.

And for very good reason.

Creating ever larger financial institutions does not lower risk - it INCREASES it. Such a merger between Lloyds and HBOS might be some sort of botch-job, quick-fix short-term solution to the immediate problem but - irrespective of the competition issues - it is a recipe for disaster in the longer term: very Gordon Brown indeed. No wonder his sticky paws are all over this deal.

IMHO Lloyds shareholders would do well to vote against such a deal, rather than saddle themselves with HBOS' problems."

"Crash" Gordon strikes again and the whole UK economy may collapse because of his mismanagement of it. If it does, then there will be a lot of very angry people out there and they will not stand for Gordon Brown running away to the US lecture circuit (joke) or an EU position. They will want him here and they will want him to pay for his recklessness.

The Sun may be about to swap sides in preparation for the next election

Rupert Murdoch likes winners, that's why he swapped from Conservative to Labour prior to 1997 and why the Sun (and to a lesser degree The Times) has bee shifting away from Labour over recent months. Today Trevor Kavanagh has an article that is the closest yet to a call to vote Conservative - it's actually a call for Gordon Brown to resign:

"WHY is Gordon Brown still Prime Minister?

After the events of last week, why has he not resigned? And if he won’t go of his own accord, how long before he is hounded out by voters whose homes, pensions and jobs he’s put in peril?

After all, he sacked his multi-millionaire banking pal and key adviser Sir James Crosby the moment he was exposed as a dud.

Yet Crosby’s offence — destroying bank giant HBOS — pales by comparison with Mr Brown’s sins and omissions.

The career of Sir James, knighted by the PM and handed a top job at the shambolic Financial Services Authority (FSA), is a mirror image of Gordon’s.

He was the bullying intellectual powerhouse behind the spectacular rise and fall of HBOS.

He ruthlessly exploited weakness in his opponents and brooked no criticism.

And he ignored warnings from his own whistleblower that he was taking too many risks with other people’s money.

Crosby pressed ahead regardless, leaving HBOS a crippled wreck and taxpayers with the £17billion tab for his reckless incompetence.

How did he land HBOS in such a mess — leaving Britain needlessly exposed to the worst of the world’s economic meltdowns?

Sure, this recession is global. Yes, it started in America.

But there are many countries, unlike the UK, where prudently regulated banks will still be standing when it’s all over.

We’ll be paying huge bills long after everyone else has pulled out of this slump.

The seeds were sown by Mr Brown on his first day as Chancellor, when he handed the Bank of England control over inflation — but took away their role as City watchdog.

In a fatal error, he shared out that task between the bank, the Treasury and the new but toothless FSA. Nobody was in charge of this clattering train.

Bank governor Eddie George warned Brown was putting the economy at risk of “systemic failure” — bank jargon for “boom and bust”.

Like Sir James Crosby, the Chancellor ignored him.

Instead, he threw open the casino, welcomed the biggest losers in UK banking history — and gave them our money to play with.

Tories accuse Mr Brown of failing to fix the roof when the sun was shining.

It was much worse.

He demolished the load-bearing walls and propped up the rafters with broomsticks.

Why? Because he wanted those City high-rollers set free to make billions for Labour’s binge on public services.

Even the timid FSA saw the risk. Each year from 2002 it warned Crosby that HBOS and other banks were over-lending.

Did Gordon know? Like Sauron in Lord Of The Rings, the Chancellor watched everything that moved on the economy.

In June 2006 — before Northern Rock crashed in flames — the Bank of England briefed journalists that High Street lenders did not have enough in the kitty to balance their books. Any jolt to the economy could bring disaster.

The Chancellor, who received regular Bank updates, would have known this far sooner than a bunch of newsmen.

Yet, as HBOS headed for the buffers, he knighted Crosby and made him deputy chairman of the FSA... the fox in charge of the hen coop.

When that “jolt” arrived with the credit crunch it was Crosby who persuaded Mr Brown to put up £100billion of our cash to bail out the banks — including his old firm HBOS.

It was Crosby who urged Gordon to bully Lloyds TSB into a catastrophic merger to save HBOS.

Lloyds was Britain’s only really solid bank. Today it is just another wreck, dragged to the bottom by the dead weight of HBOS.

Thanks to Gordon Brown, taxpayers face losses and liabilities worth countless billions. Take in the Royal Bank of Scotland and the sums escalate into trillions.

Co-conspirator Ed Balls predicts we will be paying that off for the next FIFTEEN years.

If that’s true, today is not a moment too soon for Mr Brown to say sorry to the British people.

And walk out of Downing Street for good."

If it was indeed "the Sun what won it" in 1992 then I wonder if it will be again in 2009/2010.

Nick Cohen - "I’m turning into a Jew!"

Despite the surname Nick Cohen is not Jewish although he feels he is becoming one. Here are some extracts from his article, do go and read the whole piece:

"My sole interest in Jewish concerns came from being a left-wing opponent of the far Right, and the blood-soaked antisemitic superstitions which turned Europe into a graveyard. When I was young, such attitudes seemed unproblematic. You did not have to be a Jew to oppose fascism; everyone I knew did that regardless of colour or creed.

Today the old certainties have gone because there are two far-right movements: the white neo-Nazi parties that the Left still opposes; and the clerical fascists of radical Islam which, extraordinarily, the modern Left succours and indulges. I am not only talking about Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and their gruesome accomplices in the intelligentsia. Wider liberal society is almost as complicit. It does not applaud the Islamist far Right, but it will not condemn it either. From the broadcasters, through the liberal press, the Civil Service, the Metropolitan Police, the bench of bishops and the judiciary, antisemitism is no longer an unthinkable mental deformation. As long as the conspiracy theories of the counter-enlightenment come from ideologues with dark rather than white skins, nominally liberal men and women will not speak out."

Here is the key passage and one that is hard to disagree with:

"You do not need me to add that mine is a minority point of view among liberals, and that British Jews are living through a very dangerous period. They are the only ethnic minority whose slaughter official society will excuse. If a mass murderer bombed a mosque or black Pentecostal church, no respectable person would say that the “root cause” of the crime was an understandable repulsion at the deeds of al-Qaeda or a legitimate opposition to mass immigration. Rightly, they would blame the criminal for the crime.

If a synagogue is attacked, I guarantee that within minutes the airwaves will be filled with insinuating voices insisting that the “root cause” of the crime was a rational anger at the behaviour of Israel or the Jewish diaspora."

So should we all be Jewish now?

