Gordon Brown and his fearless interrogator

So that's Gordon Brown and Piers Morgan enjoying a pint together, now to find that photo of Harriet Harman and David Dimbleby enjoying a glass of Chardonnay together...

Gordon Brown's top 10 financial gaffes

Red Cafe has a list that seems quite a useful addition to the norm and this time from a surprising source, here are the headlines, read the detail at 'The leading Manchester United Forum":

"1. Taxing dividend payments

2. Selling our gold

3. Tripartite financial regulation

4. Tax credits

5. The £10,000 corporation tax threshold

6. Abolition of the 10p tax rate

7. Failing to spot the housing bubble

8. 50 per cent tax rate

9. Cutting VAT

10. Public-sector borrowing"

First the lies and then the electioneering, has Gordon Brown no shame?

Gordon Brown's performance at the Chilcot Inquiry left me feeling sick to the core as he used his usual array of spin and liberal 'Brownies' to obfuscate the truth. As with Gordon Brown's budgets the truth emerges in dribs and drabs over the following few days but by then it is too late and the cheerleaders in the BBC and other tame media have determined 'the narrative' and Gordon Brown lives to lie another day.

Gordon Brown claimed on Friday that, as Chancellor, he had provided the military with everything they asked for. However since then this claim has come under fire from several former chiefs of the defence staff, who have accused him of being "disingenuous". Admiral Lord Boyce and General Lord Guthrie said that, while individual urgent requests for equipment had been financed, the military suffered from a wider shortage of funding to fight two wars.

Meanwhile Sir John Major accused Gordon Brown of "profoundly unbecoming conduct for a Prime Minister". The man who won a surprise victory in the 1992 general election claimed that Gordon Brown used British troops as a "party political prop" and that British troops could be forgiven for regarding the surprise visit as a "political stunt". Sir John Major continued "Of course, ministers should visit our troops. But to use them as a cynically-timed pre-election backdrop is profoundly unbecoming conduct for a Prime Minister"


So do the troops side with Gordon Brown or Sir John Major? Let's take a look at The Army Rumour SErvice:

"FFS The cyclopic cnut is now kissing arrse in Afghanistan to make up for yesterdays lieing f**k up. The Spindoctors must be on triple time payment. And I wonder how long ago the aircraft was tasked"


"Did he take any new kit out with him?"


"He's left it a bit late to show he cares, when it really mattered in the past he delayed or cut funds & left MOD officials angered & frustrated, all these other individuals can't 'all' be lying

Would this apparent suprise visit have anything to do with two former senior officers contesting his performance yesterday??

GB is two faced & only attempting to make up for all the past f**k ups."


"£500 to any squaddie that has an accidental discharge and zaps tosspot brown."


"He doesn't deserve to "Win", he's an incompetent disgrace, a self-admitted liar, a foul-tempered oaf and quite possibly a f**king nutter as well.He cares nothing for the future well-being of this country, only for his own reputation and that of his utterly discredited, demonstrably toxic political party. If he and they continue in office they will take this county over the edge of ruin. I wouldn't trust the man to tell me the time of day or run the proverbial whelk-stall. He's the Peter Principle writ large, only he's been promoted not one, but probably half-a dozen levels beyond his competence, the sooner we're shot of this crazed, delusional weirdo the better for the UK and us all.

There, I feels better now. (sucks thumb and gazes our of window, rocking slowly )"


"I do loathe him. Would like to see him have the balls to attend a 360 Degree Feedback group or a "Town Hall" meeting with the families of those taken from us or injured in Iraq / Afghanistan and face some real questions. This is a cheap photoshoot engineered by 10 Downing Street to get him out of the UK & to try be Army friendly in my humble opinion."


"If I was a cynic I'd say there was an election on the horizon... lets hope someone puts a round into the demented twat."

And that's just from page 1; it seems that the troops areb not fooled, even if the BBC and The Mirror might be.

I know it's wrong but when I was 15...

The Telegraph reports that

"A ballet teacher has appeared in court accused of abducting one of her male pupils and having sex with him.

Sarah Pirie, 27, from Dundee, is charged with taking the 15 year-old boy to hotels in Manchester between March and June last year.

Miss Pirie, who is a trained dancer and choreographer, met the boy at the dance school where she worked in Lytham St Annes on the Fylde Coast in Lancashire. "

Now when I was 15...

CCTV Britain

More at Big Brother Watch

Every year an irresponsible and corrupt bureaucracy awards itself higher pay and better benefits paid for by an ever-shrinking wealth-generating class

Read Mark Steyn and worry about all of our futures. Well all of us who aren't employed in the public sector anyway.

Adequate punishment?

Going Fast Getting Nowhere has the details of a seemingly inadequate sentence passed on a seemingly unpleasant individual, here's an extract:

"A joyrider has walked free from court after killing a police dog and injuring two officers in a road smash while three times over the drink-drive limit. Sean Lawson, 20, shouted ‘get in’ as his 12-month prison sentence was suspended at Newcastle Crown Court.

Let's just review the offences committed in one 'incident':

* Rammed a car and then stole it when the owner got out
* Tried to evade arrest by driving away
* Lost control and mounted the pavement while being pursued
* Rammed a police car trying to prevent him driving away
* Speeding, driving on wrong side of the road, blind bend, no lights
* Lost control again
* 90mph with no lights on wrong side of dual carriageway
* Handbrake turn
* Hit police car, injuring two officers
* Hit police dog van, breaking back of police dog, which had to be put down
* All of this while THREE TIMES over the drink-drive limit."

A 12 month suspended sentence for that list of offences? Why? How?

As the aforementioned blogger puts it:

"If you, or I, or any other law-abiding person, had been caught after doing just one of these offences, what do you suppose the penalty would be? Certainly a fine and points for the minor stuff like the handbrake turn or driving on the pavement. Big fine, many points, and a possible ban for the speeding, evading arrest stuff. Definite ban for the drink-driving. Imprisonment for injuring two officers, killing a police dog, causing God-knows-how-much damage to the police vehicles (which you and I will have to pay for, one way or another). Definitely imprisonment for ramming an innocent motorist and stealing his car. And if you or I did all of this in one crazy episode of mindlessness?"