Always be nice to the neighbours

Jacqui Smith may have a problem. Some of her neighbours in London are prepared to put on record that Jacqui Smith has not been staying in her sister's London flat as often as she claims:

"Mrs Taplin, 33, said: 'When I read that she says she spends most of the week here, I thought, "That is a fabrication."

'She is virtually never here on a Sunday as she claimed and you don't see much of her in the summer. I would say she spends no more than a third of the year here.'

Mr Taplin, 46, who works from home, said: 'You can tell when she is here because the police guards arrive first. They turn up mid-morning on Monday and leave mid-morning on Thursday.

'I cannot recall when they have been here any other nights of the week. I find her behaviour extraordinary.'

Both Mr and Mrs Taplin say they are prepared to give evidence if there is an official inquiry into Ms Smith's expenses.

...

Another resident who lives a few doors down from Ms Smith's lodgings, on the same side of the road, said: 'I see the policemen outside the house three mornings a week. It varies but I would say no more than three mornings a week.

'You really know when she's there - you can't miss two armed coppers standing on your road.'

One neighbour who has lived on the street since the Sixties said: 'I just can't believe it's her main residence. The policemen disappear for weeks.'"

Maybe the police could release the records showing on how many days they had armed police stationed outside Jacqui Smith's sister's flat. That should be easy to report on and pretty conclusive; I won't hold my breath though.

Stephen Timms is a young Ken Clarke

I just listened to the Radio 4 Today programme's interview with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,Stephen Timms and was struck by how much like a young Ken Clarke he sounded.

Photographers fight back (update and reminder)

The protest goes ahead against section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 which comes into force today. Daniel 1979 has a good anecdote:

"When I was at school, not too many years ago we were taught that cameras were forbidden in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. This, our liberal teacher told us was because cameras can be used to document offences of the state against civilians; as such, they were considered a tool that can bring about civil unrest and encourage protest against the Communist Governments. This particular teacher, sneered at this particular law and the system in which it helped preserve."

Daniel 1979 also has a warning for us:

"We take a big step further into Labour's totalitarian state tomorrow, as professional photographers can be arrested and detained for doing their jobs. Tourists taking pictures of the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace are liable for prosecution. Taking photos in the street, at sporting events, at weddings and during state proceedings could all lead to the possibility of prosecution."

If you voted Labour in 2001 or 2005 then you are partly to blame for what is happening; what you learnt from 1997 to 2001 should have told you all you needed to know about this Labour government's integrity and their control-freakery.

I aim to be outside New Scotland Yard at 11am, Nikon in hand; so long as work doesn't get in the way.

Is someone about to spill the beans on Gordon Brown

The Independent think so:

"The HBOS whistleblower whose revelations led to the resignation of one of the Government's top regulators is about to release a tranche of documents which he says point a direct and accusatory finger at Gordon Brown's responsibility for the banking crisis, and has called on the Prime Minister to resign.

...

Paul Moore, the former head of risk at HBOS, told the IoS that he has more than 30 potentially incendiary documents which he will send to MPs on the Treasury Select Committee. He says they disprove Mr Brown's claim about the reasons for HBOS's catastrophic losses – now estimated to be nearly £11bn – and show that it was the reckless lending culture, easy credit and failed regulation of the Brown years that led directly to the implosion of British banks. "

Read the rest and cross your fingers... Although of course no shit will stick to Gordon Brown, not yet anyway.

Nuclear power, yes please

James Lovelock explains why we need nuclear power and why we might be being scared off it.

"I think we fail to welcome nuclear energy as the one good and reliable power source because we have been grievously misled by a concatenation of lies. Falsehood has built on falsehood and is mindlessly repeated by the media until belief in the essential evil of all things nuclear is part of an instinctive response.

...

"

Pop quiz time

Which rock group chose their name rather than the alternatives of "Twisted Kites", "Cans of Piss", and "Negro Wives"?

Some children are just so ungrateful

"Toddler critical after sea rescue".

Ungrateful child!

The privatisation of the police

Read The Mail on ACPO and wonder where this Country is heading.

"Britain's most powerful police body is being run as a private business with an annual income of around £18million.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which oversees everything from anti-terrorism policy to speed cameras, was last night facing demands that it be disbanded, following a Mail on Sunday investigation into its activities which include:

* Selling information from the Police National Computer for up to £70 – even though it pays just 60 pence to access those details.
* Marketing ‘police approval’ logos to firms selling anti-theft devices.
* Operating a separate private firm offering training to speed camera operators, which is run by a senior officer who was banned from driving.

* Advising the Government and police forces – earning £32million of taxpayers’ money in the process.
* Employing retired senior officers on lucrative salaries."

Do read the whole article but try not to get too angry.

Will Jacqui Smith end up in court

Not over her expenses but over her exclusion of Geert Wilders as apparently the Dutch is "seriously considering" taking steps to sue Jacqui Smith over her decision to ban him from the UK.

Now that's how to question the politicians "in charge" of the failed economy

John McFall please take note. Although as John McFall's only qualification to be Chair of the Treasury Committee seems to be that he a close friend of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, maybe that is too much to hope for.



Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

This group should produce an unbiased report...

The BBC delightedly report that:

"A group of British MPs is due to visit Gaza to assess the effects of the recent Israeli military offensive."

I think that we might be able to predict the tone of their report from the fact that they are all members of the Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group. They say that they hope to visit international aid operations, including UN-run sites, if allowed in to Gaza. I wonder if they will be asking the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza or will they just be using this visit to attack Israel.

The BBC and some UK Parliamentary anti-Israel sheep, what a combination.

More Man Made Climate Change scaremongering

The BBC are pleased to "report" that:

"The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.

Professor Chris Field, an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change, said future temperatures "will be beyond anything" predicted. "

I'm willing to bet it won't, so Professor Field put your money where your mouth is.

Too much to post, not enough time

No time to post recently so here are the links to articles that have caught my eye in my first round-up posting:

1) Daniel Hannan explains why it is good news that we still have a separate currency so we can devalue. A commenter points out that

"if they (other EU countries) want it(Sterling) higher this time, then they just need to buy stirling (sic)... ECB has loads of money, nothing stopping them, why do they want us to anything?"

2) St Crispins Day explains that the Royal Navy may be past the point of no return -

"Where once there were 16 Type 42’s , St. C is interested to see that only 6 of the new ones will be delivered to replace them.

We were all up in arms originally when it was announced that only 12 were to be delivered! This was then cut to 8. Oh well we cried, we’ve lived without Sheffield, and Coventry for long enough, and, after all, the lieing cheating politico’s told us “this is a much more CAPABLE piece of equipment”. Just how does “more capable” equate to “CAN BE IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE”! A ship is a ship. It covers a small bit of water, or transports people to a single location where they are needed."