The Met Office's new long range forecast

Deniersaurus claims to have had sight of the Met Office's newest long range forecast, here's a snippet:

"Long Range Forecast for the UK - Summer 2010

And it shall come to pass that in the land of the northern tribes the great warming will devastate all mankind and the beasts of the field alike.

Verily, as the satanic dioxide increases so shall increase the viscosity of the very water until it turns deepest blood red and all the fishes in the water shall perish and the creatures of the air and land that eat of them.

There shall follow a great storm the like of which has ne'er been seen upon the face of the earth and the young of the amphibians shall be lifted aloft in great winds and shall fall as a hellish rain upon thy lands.

Truly, as the lands become hotter the dominion of the insects shall increase until they become a great multitude and the torment of the lice shall be visited upon the people of the land and all shall suffer the unscratchable itch."

Do read the whole article; it's probably no less accurate than the real long range forecast.

Labour's coming NHS cuts

The Telegraph reports that:

"Hundreds of NHS wards to be shut in secret plans

Plans that could lead to the closure of hundreds of hospital wards are being drawn up but will not be made public until after the general election, opposition parties have said.

Last year, the Government asked NHS authorities to come up with proposals to reorganise the service to save money as a result of the recession. Details have started to emerge of what is likely to be a rolling programme of cuts that contrasts sharply with assurances from Labour and the Tories that the NHS was “safe”.

So far, only the plans for London have come to light. Campaigners claimed the proposals threatened services such as casualty and maternity units at 13 out of 36 hospitals in the capital.

The failure of health authorities in other areas to disclose their response has prompted allegations that proposed closures, which could be politically damaging to the Government, will not be published until after polling day.

The scale of the cuts has caused a rebellion among Labour ministers who have openly defied the Government by publicly protesting at closures at their local hospitals.

Next week, health ministers will come under pressure from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to disclose the scale of the plans, with the Tories calling an emergency debate on the issue.

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrats’ shadow health spokesman, said the scale of the cuts to hospitals was likely to be “vast”, with potentially “hundreds” of wards closing.

He said: “The Government will be desperate to avoid these cuts ahead of an election. We could end up with the threat of cuts to services being a key issue in the election campaign. The electorate will feel conned if they come out after the campaign. "

NHS cuts planned by Labour and of course not a word on the BBC who prefer to concentrate on speculation about Lord Ashcroft. Labour know big cuts will need to be made post the election, the BBC know that this is the case but there is a general election campaign to be won for Labour so it's shhhh don't scare the Labour voters and let the truth go hang. I would be disgusted if I had not predicted this so long ago.

'Mr Brown had been "disingenuous"'

Even the BBC are forced to report that:

"Two former heads of the armed forces have strongly challenged Gordon Brown's evidence to the Iraq war inquiry.

The prime minister, who was chancellor when the war began, said the military had been given everything it asked for.

But Lord Guthrie, ex-chief of the defence staff, said in the Daily Telegraph that armed forces had been denied a request for more helicopters.

His successor, Lord Boyce, told the Times Mr Brown had been "disingenuous", but No 10 rejected the criticisms.

Downing Street insisted that Mr Brown could not have been clearer in his response to questions about military funding.

It also repeated his statement that no request for equipment had ever been turned down.

Lord Guthrie, who held his post from 1997 to 2001, said the Ministry of Defence "received the bare minimum from the chancellor, who wanted to give the military as little as he could get away with".

He said: "The whole defence budget was extremely difficult to run in his time.

"For Gordon Brown to say he has given the military all they asked for is not true.

"They asked for more helicopters but they were told they could not have any more."

Lord Guthrie added: "He cannot get away with saying 'I gave them everything they asked for'. That is simply disingenuous."

Lord Boyce, who was chief of the Defence Staff up to the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, said: "He's dissembling, he's being disingenuous. It's just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed".

"There may have been a 1.5 per cent increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds." "

"disingenuous", "For Gordon Brown to say he has given the military all they asked for is not true.". I can hardly believe that anyone doubts that Gordon 'fearty' Brown has once again been economical with the truth. Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, so Gordon Brown cannot change his disingenuous nature.

What's the story with Steven Purcell?

Most odd. The BBC are saying nothing. Sky news are saying nothing. ITV news are saying nothing. The Telegraph are reporting:

"Concerns over the health of one of Labour’s rising stars has grown after it emerged he had left a rehabilitation clinic specialising in treating drug and alcohol addiction.

...

Officially, the 37-year-old, who had been tipped as a future Scottish First Minister, made his sudden and surprise decision to step down as council leader because of stress and exhaustion.

But eyebrows were raised when he engaged the services of Jack Irvine, executive chairman and founder of PR company Media House, who specialises in “crisis management”.

Mr Purcell has also employed Peter Watson, Scotland’s top libel lawyer, and council officials have been ordered not to discuss the circumstances of his resignation.

The mystery deepened when Gordon Brown, Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, and Iain Gray, Labour’s Holyrood leader, all failed to issue press statements paying tribute to their colleague.

Only last week Mr Purcell sat on the top table, along with the Prime Minister, at a Labour Party fund-raiser at Glasgow’s Hilton hotel.

...

Surprised colleagues said the 37-year-old had seemed “at the top of his game” at a party fund-raiser last Thursday, where he was sat on the top table with Mr Brown and Walter Smith, the Scotland football team manager.

Mr Purcell hosted a scheduled meeting with Labour’s Glasgow MSPs on Friday morning in his office but cancelled an appearance later that day with an entrepreneur.

Party sources said an emergency meeting was held on Saturday, at which colleagues unsuccessfully tried to talk an emotional Mr Purcell out of quitting.

He pulled out of another meeting on Monday, and officially tendered his resignation to Glasgow City Council’s Labour Group the following day.

Mr Purcell’s aides at the council apparently advised that he should fully disclose the circumstances behind his decision.