3) American Thinker writes about the latest anti-Semitic attacks in Toronto and wonders why

"the police demanded that the center itself close down -- punishing the innocent and achieving the goal of the mob."

4) Yahoo News report that contrary to what many Creationists claim, there are plenty of transitional fossils, aka missing links. There are plenty of examples listed, take a read, make a list and be ready to counter the arguments of the ill-informed with your knowledge of mid length necked giraffes, walking manatee, Dimetrodon and

"Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals."

5) mono-monostatic bodies as seen on QI the other night.


6) Donal Blaney wonders if Gordon Brown has been modelling the running of the UK economy on Peter Risdales's Leeds United. If this is the case, there must be an enormous new fish tank in Number 10!


7) Political Betting have a great chart to help you spot who might be the next Labour leader - Ed Balls!


8) Isreally Cool reports that

" Medicine bottles, transferred to the Gaza Strip as humanitarian aid by Israel, were used by Hamas as grenades against IDF troops during Operation Cast Lead.

The medicine bottles were manufactured by the Jerusalem Pharmaceutical Company, which is based in el-Bireh, a town adjacent to Ramallah, and the global pharmaceutical company Shire.

The medicine bottles were filled with explosives, holes were drilled in the caps, and fuses were installed. Once Hamas fighters lit the fuses, they had several seconds to throw the grenades at soldiers. The IDF also found small explosive devices that used medical syringes to hold their fuses.

The medical grenades were discovered in northern Gaza by troops during last month’s three-week battle against Hamas. The grenades were taken to military explosives experts, and then disassembled and studied.

One bottle turned into a grenade originally contained a drug called Equetro, which is used by people who suffer from episodes associated with bipolar disorder. Another bottle had contained a vitamin supplement called Super-Vit.

“This is another example of Hamas’s cynical use of humanitarian supplies to attack Israel,” a Defense Ministry official said Thursday. “Israel facilitates the transfer of the supplies to the Gaza Strip, and Hamas uses the supplies to create weapons.”"

9) Christopher Booker reports that

"Inevitably Australia's vociferous "Greenies" have been blaming Victoria's fire disaster (and hottest temperatures for 100 years) on "global warming".

But many angry Victorians are blaming the scale of this catastrophe on the Green campaigners themselves, who for some years have been successfully lobbying for stringent new laws to forbid clearing trees and scrub to create fire-breaks around towns and homesteads. Several experts have testified that the resulting accumulation of tinder-dry vegetation was a major contributor to the tragedy. In 2004 Liam Sheahan of Ready Creek, Victoria, famously lost $100,000 when he was prosecuted for felling 247 trees to protect his property. Last week his house was the only one in the area left standing. "

10) JPost report the worrying results of a pan-European survey that shows that

"nearly a third of Europeans polled blame Jews for the global economic meltdown and that a greater number think Jews have too much power in the business world. "

Pussy protecting breasts - odd but true

Leave the breasts alone.

The difference between men and women

Something for Valentines Day...

"they all appreciated their gift of the prime minister's ear"

Pravda/BBC "reporting" on the story that:

"Earlier this week, BBC News met three former Woolworths workers, struggling to find new jobs. After hearing that Prime Minister Gordon Brown had said that jobs were being created, one of them, Evelyn Downey, challenged him to "come to Corby and show me where they are, because I can't find any".

Mr Brown agreed to meet them. BBC economics reporter Steven Duke was in Corby to hear how the meeting went. "

The title of this post is the end line of the BBC "report". Did I say "report"? I meant fawning rubbish.

Cricket is coming home

The second cricket test between the West Indies and England has been moved from the soulless out of town Sir Vivian Richards Stadium to the atmospheric, centrally located Recreation Ground. The new ground's bowler run-ups were described by the match referee Alan Hurst described as "unfit and dangerous for bowlers". Of course the rescheduling means that first the Recreation Ground will need some rapid sprucing up and some attention to the square and second that a lot of England supporters will miss the end of the test as their itineraries will mean they will probably be in hotels in Barbados.

As the match is at the Rec, maybe Gravy could be brought back to entertain the crowds. Gravy is the nickname of the splendidly named Labon Kenneth Blackburn Leeweltine Buckonon Benjamin, the bearded resident of St Johns, Antigua, who entertained the crowds at the Rec for many years. You can read more about Gravy here. One personal recollection; when I went to Antigua some years ago, possibly the biggest thrill was seeing Gravy on his stall in St Johns.

Fitna

Beware both of the parts of the film contains images that are extremely graphic and may be deeply upsetting. The viewing of this film is unsuitable for minors and people of a sensitive disposition. Please do not show these videos to a minor.


Posted so that Keith Vaz has the opportunity to watch the film before he is next interviewed about Geert Wilders and feels he can comment on it because he has read a review.

Who's to blame?

Any Questions - Radio 4 tonight and repeated on Saturday at 13:10 - listen to Denis MacShane waffle and not like being cornered by Jonathan Dimbleby, Janet Street Porter and Jo Swinson and definitely not apologising or calling for Gordon Brown to apologise over the regulation of the Banks.

You can also hear Denis MacShane have to defend Jacqui Smith's housing arrangements and waffle. He does not actually defend the £24,000 a year for a room in Peckham and nobody challenges him.

And then they turned to Geert Wilders:
Janet Street Porter - banning lead to far more media coverage than just letting him in, as is always the case. Banning is bad, free speech is good; "let him speak" - polite applause
Denis MacShane - "There is right not to be offended" - He does point out that nobody tried to ban Jean Marie Le Pen who is an anti-Semite. Denis MacShane stands with Voltaire - slightly less polite applause
Jo Swinson - Agrees with Denis MacShane and thinks that free speech ends when it incites violence. She describes the film as "vile", was the film vile or the words and actions contained with in it. Apparently you can make such a film from any text and the film's claims are rubbish - polite applause
David Davis - Does bring up the 10,000 Muslims on the street comment, public debate is the answer - loudest applause.

Audience hand vote - unanimous (bar one) view it was the wrong decision taken by Jacqui Smith.


Listen to the show here or repeated on Radio 4 on Saturday at 13:10, maybe call in to Any Answers after the Saturday repeat.

The fall of the UK economy

According to Business Monitor International, a research company specialising in country risk, "Britain is facing an unprecedented fall in its economic world ranking… from 12th place in 2007 to 21st in 2010".