But Mr Watson, of Levy and McRae solicitors, blamed the pressures of planning for the 2014 Commonwealth Games and a scandal over expense claims by the quango that oversees Glasgow’s transport network.

Council sources dismissed this, saying: “His health problems run deeper than that.”

A spokesman for Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister and SNP leader, refused to comment on Mr Purcell leaving rehab, saying that was a “private matter”. "

Something doesn't ring quite true about this story...

Meanwhile Guido report has some interesting speculation in the comments.

Turq dreams about Elliot

It's a "Scrubs" thing

Gordon Brown - a really pleasant chap

Just see that stare from 0:44 to 0:46, what a joy to live and work with he must be.

"In any other decade, a house price bubble would have pushed Britain from boom to bust…."

Those are some of the words that Gordon Brown used in his 2005 speech to the Labour Party Conference. Here's a fuller version:

"Why has it been that at every point since 1997 faced with the Asian crisis, the IT collapse, a stock exchange crash, an American recession, last year a house price bubble, this year rising world oil prices, why has it been that at every point since 1997 Britain uniquely has continued to grow?

In any other decade, a house price bubble would have pushed Britain from boom to bust….

I tell you, it is because with Bank of England independence, cutting debt, fiscal discipline and the New Deal this Labour government has shown the strength to take the tough long-term decisions, that inflation is low, interest rates are low, growth has been sustained in every year, and we are closer than ever to the goal which drives us forward: the goal of full employment for our generation.

Labour, the natural party for economic strength in our country today."

The man was deluded then, he seemed to believe that he had abolished boom and bust and was the new great helmsman. If he showed any remorse, any humility I might be prepared to forgive him; but he doesn't, so I won't.

The Labour party and their willing friends in the BBC are happy to move on from discussing the economic collapse of the UK, to instead discuss Lord Ashcroft over and over again. The blogosphere must keep Gordon Brown's economic record in the spotlight and keep up the pressure.


Here's some video...

Gordon Brown wants a better what?

A better "spanking system", I am sure he does.

The EU finds that important independent source of income

The Telegraph reports that:

"The European Union is drawing up plans for its first direct tax with a "green" levy on petrol, coal and natural gas that could cost British consumers up to £3 billion.

Proposals expected to be announced next month would give the EU its first funding which would not come from national governments.

Algirdas Semeta, the new European commissioner for taxation, is planning a "minimum rate of tax on carbon" across the whole EU as a "priority".

"In my estimation it is possible to start discussions," he told European Voice, a weekly Brussels newspaper. "There is currently the right momentum."

A similar proposal was considered so controversial that it was shelved without discussion five years ago.

The plan to push for more financial independence from national governments comes as the EU attempts to build a more powerful position in the world.

...

Herman Van Rompuy, the new EU president, has already thrown his weight behind the idea of new taxes.

The new tax would lead to direct rises in petrol and energy bills and additional price increases due to higher costs for industry.

Open Europe, the think-tank, has calculated, on the basis of the shelved 2005 proposal that set a £9 levy on a tonne of CO2, that the cost of the new tax to British businesses and consumers would be £3.2 billion. The final cost could be even greater if electricity, generated from natural gas, was included in the levy.

Mats Persson, director of Open Europe, warned that "a single EU levy is an unnecessarily inflexible tool" that takes no account of existing national taxes or measures to cut climate change. "

Now if David Cameron wasn't scared of being portrayed as a Euro-sceptic or climate change denier he might make stand on this issue. However as on so many issues I expect David Cameron to remain mute and let more momentum slip away from his election campaign.

"That's an assumption which you are not entitled to make" - Peter Mandelson does not like being questioned, does he?

Watch the whole interview but the key part starts at around 06:26. I do not know who the BBC interviewer is/was but he showed more balls than most facing Peter Mandelson.

What's so unique about Israel?

From an email 'doing the rounds':

"Pilar Rahola is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist and member of the far left. Her articles are published in Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in Latin America.


Why don’t we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London, Paris, Barcelona?

Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship?

Why aren’t there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection?

Why aren’t there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam?

Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan?

Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel?

Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism?

Why don’t they defend Israel’s right to exist?

Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism?

And finally, the million dollar question:Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn’t care.

And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: “We want freedom for the people!”

Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never preoccupied when Hammas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press.

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don’t inform, they propagandize.

When reporting about Israel the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel, that there aren’t any accusations left to level against her.

At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain.

And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel website. I quote from the expulsion document: “Our friends are the people of Iran, Libya and Venezuela, oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like Israel.”

In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Palestinian Nabka Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

Or in my native city of Barcelona, the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, by having a week of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70’s and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against Israel.

This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of president Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the Middle East he is unequivocally pro Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on Israel the blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and the policies of foreign minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a kafiah in the midst of the Lebanon conflict is no coincidence; it’s a symbol.

Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us with cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. And yet the Spanish left is the most anti-Israeli in the world.

And then it says it is anti-Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference.

Conclusion:

I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not anti-Israeli like my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel. To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews.

As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles.

Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty I have a triple moral duty with Israel, because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity and culture will be destroyed too.

The struggle of Israel, even if the world doesn’t want to accept it, is the struggle of the world."

Phil Silvers is looking good!

Greg Gutfeld on Fox showing an understandable dislike of MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, but all the while all I can hear is Phil Silvers' "Platoon ...."




Thanks to Theo Spark for the Greg Gutfeld video spot.

Odd Google searches

why must food be halal - an interesting question but somehow I think that the person who googled this search and found this article on my blog at number 2, behind Wikipedia and just ahead of The Halal Food Guide

half man half sheep pravda - an interesting search term and one that should play right into my hands with my occasional posting of Half Man Half Biscuit postings. However I only appear at number 4 for this article, beaten by some fascinating articles - this one - "Half Sheep, Half Man, All Creepy: Links, Pics, Videos, and News ", this one - "After sex with sheep, don't kill the animal! - Pravda.Ru" and this one - "Sheep Gives Birth to Human-Faced Lamb in Turkey - Pravda.Ru".

I thought the polar ice was melting

If the polar ice is melting because of global warming; don't worry it's not but warmists love to worry us. Then why is the Baltic suffering its worst freeze for 15 years? I only wonder because nearly 1,100 people are trapped on two passenger ferries and two cargo ships that got stuck in ice in the Baltic Sea. You can read more in The Telegraph but not on the BBC.

News interviewing that makes a pleasant change from the BBC and Channel4

Tim Bradby of ITV News writes:

"We corner Mandelson…

04 Mar, 2010

Speaking of asking Labour some difficult questions, we just put Lord Mandelson on the spot. Here’s the transcript:

TB; ‘You talk about transparency, well we have been asking the Labour Party for some days whether your donors, like Ronnie Cohen, are non-doms or not. We haven’t got an answer, so perhaps you’d like to give us one sitting here.’

Lord M; ‘The Labour Party should give the information about its donors in the way that–’

TB; ‘It hasn’t.’

Lord M; ‘In the way that it is required to do and in response to legitimate questions.’

TB; ‘Let me ask you; is that a legitimate question? Be fair. Is it legitimate for us, given all this, to ask whether your donors are paying full tax on their worldwide income?’

Lord M; ‘I think it is perfectly legitimate.’

TB; ‘What’s the answer?’

Lord M; ‘How do I know what the answer is?’

And later:

TB; ‘Are you saying that all labour party donors should be full tax payers; ie, paying tax on their worldwide income in this country? And if they aren’t, should the Labour Party pay the money back?’

Lord M; ‘What I’m saying is that Labour Party donors should be clear and upfront about what they are donating, what their domicile or tax status is, or whatever, just as donors who give money to the Conservative Party should be.’

We have since asked the Labour Party to confirm which of their donors are non-doms and have, once again, received no answer"

Odd how the BBC and Channel 4 prefer to ignore the Labour non-doms issue, preferring to just look at Lord Ashcroft. Anyone might conclude that the BBC and Jon Snow wanted to see Labour returned to power.

Gordon Brown at the Chilcot Inquiry

I trust the Chilcot Inquiry will ask Gordon 'fearty' Brown about two statements made to it in previous weeks:
1. "when I arrived in the Ministry of Defence in October 1999 there was quite a strong feeling that it was not fully funded" - Geoff Hoon

2. Sir Kevin Tebbit, Permanent Secretary at the MoD from 1998 to 2005, who said that Brown imposed a “complete guillotine” on defence resources, so that he was “running essentially a crisis budget”. This in wartime; the invasion of Iraq took place between March and May 2003; it beggars belief that, in September of that year, Brown imposed stringent cuts on defence spending.


Of course as 'evidence' is not taken under oath, I doubt that Gordon Brown will feel obliged to tell the truth, expect many 'Brownies'.

15 minutes on the Radio 4 Today programme

I find that I can only take a few minutes at a time of the Radio 4 Today programme, today was a good example. I turned on to hear the 7am news and there was a piece about the US congressional panel's resolution describing as genocide the killings of Armenians by Turkey during World War I. The report was so biased in its use of loaded language it was almost a master-class in how not to report the news. Congress was apparently subjected to a "well funded" Armenian campaign and the Turkish government was upset and so had removed their US ambassador.

What was not mentioned on the pro-Obama Today programme is that Barack Obama promised to brand the mass killings as genocide during his election campaign and that around 20 countries had accepted that there was genocide in Armenia.

I missed a bit, Mrs NotaSheep needed to discuss something, so the next piece I heard was this (description from the Today running order as I was too open-mouthed to write anything down):

"The evidence that humans are responsible for climate change is stronger now than it was two years ago, according to the UK Met Office. BBC reporter Tom Feilden looks at the Met Office's latest review."

Tom Feilden 'the science correspondent on the Today programme' showing clearly where he stands on Man Made Climate Change.

Question Time 4 March 2010

Just two questions: first how long on Lord Ashcroft and will David Dimbleby allow any comparisons with Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, William Bollinger or Mahmoud Khayami? Second will Lord Adonis be able to control David Dimbleby as neatly as Harriet Harman did back in last July? Here's a reminder of Harriet and her controlling of David Dimbleby

So do you think David Dimbleby looks like just the impartial person needed to moderate the last of the leaders' election debates?

James Delingpole and George Monbiot disagree about Man Made Climate Change

"Climate Science is not... about science, not about rigour... not about pursuit of truth, it's about politics" - well said James Delingpole.

Barack Obama's 'Yes we can' = 'Thank you Satan' backwards

One of the best pieces of conspiracy theory video I have seen for ages; enjoy. But what if it is true???


Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Alleviating boredom on aeroplane flights

Alleviating boredom on aeroplane flights is tricky but I think that this passenger took it too far. Apparently:

"Murali Nookella, a 34-year-old computer programmer, was en route to Denver from Philadelphia on a Southwest Airlines flight when a woman noticed him "fumbling underneath a blanket," according to an affidavit sworn by FBI Agent Joel Nishida. The woman, identified only by her initials in the affidavit, said that Nookella's "eyes were closed and his hands moved all around his groin area" underneath a "mustard/gold blanket pulled up to his waist." As the woman packed up her belonging to move seats, she "looked at Nookella and saw him holding his erect penis." The woman said that Nookella remarked, "You caught me." Nookella held a napkin in his left hand, the woman told the FBI. According to Nishida's affidavit, a copy of which you'll find below, the woman "did not look but heard a swishing sound. She thought Nookella wiped something." Nookella's employer told TSG that he was headed to Denver on a work assignment. Nookella was named today in a misdemeanor criminal complaint charging him with indecent exposure. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 90 days in jail and a $5000 fine."

Murali Nookella! Nookella! Well if the name fits...



Thanks to The Smoking Gun for this and other oddities over the years.

What is an innocent civilian?