Thanks Gordon, still "best placed" are we?

The BBC are the Ministry of Truth

All yesterday morning the BBC were happily "reporting" that a "British lead consortium" had won the contract to supply new trains and that this would create "12,500" jobs in the UK. Almost immediately bloggers were pointing out that this was not the case; that the British lead consortium had been Japanese lead until very recently and that there would not be 12,500 jobs created. The BBC kept on pushing the Labour government line.

This morning I see that even the BBC have had to report the truth about the "leadership" of the consortium and the credibility of the jobs claim.

As the work has been given to Hitachi and the Japanese economy is in dire straits, I would expect the number of jobs allocated to the UK to reduce as "the situation develops".

This Labour government's record on negotiating commercial contracts is woeful, they seem to have almost no business acumen or understanding of the real world.


Back to the title of this piece; I see that the BBC have chosen not to link their new piece on this matter back to their articles yesterday that lauded the project as British. It is as though they never existed - "We've always been at war with Eastasia" - The BBC is well on the way to becoming the Ministry of Truth (Mini-true, in Newspeak), the branch of the government responsible for the production and dissemination of all information. I wonder where the "Winston department" is whose job is to "rectify" all past news articles which have since been "proven" to be false?

Why Barack Obama is taking control of the US Census

The director of next year's US Census will report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as was formerly the case. Now why would Barack Obama want to make such a change? Do I hear ACORN?

Meanwhile Iowahawk explains it thus (my emphasis): "Waving invisible banners proclaiming "Census Rights Now," an enormous throng of Imaginary-Americans rallied at the National Mall today to support the Obama Administration's planned takeover of the U.S. Census Bureau.

"I want to thank everyone in the Imaginary community for turning out for this great cause," said President Obama, speaking on the steps of the Lincoln Monument to a reportedly cheering crowd estimated at between 0 and 12 million. "For too long, the Census Bureau has discriminated against people on the basis of their existential status, or perceived lack of appearance. That must stop. I promise you that under my administration, Imaginary-Americans everywhere will enjoy the same rights that they do in my home town of Chicago."

ABC News analyst Jake Tapper said the rally underscored the growing national political clout of Imaginary-Americans.

"It used to be that Non-Existentials were mostly confined to a few wards in Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit, but we're seeing them more and more in opinion polls and elections around the country," said Tapper. "With dozens of congressional seats and billions of dollars in federal grants hanging in the balance, the President wants to make sure Imaginary citizens don't get undercounted in the 2010 Census."

"It's just smart politics," added Tapper. "According to the exit polls, President Obama carried the Imaginary vote 346% to √-12%.""

And on the BBC not a word...

More on the banning of Geert Wilders (update)

The Geert Wilders/Fitna affair took another turn today when Geert Wilders was denied entry by the Home Office and was questioned by immigration officials at Heathrow. Also in attendance was the Dutch Ambassador who made clear his government's opposition to the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK. Lord Pearson still intends to show Fitna at the Houses of Parliament today and to hold a debate afterwards.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, told the BBC's Hardtalk that: "The home secretary made a decision on an individual case as she is required to do." and that the film contained "extreme anti-Muslim hate and we have very clear laws in this country". He added "We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land."

The Home Office issued a statement that included this: "The government opposes extremism in all forms... "


Meanwhile Jacqui Smith allowed Ibrahim Moussawi into the UK to address an anti-war rally at Birmingham City Council's offices last year, that's the same Ibrahim Moussawi who has been reported in the New Yorker magazine as saying that Jews are "a lesion on the forehead of history".

Meanwhile the Labour government continually listened to and consorted with Azad Ali the president of the Civil Service Islamic Society, to whose advantage.

Meanwhile a report claimed that some Muslim schools in the UK teach "repugnant" beliefs about the wickedness of Western society and Jews.

Meanwhile Anjem Choudary can host a live feed from the Lebanon by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad and himself say that "As Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister - Bush or Brown - or [to] Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah." as well as "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street."

Meanwhile Abu Rumaysah at the same meeting can say: "Women need to be covered up, men lashed for fornication [outside marriage] and hands cut off for theft and breaking Sharia law," When a woman in a burkha asked how he could justify this when Islam was supposed to be a religion of peace, the crowd mocked her. But it was Choudary who rose to put her in her place. "Islam is not a religion of peace," he said. "It is a religion of submission. We need to submit to the will of Allah."

Meanwhile the King of Saudi Arabia is accorded the honour of a full state visit and The Mall is hung with flags bearing the text (in Arabic) that: "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger". That's the King of Saudi Arabia, the Country where:
1) No symbols of any faith other than Islam are allowed and the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited.

2) Only Muslims are allowed into Mecca & Medina, the street signs are really quite shocking when you see them.

3) The Saudi government does not permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services.

4) According Saudi policy for tourists, it is not permissible to bring Christian or Jewish religious symbols and books into the kingdom and they are subject to confiscation

5) Until March 1, 2004, the official government website stated that Jews were forbidden from entering the country - the situation now is less clear


But it is Geert Wilders who is prevented from entering the UK to speak at a meeting whilst Ibrahim Moussawi, Anjem Choudary and Abu Rumaysah can say what they like without fear of censure. It is Geert Wilders who is prevented from entering the UK whilst those who march chanting "death to the Jews" or call for the beheading of cartoonists carry on regardless. It is strange Country we live in, is it not?

Computer viruses hit the military

Last week I read in The Telegraph that:

"French fighter planes were unable to take off after military computers were infected by a computer virus, an intelligence magazine claims.

The aircraft were unable to download their flight plans after databases were infected by a Microsoft virus they had already been warned about several months beforehand.

At one point French naval staff were also instructed not to even open their computers.

Microsoft had warned that the "Conficker" virus, transmitted through Windows, was attacking computer systems in October last year, but according to reports the French military ignored the warning and failed to install the necessary security measures.

The French newspaper Ouest France said the virus had hit the internal computer network at the French Navy. "

Oh well that's the French for you I thought and decided not to blog the story.

Today I read at Spectrum that (my emphasis):

"The UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) confirmed inquiries made by the website The Register that since the 6th of January 2009, "the performance of the MOD IT systems in a number of areas was affected by a virus... This meant that some people were without regular IT access (i.e. email, internet). There have been no infections detected on any networks with sensitive information."

The Register's story says that the virus is affecting Royal Navy warships like the carrier HMS Ark Royal.