I have previously commented on the use of the word 'innocent' in the context of statements such as "we condemn the killing of all innocent people wherever they are" or "Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all..." by apologists for Islamic terrorism. Most recently I discussed this subject with reference to Anjem Chaudri's revealing explanation that:

"When we say innocent people we mean Muslims, as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God... As far as Muslims are concerned, you are innocent if you are a Muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim then you are guilty of not believing in God... I must have hatred to anything that is not Islam"

So I was intrigued to read on Harry's Place of this comment by Kamal Al Helbawy, a Muslim Brotherhood leader who had this to say in an interview broadcast on the BBC Arabic service in 1998:

"Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: I condemn the targeting of any civilian, but incidentally, I believe that every Israeli civilian is a future soldier.

Interviewer: He is what?

Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: A future soldier.

Interviewer: Even if he is two years old?

Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: A child born in Israel is raised on the belief that [the Arabs] are like contemptible sheep, and that this is a land without a people, and they are a people without a land. They have very strange concepts. In elementary school, they pose the following math problem: “In your village, there are 100 Arabs. If you killed 40, how many Arabs would be left for you to kill?” This is taught in the Israeli curriculum. What would you say about that? Should a child studying this be considered a civilian? He is a future soldier."

So the next time you hear those, on the surface, reassuring words that "we condemn the killing of all innocent people wherever they are" or "Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all...", remember to ask "Who are innocent people?" and "What is a civilian?"; the honest answers, or lack of, might be rather revealing.

Michael Foot RIP

I was always told not to speak ill of the dead and so I won't speak ill of Michael Foot.

What intrigues me is the BBC coverage, their lead page this morning is 100% positive about memories of Michael Foot, not a single negative thought is allowed to be heard. No centreist Labour figures decrying his 'longest suicide in history' 1983 manifesto, nobody pointing out his adherence to unilateralism and CND during the period that CND was (partially) sponsored by the Soviet Union, etc. etc.

If this is how the BBC treat the death of a middling political figure, how will they treat the death of Lady Thatcher? Somehow I doubt that a selection of 100% positive remarks will be printed. I predict phrases such as "divisive figure", "no such thing as community", "miners strike", "unemployment", "lost generation" and "poll tax" will be trotted out and the usual left-wing 'satirists' will be on hand to re-tell their favourite jokes and to metaphorically dance on her grave.

Sarah Palin on the Jay Leno show

Sarah Palin showing that she is a more intelligent and coherent speaker than the left-wing media like to pretend.

Boob War (update)

I am afraid that I have to report that Boob War is spreading. The Other McCain reveals that Monica Bellucci has tried to make the peace: "This senseless waste of cleavage cannot be allowed to continue... In the name of humanity, I call on the combatants to end their breast belligerence."...
and there is much more...

Meanwhile The Daley Gator thinks that "The only way to end Boob Wars is, Operation Pheobe Cates is out of the Pool commences" He makes a compelling argument...
but I would remind him that whilst the stills are powerful, the the video is even more uplifting.

Show them To Me: Uncensored
by Razorbuzz

There is more Rodney Carrington "Show them to me", including a live performance here

Worryingly The Camp of the Saints has tried the nuclear route with some Janet Lupo... pictures that I just cannot show on this blog, there are limits; maybe I am a closet supporter of unilateral disarmament, after all.


I am concerned by how this Boob/Cleavage War (pronounced - Boob stroke Cleavage War) is proceeding and call upon all concerned to settle down and look once more at Salma Hayek...

Killed by a 'Health and Safety' memo

The Times reports that:

"An injured woman lay for six hours at the foot of a disused mine shaft because safety rules banned firefighters from rescuing her, an inquiry heard yesterday. As Alison Hume was brought to the surface by mountain rescuers she died of a heart attack.

A senior fire officer at the scene admitted that crews could only listen to her cries for help, after she fell down the 60ft shaft, because regulations said their lifting equipment could not be used on the public. A memo had been circulated in Strathclyde Fire and Rescue stations months previously stating that it was for use by firefighters only. "

This sort of story makes me so angry.

PMQs 3 March 2010

With Gordon 'fearty' Brown occupied elsewhere it fell to Harriet Harman to answer at PMQs today and she was woeful, possibly the worst performance by a stand-in that I can remember - yes that does include John Prescott. She had some pre-prepared lines about Lord Ashcroft and she was just too eager to use them. Speaker Bercow told her off twice for raising matters that were not pertinent to PMQs and she called William Hague the Foreign Secretary and couldn't laugh off the error, and that's the trouble with Brown and Harman compared with Tony Blair, he had a sense of humour and could laugh at himself (in public anyway) whilst Brown and Harman are without humour or the skill of self-deprecation.

When William Hague asked about policy Harriet Harman floundered badly, it seems that she doesn't understand the difference between UK Government bonds and the exchange rate, doesn't realise that PMQs are about areas of Government responsibility and seems incapable of answering a straight question.

It was good to hear that William Hague followed, at least in part, my suggested line of questioning.


It strikes me that maybe Gordon Brown misses so many PMQs just so his party get to see how poor the best elected alternative to him is, so as to keep them sticking with the devil they know.

It also strikes me that the BBC must realise how bad Harriet Harman's performance at PMQs was as they have taken down any references to today's PMQs from the politics area of their news website.

A suggested line of questioning for William Hague at today's PMQs

Since Gordon 'fearty' Brown has chickened out of appearing at PMQs today, preferring to hide behind the skirts of Harriet Harman, here is a suggested line of questioning for William Hague to follow.

How does the Right Honourable lady react to the selection of a man to represent Labour in the Birmingham Erdlington seat at the coming general election, rather than a candidate from an all women shortlist as was originally proposed?

Does the Right Honourable Lady think that the selection of Jack Dromey to represent Labour in Birmingham Erdington has anything to do with his role in controlling the purse of a major Labour donor?


Just a couple of ideas...

Who is the sad little man/woman?

OK who is the sad little person who has been rating `all of my articles as "One Star"? Very mature...

I only use the ratings system so I can see what other articles are recommended so if I have to turn that feature off I will, shame though.

Gordon "Courage" Brown

It would seem that Gordon Brown has managed to avoid PMQs again.

PMQs last half an hour on a Wednesday; the preparation time for Gordon Brown must be near nil since he doesn't answer any hostile questions, preferring to use his favourites 'Brownies' and dividing lines and has answers to Labour planted questions at his fingertips.

This is the only opportunity, every week, to try and hold Gordon Brown to account and yet again the great 'fearty' has bottled it. I am in no doubt that had Gordon Brown wished he could have arranged affairs so that he both met Jacob Zuma and been present for PMQs but he didn't.

As a result we will have the pantomime spectacle of Harriet Harman showing her lack of knowledge of economics, foreign affairs etc. whilst William Hague holds back his acid tongue in case he is accused of bullying a woman. It's pathetic and it is all the fault of Gordon yellow streak right down his flabby back' Brown.


I wonder if anyone can find figures that show what percentage of PMQs were missed by Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair compared with those missed by the great big clunking fearty? I would wager that Gordon Brown has missed a higher proportion than any of those recent Prime Ministers but then he is a bigger coward than any of them as well.

Why is Nick Clegg included?

I have been racking my brains but cannot think of a really good reason why Nick Clegg has been included in the coming Prime Ministerial candidates debates. Gordon Brown (depressingly) is likely to remain Prime Minister after the general election, David Cameron might become Prime Minister but Nick Clegg will not become Prime Minister. Nick Clegg might hold the balance of power but will not be Prime Minister.

Including Clegg on an equal footing with Brown and Cameron boosts the Lib Dems credibility and does mean that there will be two left of centre voices on display in each debate.

The way the debates are structured will suit Gordon Brown as he will be able to use his pre-prepared lines, use as many 'Brownies' and spread as many slurs as possible all without audience reactions or in-depth challenging.

These debates as I predicted in my end of year predictions will have the following results:
The pre-election leader's debates will produce a surprise win (in the view of opinion polls) for Gordon Brown
The pre-election leader's debates will produce an increase in support for the Lib Dems

Who is Samuel Coates?

Whenever I get an email alerting me to a comment awaiting publication on this blog and it is from an anonymous or unknown gmail user, their name shows as "SamuelCoates" and their email address as "noreply-comment@blogger.com". Why "SamuelCoates"?

I want to live like Common People

Rory Bremner as David Cameron singing Common People, very poor and certainly not a patch on the Goodness Gracious Me team's "(I want to live with) Hindi People"...



Here's the Pulp original - "I want to live with (Common People)...

Compare and contrast Lord Ashcroft and Peter Mandelson

From JohnT a commenter on today's Telegraph:

"As far as I know, Lord Ashcroft has not yet made, sworn to and signed a misleading statement on a mortgage loan application.
Ashcroft has never borrowed money from a shadow cabinet colleague and then concealed it.
I don’t recall that Ashcroft ever attempted to use public office to obtain UK passports for any wealthy foreign ‘business’ contact charged with corrupt practices in their country of origin.
Ashcroft has never cosied up to any Russian moguls and accepted hospitality from them. Nor has Ashcroft ever hidden his meetings diary from public view.
Ashcroft has not enriched himself from taxpayer-funded public office.
Ashcroft has always been sensibly discreet about his private life.
Ashcroft does not spend half his time having lunch.
Nor does he waste precious moments bad-mouthing his political opponents or dissing anyone who’s been less than nice to or about him, or threatening reporters and journalists that he’ll complain if they don’t do things exactly His Way.
Ashcroft has become rich through his business activities, and by applying his mind to becoming wealthy. The source of his property wealth is not a mystery, as it is with certain others.
Ashcroft did not claim expenses to do up a tax-funded property before selling it at a profit, and then insist aggressively that the decoration work was simply ‘necessary repairs’.
Ashcroft has made himself a millionaire through his business activities, which have brought profit to shareholders, and not by living off the public teat.
Ashcroft has not invented a long and pretentious titles for himself or for his job, nor does he fake plummy patrician tones and an air of self-indulgent languor.
Ashcroft was not made a peer because he had no job and had to be given one by his party friends: he is not one whose past has made him completely unelectable.
Ashcroft does not imagine the world owes him a living.
The list is endless."

And from Ian Bryan in the same section:

"Michael Ashcroft , is the major donor to crime stoppers. Leading to 87,400 arrests, recovery of property to the tune £103 million, has removed £159 million of drugs off our streets. The organisation has also lead to 800 people have been charged with murder or attempted murder

While we are on it, Michael Ashcroft – The Ashcroft Technology Academy (ATA), in south-west London was set up by him to provide a free education for more than 1,000 inner city children of all abilities and backgrounds.

Michael Ashcroft also supports education, health, arts and sports charities in the Caribbean and Central America through the Michael A Ashcroft Foundation. In 1993 he endowed The Ashcroft School in the Turks and Caicos Islands in the British West Indies.

It begs the question what has Mandelson done other than acquire titles?"

Fair comments or not?

Happy Birthday Vulcan XH-558

Reach to the Sky are trying to set a world record, please visit this page and sign XH558's Birthday Card, And Leave Her A Message.

A new number is required

The Telegraph report that:

"Scientists are lobbying for a new word to help them describe numbers larger than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, amid concerns that the current system of units is insufficient.

A campaign for "hella" to join the likes of "kilo", "mega" and "giga" as an internationally accepted prefix is attracting growing support.

More than 20,000 scientists, students and members of the public have signed an online petition backing the new quantity, which would be used for figures with 27 zeros after the first digit.

Currently the highest prefix allowed by the International System of Units (SI) is the "yotta", for 24 zeroes. "

My suggestion would be the "gorda" as that would recognise Gordon Brown's attempts to build a UK deficit larger than mathematics could cope with.

CrazyDomains.com.au have a viral advertising campaign that is spreading - can you see why?

CrazyDomains.com.au seem to be generating a lot of publicity despite their advertisement being branded as an illegitimate way to advertise an internet domain registration outfit by the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau. It seems that some viewers felt the advert was "all about sex, got nothing to do with domains, unless it's to start a porn site", and "overtly sexist and exploitative". Seems about right to me... But a great way to publicise a domain registration company; now where dod I put that carton of cream?

When satire becomes too close to a believable future reality

"The State of Emergency introduced in May 2010 is to be extended for another five years, Prime Minister-for-Life Gordon Brown announced in London yesterday.