"The Navy computers infected are the NavyStar (N*) system, based on a server cabinet and cable-networked PCs on each warship and used for purposes such as storekeeping, email and similar support functions. N* ship nets connect to wider networks by shore connection when vessels are in harbour and using satcomms when at sea," says the story.

The N* system, which is built by Fujitsu, is to come under the Defence Information Infrastructure which is currently late and over-budget.

The Register story notes that, "The MoD refused to discuss details of the virus, transmission methods, countermeasures or other specifics of the incident 'for security reasons'."

Update:

The Sunday Times has a story today that claims the virus has infected Royal Air Force systems, and that "all e-mail traffic from a number of RAF stations has been sent to a Russian internet server."

"The RAF stations affected included those from which fighter aircraft have been scrambled to counter Russian bombers testing British air defences," the story adds.

In addition, the Times quotes RAF sources that say that the virus “ 'originated from the former eastern bloc' ” and said forces security experts were surprised at its sophistication.'"

This is not a stupid little IT story, this is major. If "all e-mail traffic from a number of RAF stations has been sent to a Russian internet server" then how can the MOD say that no "sensitive information" has been compromised.

The sooner the Labour government realise that the Russian government is no friend of ours the better. This action could be classified as spying or it could be seen as worse, either way maybe better security precautions could be instigated within all defence establishments, that's if there is any money left over after paying senior Labour MPs to keep several homes...

What's a "civilian"?

The Stop the War coalition state on the page devoted to "Protest against Israeli Ambassador’s visit to Kensington Town Hall 9 Feb 2009" that (my emphasis):

"Despite the freezing weather and hard rain falling, about 200 people arrived with banners and placards and shouted their displeasure at the Conservative Councillors inside Kensington Town Hall who were sipping champagne with representatives of Israel who have just killed 1300 civilians in Gaza, including the relatives of several families living in the Royal Borough."

So Israel killed 1,300 civilians; not a single Hamas terrorist/militant/fighter was killed? I presume that the same group (or at least many of its members) would say that every Israeli death was justified as they all have served or will serve or are related to someone in the Israeli military. Double standards or no standards?

The disappearing £16.3 trillion (update)

The more I think about this story the more worried I get. £16.3 trillion is a lot of money, could it in fact be enough to bankrupt the EU?

Meanwhile I see that FX Street are also reporting this story via "EU exec draft guidance on toxic asset treatment" and there it is near the bottom of the page:

" VALUATION PRINCIPLES

1. The determination of the fair value of financial instruments in the trading book and those at fair value under the fair value option (13.7 trillion euros or 33 percent of EU bank balance sheets) and instruments available for sale (4.5 trillion euros, or equivalent to 11 percent of EU bank balance sheets) is based on a three level hierarchy:

- mark to market in active markets,

- mark to model in inactive markets using observable inputs

- mark to model without observable inputs.

The last two must be agreed and could vary with the individual assets concerned, the Commission said.

For other asset categories not at fair value (23 trillion euros or 56 percent of EU bank balance sheets) impairment should be measured on the basis of future cash flows, it said. "

Is it too late to sell everything I own and buy gold?

The disappearing £16.3 trillion

Here's an odd thing, The Telegraph have a story that:

"A bail-out of the toxic assets held by European banks' could plunge the European Union into crisis, according to a confidential Brussels document. "

Oddly the URL still reads - "European-banks-may-need-16.3-trillion-bail-out-EC-dcoument-warns", the "Finance Most Viewed" still has at Number 1 "European banks may need £16.3 trillion bail-out, EC dcoument warns" but there is now no mention of the figure in the report itself.

According to a correspondent on FT's Alphaville the original Telegraph headline was:

"European banks may need massive bail-out - European banks sitting on £16.3 trillion of toxic assets may suffer massive losses, according to a confidential Brussels document."

The original article also included this calculation:

"European Commission officials have estimated that “impaired assets” may amount to 44pc of EU bank balance sheets. The Commission estimates that so-called financial instruments in the ‘trading book’ total £12.3 trillion (13.7 trillion euros), equivalent to about 33pc of EU bank balance sheets.

In addition, so-called 'available for sale instruments' worth £4trillion (4.5 trillion euros), or 11pc of balance sheets, are also added by the Commission to arrive at the headline figure of £16.3 trillion."

Why did the £16.3 trillion disappear from the report? Why bother if the URL is not also altered?

What's the difference?

Last year a Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into the housing affairs of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper included this important statement:

"If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accommodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliament is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that that Member's main home is in the constituency."

In the case of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper the Commissioner also noted that

"In the case of Ms Cooper and Mr Balls, however, they maintain two properties sufficient for them to conduct their family life in both London and in Castleford. Which is their main home is not a simple or self-evident fact. It is necessary to examine their arrangements more closely in accordance with the remaining provisions in the rules which assist Members in defining their main home."

In that case Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper were trying to prove that their Castleford home was their main home, in this case Jacqui Smith is claiming that her London "home" is her main home.

Remember

"If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accommodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliament is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that that Member's main home is in the constituency."

How does that not apply in Jacqui Smith's case?

How can John Lyon say that in Jacqui Smith's case there was "not sufficient evidence for an inquiry"?

Why is this matter not being pursued more doggedly by the media? Are they all that much in thrall to Gordon Brown and his Labour henchmen? How can this Labour government again and again close down legitimate argument and complaint without anything much in the way of consequences?

More on the banning of Geert Wilders

Take a listen to today's Radio 4 World at One from around 19:50 and hear Geert Wilders being interviewed and then Lord Ahmed not being asked about his threat to "to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House" but being allowed to make unsubstantiated claims. Lord Pearson is also interviewed and uses the word "appeasement" to describe the banning of Geert Wilders. Lord Ahmed seems very concerned about threats to him but the threat is not from the film but the reaction of some elements of some Muslim extremists to the film. The "debate" ends oddly; Lord Pearson explains that the film will be shown with or without Geert Wilders along with another film to be followed by a discussion. Meanwhile right at the end and over the top of Lord Pearson, Lord Ahmed claims that the "Islamic scholars" who will be taking part in the debate are "scholars who hate Muslims". Hmmmm.