Such was the scale of the crisis facing the country that a General Election could only lead to instability.

Labour would continue in power indefinitely, Brown pledged. He was getting on with the job, taking the difficult decisions, which is what people wanted him to do."

Richard Littlejohn imagines life in the UK in 2015, wh's to say that much might come true?

Two months on...

On 31 December 2009 I made some predictions, I thought I'd see how they were coming along...

Five political predictions for 2010:
1. Gordon Brown will continue to try and create spurious and contrived dividing lines with the Conservatives, the BBC will assist by pushing the dividing lines - YES
2. The election will be held on May 6 (along with the local elections) because Labour cannot afford to run two campaigns and this way they will maximise their vote in the council elections - Unresolved but still looking likely
3. The pre-election leader's debates will produce a surprise win (in the view of opinion polls) for Gordon Brown - Unresolved
4. The pre-election leader's debates will produce an increase in support for the Lib Dems - Unresolved
5. Labour win the general election, postal votes being a key factor, and the protests about vote-rigging are dismissed as "losers' sour grapes" - Unresolved

Five economic predictions for 2010:
1. With a Labour victory at the general election (see above) the UK's credit rating will drop from AAA and the resultant rise in interest rates will produce the second half of the 'W shaped' recession - UK credit rating already diminished?
2. The re-election of a Labour government will mean that the exodus of bankers and other financial institutions to more financially friendly locations - Unresolved
3. The ever larger hole in the Treasury's tax receipts will mean that the higher rate of income tax rises to 60% and VAT to 20% - VAT to 20% is already being trailed, anyone want to bet on tax not moving higher?
4. The Pound will reach parity with the Euro and the price for IMF and EU assistance for the "sick man of Europe" will be joining the Euro. Being at parity will make this an easier sell for Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson - Sterling is on the slide even as I write
5. Having dropped to around USD 1,100 at the end of 2009; gold will rise ever higher, reaching USD 1500 by the end of the 2010 - I still believe this and am surprised gold has stuck around USD 1,100 for so long

Five BBC related predictions for 2010:
1. The BBC will become ever more blatantly biased in favour of the Labour party, the Conservatives won't realise how serious a problem this is - YES
2. The tone of the BBC's leader's debate will be clearly pro-Labour, the Conservatives won't realise how serious a problem this is - Unresolved
3. The BBC will minimise their coverage of the postal voting scandal (see above), the Conservatives will finally realise how serious this BBC bias is but it will be too late - Unresolved
4. The BBC will continue to push for the withdrawal of British armed forces from Afghanistan - YES
5. The BBC will continue to vilify Israel at every opportunity and revel in the coming further military attacks on Israel - YES


Coming along nicely...

Are mobile phones dangerous?

No this is not a Gordon Brown related story, I am talking technology not being used as a missile.

Pop Corn téléphone portable micro-ondes
by sassiere

Can mobile phones really 'cook' popcorn?





Thanks to Grumpy Old Twat for the spot.

"Lord Mandelson embodies what is a failed New Labour project. Media management is all that the project boiled down to."

"Lord Mandelson embodies what is a failed New Labour project. Media management is all that the project boiled down to. You cannot base a government on media management. You must base a government on values."

You can read more of Ken Clarke's trenchant thoughts on GordoN Brown, Peter Mandelson and the Labour government in The Mail.

Here's another extract:

"We are faced with the most extraordinary background to economic policymaking I have ever seen. Not since the war has there been such a need for concerted leadership and a programme of action.

Yet in this moment of crisis, from Gordon Brown and his Cabinet, we see almost total inactivity. They still seem to believe the complete myth that this crisis was some natural calamity which hit us, without warning, from America.

It is convenient invention for a government which oversaw appalling failures of regulation in the City of London, where, alongside Wall Street, the systems which allowed the worst banking excesses were allowed to go on unchecked."

I have some major differences over policy with Ken Clarke, obviously over the EU, but what we agree on is more important than that which divides us. Ken Clarke needs to get stuck in to Labour more, he is a big beast but needs to go on the offensive against Alistair Darling and Peter Mandelson more. The public want to know that the Conservatives care and are as angry as they are, so show it.

“Remember: The Chancellor is mad.”

According to The Express:

"Mr Rawnsley also revealed senior Cabinet colleagues believed Mr Brown was mentally unstable. Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, is said to have told Mr Blair to put up a sign saying: “Remember: The Chancellor is mad.”

And he hints at the origin of a comment that caused uproar in 1998, when a “secret No10 source” said Mr Brown was “psychologically flawed”.

Spin doctor Alistair Campbell had “always publicly denied it was he who called Brown psychologically flawed”, wrote Mr Rawnsley, adding: “He had to maintain this line to remain in his job.” Mr Blair, he said, was “entirely in agreement with the assessment. Blair told a friend that ‘psychological flaws’ was not the half of it”."

Is this true, did Lord Mandelson really suggest that Tony Blair put up a sign saying “Remember: The Chancellor is mad.”? If he did then why is he keeping this man in his position of Prime Minister? If he did not suggest that then I presume he will be suing Andrew Rawnsley for misrepresentation, and if this is the case I will gladly delete this post.

"Blair and Brown got into a competitive expenditure race. Expenditure went out of control after about 2000.... Brown wanted to stay popular"

"sadly for all of us, Blair and Brown got into a competitive expenditure race. Expenditure went out of control after about 2000. That was largely because Brown wanted to stay popular, ahead of Blair, so that Blair could never dare sack him. It's an extraordinary period. Let's hope we never have that again. It ought not to be possible. That is one of the other things we need to look at - what are the constitutional checks on personal power and two people in this case, not one, carving out the structures of government in a totally damaging manner?"

Again David Owen form his Total Politics interview.

If it is true, and I believe it is, that between them Tony Blair and Gordon Brown trashed the UK economy for selfish reasons then should not there be legal sanctions applied to them? Treason?