Maybe Lord Ahmed is getting a little anxious, after all on the 25 February he faces a court date that could result in him being sent to prison for up to two years for the admitted crime of dangerous driving that resulted in the death of Martin Gombar. "Lord Ahmed admitted sending and receiving five text messages on his phone while driving shortly before the crash, and pleaded guilty to the charge before him. He was banned from driving until his sentencing. On 22 December, Sheffield Magistrates' Court referred the case for sentencing at the crown court on 19 January due to its "aggravating features". This was later put back until 25 February. Lord Ahmed faces a maximum of two years in jail."

odd how the BBC hasn't drawn attention to this piece of back-story. As I said back in November:

"The way that the BBC report the alleged misdeeds of politicians is almost childlike in its bias. Any misdeed of a Conservative politician no matter how minor is front page news for days, to be discussed and analysed at length. Meanwhile any alleged infraction by a Labour politician, no matter how senior the politician or serious the allegation is reported as quietly and for as short a time as possible. Can you imagine the BBC coverage if this had been a Conservative member of the House of Lords? I would imagine it would be front page news for days."

Who supports terrorism (update)

Further to my earlier post about Jacqui Smith's decision to ban Geert Wilders from the UK as she deemed his

"presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

I am reminded that last year the same Home Secretary decided to allow Ibrahim Moussawi into the UK to address an anti-war rally at Birmingham City Council's offices. Ibrahim Moussawi at the time edited Hezbollah's newspaper and was the former political editor of Hezbollah's television station, which is banned in many countries including France, Spain and the U.S. where its output is seen as anti-Semitic. Moussawi wrote an article for the Daily Star in 2002 to explain the religious basis for suicide attacks. Mousawi has also been reported in the New Yorker magazine as saying that Jews are "a lesion on the forehead of history".

So is Jacqui Smith saying that Ibrahim Moussawi is less of a threat to "community harmony and therefore public security in the UK" than Geert Wilders? If so is this because Jews will, as usual, accept the attacks on them by the likes of Moussawi whilst Lord Ahmed "threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House"?


The more the British government accedes to the demands of one minority in the interests of "community harmony", the more members of other minorities and the majority population may feel that the government is not acting in their interests. The more these feelings are allowed to grow, the more nasty the result may be.



If you want to read about more Islamic extremists that our expense claiming Home Secretary thinks are not worthy of a ban on entering the Country, then Harry's Place has a more comprehensive list than I do.

What a surprise - there will be no police investigation

"Pavda" report that:

"The police will not investigate allegations against two members of the House of Lords accused of being willing to change laws in exchange for cash.

The Lib Dems referred the matter to police after newspaper allegations raised questions about the conduct of four Labour peers earlier this month.

But after consulting with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Metropolitan Police has decided against an inquiry.

A Lords Committee is looking into the allegations against the four men. "

To paraphrase The Strawbs -

"Oh you don't get me I'm part of the Party
You don't get me I'm part of the Party
You don't get me I'm part of the party
Till the day I die, till the day I die."

Carole Cadwalladr on Jacqui Smith

Jacqui Smith is not faring well today is she. I have already commented on Simon Heffer in The Telegraph and his views on Jacqui Smith, now I see that Carole Cadwalladr in The Guardian's Comment is Free is little kinder:

"So there it is. Greed is good. And on the same day, that Gordon Brown appeared before an audience of economists like a dark avenging angel and said that he would be "sweeping away" the bankers' bonuses, his spokesman told reporters: "Jacqui Smith has made her statement on that and that's it as far as the prime minister is concerned."

In fact, the tale of Smith has more than one parallel with the banking crisis. She "fully abided" by the rules. Just as the banks did nothing legally wrong. The problem is that it's obvious to anyone, to everyone, that is, apart from Gordon Brown, that the rules are wrong."

If you want a flavour of Labour anger then take a read of the comments that follow the CIF piece, here's a few:

"Resign. Now. This is absolutely and unforgivably scandalous."


"GUARDIAN, seriously, why isn't this on the front page?"


"Jacqui Smith is actually so reminiscent of the Napolean from Animal Farm I am finding it all quite disturbing

The cowardly pig who encourages the other animals to fight and die for the good of the farm.

Controlling, greedy, deceitful hypocrite : Jacqui Smith."



"Jacqui Smith is just another not-terribly-bright politician who's in it for herself.

I'm sure she doesn't see herself as corrupt but she certainly makes sure she gets her snout as far into the trough as possible. I truly wonder if she has any understanding that to the general public it seems venal and corrupt. She's spending nearly five times the median wage on benefits for a second home. How else can it look but corrupt?"



"The other key point that the Guardian & BBC etc are not mentioning is that, on becoming Home Secretary, one of the top Cabinet posts & the key national security position, she turned down the use of a grace & favour apartment in Whitehall with existing police guard, as this would have meant that she would lose her £24k pa second home allowance. So instead, she carries on living in her unsecure Peckham house share which now needs 24 hour police protection, costing c. £200k pa. Not a bad deal for the taxpayer, is it ? And why was the Mail on Sunday front page with this on not shown during the press review on Andrew Marr's show on the BBC ?"



"If they want to monitor our calls, emails and messages, then we ought to have the right to see what they are spending our money on."

The public are getting angrier by the day. When will Gordon Brown and Michael Martin realise that the game is up; it's our money your getting in "expenses" so you and your associates can bloody well account for it like any other taxpayer. Your are public servants not our masters, behave appropriately.

Simon Heffer on Jacqui Smith (now there's an image!)

Somehow I don't think that Simon Heffer is a huge fan of Jacqui Smith; here's an extract:

"here is no suggestion that Miss Smith has broken any law, or even rule. But she has cunningly exploited an over-generous and unduly loose system by which MPs claim expenses in order to fill her handbag with taxpayers' money. To any right-minded person, her main residence is the substantial house she owns in her constituency. It is where her personal effects are mostly kept, as with those of her family. It is where her children live. Yet she claims the London house she does not own, but where she lodges with her sister, is her main residence. The authorities are happy with this, and she profits accordingly.

...

We know Miss Smith's game. She will struggle to hold her seat at the next election, as Labour will struggle to hold the country. Faced not just with the loss of a ministerial salary but also an MP's one (with all its juicy expenses), and with life in the House of Lords perhaps no longer a gravy train, it makes sense to coin it in while you can. This includes having her husband on her payroll, too. If lean times hit the Smith household, there should be a bit of fat to live off while the Job Centre does its work."

Who supports terrorism?

The current Home Secretary like most of her Labour predecessors, seems to have no problem allowing Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on University campuses for the Jihad against Britain and the west, she seems not to take much notice of people marching through British streets screaming their support for Hamas and their hatred for Jews ("we are all Hamas now", "death to the Jews", "Hamas should finish where Hitler left off"). However when a Muslim peer (Lord Ahmed) threatens the mass intimidation of Parliament if a video is shown within the Houses of Parliament (whilst he was happy to invite a known anti-Semite, Jöran Jermas to speak there) then she acts, however not in the way that she should have.

I blogged about Lord Ahmed's threats and his attempt to ban the showing of the Fitna video last month. Subsequent to that, the House of Lords authorities decided not to agree to the proposed ban and said that extra police would be drafted in to meet the threat and that the showing of Geert Wilders' Fitna video and the discussion should go ahead. However Jacqui Smith has decided she knows better and a letter has been sent from her office to Geert Wilders saying:

"...the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

It is interesting that the letter does not say whether the Home Office believe that Geert Wilders' statements are true or not, just that they "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK". I wonder if someone could ask Jacqui Smith what she believes is the truth.

When a Dutch politician is banned from the UK for telling unpalatable truths about one religion whilst followers of that same religion are allowed to threaten the life of their fellow Britons, then I fear for where this may lead. The UK is sleepwalking (or maybe being lead) in a direction that may be exceedingly dangerous to those of us who are not loved or respected by some followers of strict Islamic tradition. The more the British government accedes to the demands of one minority in the interests of "community harmony", the more the rest of the "community" may feel that the government is not acting in their interests. The more these feelings are allowed to grow, the more nasty the result may be. I know that I am not alone in wondering if this Labour government are actually trying to provoke "community unrest" so that they can implement the Civil Contingency Act; might we be right?

Balen Report update

The Press Gazette reports that:

"A legal bid to force the BBC to disclose an internal report on its coverage of the Middle East was given a massive boost by the House of Lords today.

The Law Lords held by a 3-2 majority that a case brought by lawyer Steven Sugar under the Freedom of Information Act was wrongly blocked by legal rulings at earlier court hearings.

The case now returns to the High Court for further argument before a final decision is made."

Maybe the High Court will order the BBC to release of the Balen report, although it probably won't. However the fact that the BBC are fighting so hard not to publish the Balen report leads me to conclude that the report does not agree with the BBC's claims of impartiality in its coverage of Israel and the Palestinians.



Thanks to Iain Dale for the spot.

Conspiracy Theory time - The Australian Forest Fires

The Macedonian International News Agency report that:

"AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.

US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".

The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.

The posting — which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months — says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".

"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."

With the nation heading into another hot, dry summer, Australian intelligence agencies are treating the possibility that bushfires could be used as a weapon of terrorism as a serious concern.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.

"Any information that suggests a threat to Australia's interests is investigated by relevant agencies as appropriate," Mr McClelland said.

Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis, in keeping with a recent decline in the sophistication of terrorist operations.

"With attacks like bushfires, yes, it would be easy. It would be very damaging and we do see a decreasing sophistication as a part of terrorist attacks," Dr Dolnik said.

"In recent years, there have been quite a few attacks averted and it has become more and more difficult for groups to do something effective."

Dr Dolnik said he had observed an increase in traffic on jihadi websites calling for a simplification of terrorist attacks because the more complex operations had been failing. But starting bushfires was still often regarded as less effective than other operations because governments could easily deny terrorism as the cause.

The internet posting by the little-known group claimed the idea of forest fires had been attributed to imprisoned Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Suri. It said Al-Suri had urged terrorists to use sulphuric acid and petrol to start forest fires."

Well it's a theory but I have not seen such an angle reported elsewhere.

The financial experts in government

Not Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling this time but the Chair of the Treasury Committee, John McFall. To become Chair of the Treasury Committee surely he has experience of Economics or banking or finance; don't be daft. Wikipedia record John McFall's past thus:

"He went to school in Dumbarton. He studied at Paisley College of Technology (now the University of Paisley) and the University of Strathclyde, receiving a BSc in Chemistry, then an MBA. He obtained a BA from the Open University in Education and Philosophy. He was a chemistry teacher in Dumbarton, Kirkintilloch and Glasgow, becoming a deputy-head from 1974-87, and Secretary of his Constituency Labour Party before he entered Parliament. In 1994, he became a Visiting Professor at Strathclyde University Business School, and now is a member of the Strategic Advisory Board at the University of Glasgow Business School. He is a member of the GMB Union.

Political career

He was first elected for the Dumbarton constituency, Scotland, at the 1987 general election, after the previous MP, Ian Campbell retired. His original majority was a little over 2,000. Dumbarton constituency was replaced with the new West Dunbartonshire constituency for the 2005 general election. McFall's majority is now over 12,500.

He has been a whip and junior minister (for Education, Training and Employment, Health and Community Relations, then in 1999 for Economy and Education) at the Northern Ireland Office from 1998-9."

Yes he looks well qualified to question bankers and financial experts, maybe he is qualified by virtue of him being a) Scottish, b) a loyal Labour MP and c) according to the Times "close to Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown". I can't think of anything else - can you?

Risk analysis and its part in the banking collapse

Alex Masterley has an excellent piece on his blog today regarding the role of risk analysis in the fall of the banking system. There are some technical points but all of it should be easily understandable by those of us outside of (but with an interest in) banking. I reproduce here his last paragraph as I think it really makes the point well:

"When risk assessments were made in banks the one question that was not asked was "What happens if X market goes away?" because the likely answer was "it ain't gonna happen, but if it does we all go to hell in handcart, you , me, the Governor of the Bank of England and the whole economy". The risk was put in the very low risk category, not factored into any pricing models and generally ignored. On a deal by deal basis that made perfect sense because the loss on any deal was limited to the values related to that particular deal. On an aggregate basis the numbers were so huge that no bank would contemplate the losses resulting from any individual deal, so deals got done and the market consensus was that these sorts of things did not and would not happen. Which meant that the market grew and grew and the issues that were ignored were precisely those that occurred because nobody was worrying abut them."

"What exactly do you stand for Hazel, except election?"

George Monbiot on the Guardians Comment is Free takes Hazel Blears to task for claiming that

"you don't get very far in politics without guts, and certainly not as far as the cabinet table"

George Monbiot's researching finds that:

"Courage in politics is measured by the consistent application of principles. The website TheyWorkForYou.com records votes on key issues since 2001. It reveals that you voted "very strongly for the Iraq war", "very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war" and "very strongly for replacing Trident" ("very strongly" means an unbroken record). You have voted in favour of detaining terror suspects without charge for 42 days, in favour of identity cards and in favour of a long series of bills curtailing the freedom to protest. There's certainly consistency here, though it is not clear what principles you are defending."

and that (my emphasis):

"You remained silent while the government endorsed the kidnap and the torture of innocent people; blocked a ceasefire in Lebanon and backed a dictator in Uzbekistan who boils his prisoners to death. You voiced no public concern while it instructed the Serious Fraud Office to drop the corruption case against BAE, announced a policy of pre-emptive nuclear war, signed a one-sided extradition treaty with the United States and left our citizens to languish in Guantánamo Bay. You remained loyal while it oversaw the stealthy privatisation of our public services and the collapse of Britain's social housing programme, closed hundreds of post offices and shifted taxation from the rich to the poor. What exactly do you stand for Hazel, except election?"

George Monbiot's most telling passage is this:

"It seems to me that someone of your principles would fit comfortably into almost any government. All regimes require people like you, who seem to be prepared to obey orders without question. Unwavering obedience guarantees success in any administration. It also guarantees collaboration in every atrocity in which a government might engage. The greatest thing we have to fear in politics is the cowardice of politicians."

Hazel Blears a labour politician, like so many, without convictions or backbone.

Take a rread of the comments that follow George Monbiot's article; somewhat different from 1997's "things can only get better" aren't they. I love the smell of left-wing disillusionment in the afternoon....

Why do the "left" like taxing the rich?

"Making the rich poorer does not make the poor richer, but it does make the state stronger—and it does increase the power of officials and politicians, power more menacing, more permanent and less useful than market power within the rule of law. Inequality of income can only be eliminated at the cost of freedom. The pursuit of income equality will turn this country into a totalitarian slum."

Sir Keith Joseph




Thanks to The Appalling Strangeness for the spot.

What's suspicious?

I have read this "Suspicious Occurrence and Safety Alert" several times and I just don't see what's suspicious: "

"UCONN Police Reporting a Suspicious Occurrence and Safety Alert:

On 2/7/09 at approximately 6:35 PM a suspicious incident occurred at Hilltop Apartments, in the parking lot between the Beard and French buildings. A male approached a female from the opposite direction and came up within several feet of her personal space. The female turned around and left the area. The male walked away in the opposite direction. The male did not say anything or make physical contact with the female. The intention of the male is unknown. Description as follows: a white male 6’ 0” with shoulder length brown hair wearing a red or brown cloth jacket and jeans. Male described as older than college age. The male had a round face and large build.

If you have any information or witnessed the incident please call UConn Police at 486-4800. As always, you are encouraged to travel in groups at night and in well lit areas. Please notify police of any suspicious activity to police immediately."

So a man and a woman are walking in opposite directions across a car-park, they pass each other without any contact being made or words spoken. Nothing else happens and this is deemed suspicious by the University of Connecticut.




Thanks to Tory Bear for the spot.

"President Obama lives in his own world, a kind of parallel universe to the real world."

Read the whole article at Facts not Fantasy, it contains much of what I have been saying for quite some time. Barack Obama is a dangerous fantastic, much like Tony Blair was.

Doggy Samaritan

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Photographers fight back

I have blogged many, many times about the way that this Labour government and its tame Police have been restricting the rights of photographers. The last two items showed how we photographers are seen as perverts and as terrorists, do read both articles and the articles they link to.

Today I see at SpyBlog that there is a fightback. Apparently the NUJ and comedian Mark Thomas are organising "a mass picture taking session outside London's police HQ on Monday 16 February - the day the act becomes law.". The NUJ article continues:

"Mark - who uses his comedy act to expose state and corporate wrongdoing - will be joined outside New Scotland Yard by renowned documentary-maker Chris Atkins, NUJ vice-president Pete Murray and a bevy of photographers.

Photojournalist and NUJ member Marc Vallée said: "The plan is simple, turn up with your camera and exercise your democratic right to take a photograph in a public place."

There have already been cases of photographers stopped from working by police quoting anti-terror laws.

John Toner, the NUJ's organiser who looks after freelance photographers, said: "Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events - football matches, carnivals, state processions - so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal.

"Our members are photographers - not terrorists."

Roy Mincoff, NUJ Legal Officer, said: "Photographers do not want to endanger the health and safety of the police or the public - but it is important in a democracy that they can do their jobs properly without facing unnecessary legal restrictions."

The photo taking will start at 11am outside New Scotland Yard on Broadway, London."

I will see you there.

Life in Israel

Michael J. Totten on life under attack in Israel and how Hamas and Hezbollah could destroy Israel soon.

"Two and a half years ago I spoke to an Israeli intelligence officer who said that missile war was about to replace terrorist war, and he was right.

Colonel Eisen held up a map that showed which cities in Israel would be under attack if the same kinds of rockets flying out of Gaza today were being launched from inside the West Bank.

Every major population center in the country would be under attack except Haifa. Yet Haifa is within Hezbollah's rocket range out of Lebanon in the north. When Hezbollah fired its medium-size Katyusha rockets at Haifa in 2006, Haifa was on fire and emptied of people and cars. It was like a city at the end of the world. It's possible, though very intolerable, to live under Qassam rocket attack. It isn't possible to live long at all under Katyusha rocket attack.

If this nightmare scenario ever unfolds, Israel will be in a fight for its life. And Palestinians and Lebanese will be killed in horrifying numbers in order to make it all stop. "

What are we being prepared for?

There is much discussion this morning about Ed Balls' comments that the financial crisis will be "more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s", that these were "seismic events that are going to change the political landscape" and that "we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."

Something is missing though, people are not speculating as to where this is leading us. Is anyone thinking that Ed Balls has not spoken out of turn but is gently preparing the ground for what may be to follow? Has the decision been taken that rather than downplay the economic problems, maybe it would be best to exaggerate them? Are Labour so scared of losing the next general election that they are preparing us for the "need" to suspend democracy during this unprecedented time of national disaster? Is the Civil Contingency Act about to be used for its real, non-terrorism related, purpose? Is the EU project so nearly complete that just a small delay in the holding of a general election would mean that the UK will be forever bound into the EUSSR? Am I paranoid? Maybe but just look at the anti-democratic instincts of this Labour government and can you understand why?

What is greed?

Milton Friedman defends capitalism and does it well. This should be required watching for the BBC staff who hate Capitalism with every fibre of their body.

One of the great questions of our time?

"Who has got the better baps? - Michelle Ryan or Sheridan Smith". Take a look, have a vote; it's what the Internet was invented for...

The thirty first weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

The Telegraph reports that:

"British teenagers have lower IQs than their counterparts did 30 years ago "

"No shit, Sherlock"

Bill, Hillary and Barack

The Huffington Post has a great piece of video of Hillary Clinton spurning a kiss from husband Bill Clinton in favour of a kiss from Barack Obama, do take a look...Cold isn't she.

And here's the embeddedable video