"the nature of the electoral system we have. The hurdle is absurdly high - grossly, unfairly high - for the Conservatives to pass"

"the nature of the electoral system we have. The hurdle is absurdly high - grossly, unfairly high - for the Conservatives to pass. This is beginning to dawn on people, especially when you begin to grapple with the fact that the Tories could have a 10 per cent lead and still not win."

David Owen in his Total Politics interview.

It is odd how that beacon of 'fairness' the BBC Never comment on the unfairness inherent in the UK electoral system, I wonder if that is because it favours the Labour party?

I am confused

Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and others are continually telling us how the election of a Conservative government would put the economic recovery at risk. However as soon as the Conservative lead in the opinion polls shrinks and there is a possibility of this Labour government being re-elected the City starts to mark down Sterling.

It doesn't make sense; unless of course Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson are wrong!

"Downing Street admits Labour slogan is meaningless!"

Dizzy Thinks has a great spot:

"When someone from the general public petitioned the Prime Minister "to give us a future fair for all!" what was the official Downing Street response?

"Petition Rejected" because "It doesn't actually request any action".

Gordon Brown's labour party - "No ideas, no action. Just a slogan." Oh, and scares, smears and bullying.

Is this BBC wording misleading?

The headline news story on the BBC is not the collapse of the value of Sterling today or the Chilean earthquake but the Lord Ashcroft statement. The current BBC website headline is:

"Ashcroft admits 'non-dom' status - Lord Ashcroft, one of the Tory party's biggest donors, admits he does not pay full British tax on all of his earnings. "

Leaving aside the use of the word "admit" the key phrase is "does not pay full British tax on all of his earnings", surely a more accurate wording would be "does not pay full British tax on his foreign earnings". That's no longer a wording and more accurate BUT of course it doesn't lead people to think of tax evasion which is the BBC's aim.

Another headline to meet with the approval of Gordon, Peter, Alastair and Charlie and nicely avoiding mention of Swaraj Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, Sir Ronald Cohen etc. etc. etc.

The BBC's bias is obvious but it is also working and unless the Conservatives take a stand Labour could well win the coming election with all that that would entail for the UK. Why are the Conservatives so scared of the BBC? The BBC hate them, they could scarcely be more biased; so point out the bias, challenge the BBC and put some fire in your supporters' bellies.

Now why would the BBC want to drop that feature?

The BBC have made some changes to their Have Your Say area of their website. This part of the explanation is interesting:

"Some elements of the current service - including recommendation - will not be carried over to the new system"

Now why would the BBC want to drop recommendations from the HYS service? Could it be because the top recommended comments tended not to be in accord with the BBC's approved position?

"Eponymous Cowherd" in the comments section has had similar thoughts:

"I see.

One of the most useful and informative parts of HYS is the ability to use it as a gauge of public opinion courtesy to the "recommendation" feature.

The problem for the BBC is that most of the recommendations are contrary to the BBC's left-wing liberal bias, aren't they?

The solution? Simple! Abolish the recommendation system on the back on an "improvement".

This wouldn't have anything to do with the forthcoming General Election and the BBC's desire to protect its New Labour masters from bad press, would it?

Of course not!"

Well said EC and "James Rigby" has another concern and one that chimes with the way that I tended to look at HYS 'debates':

Some HYS "debates" have thousands of entries. Clicking on the Most Recommended tab enables us to see the mood of the debate. It's not a perfect indicator by any means, but it's better than nothing. No one wades through a thousand posts (although I did once when it was a HYS asking people to post their best jokes). The blog system places prominence to those who post first - so it will be biased towards those with time on their hands.

Moving to the blog format seems like a step backwards. My hope is that the recommendation function is retained and a way is found to eliminate self-voting and multiple voting."

There is a general election very soon now and it would seem that the BBC are just making sure that their pro-Labour news coverage is not diluted by the real opinions of real people on Have Your Say. You almost have to admire the BBC's single-minded determination to get a Labour government re-elected.

"Greatest conversation ever"

Scrubs

It never happened if we destroy the record

Sinn Fein and other councilmen are reported to have voted to rip out the page of a town's visitors' book, which Israel's Ambassador to Ireland Zion Evrony had signed during a visit last month. According to newspaper reports, town councilmen in Carrickmacross, Co Monaghan, voted on Friday to remove the page, which was signed by Evrony during a visit to the town's civic offices.

"At the time of his visit The Independent reported that Evrony was in the region on a tour of Ireland, aimed at countering misconceptions about Israel. According to the paper, he contacted the town council hoping to meet local officials, however his visit sparked a protest attended by some 30 demonstrators and arranged by Sinn Fein. It was reported that one of the protesters told the ambassador he wasn't welcome and asked him to leave. "

There is something quite unreal about Sinn Fein councilmen complaining about a visit by anyone, let alone a representative of a friendly country. Maybe SinnFein have forgotten their recent past or maybe their past is why they would rather have relations with Hamas terrorists than Israeli politicians.

Climate Change research funding

'Warmists' are quick to claim that climate change 'sceptics' (or 'deniers') are funded by big business, as though the 'warmists' are the plucky underdogs. Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's submission to the CRU/Climate Gate inquiry states otherwise and is wort reading in full, but here a few excerpts:

"3 My Understanding of the Issue

3.1 ...It is important, however, for you check my observation, that most climate change since the late 1980s has been government- and grant- funded with the clearly stated objective that it must support a decarbonisation agenda for the energy sector.


3.2 Scientific research as advocacy for an agenda (a coalition of interests, not a conspiracy,) was presented to the public and governments as protection of the planet. This cause of environmental protection had from the start natural allies in the EU Commission, United Nation and World Bank. CRU, working for the UK government and hence the IPCC, was expected to support the hypothesis of man-made, dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide, a hypothesis it had helped to formulate in the late 1980s and which became "true" in international law with the adoption of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.


3.3 This treaty and its protocol does not define "climate", and applies only to anthropogenic warming assumed to be dangerous. In persuading policy makers and the public of this danger, the "hockey stick" became a major tool of persuasion, giving CRU a major role in the policy process at the national, EU and international level. This led to the growing politicisation of science in the interest, allegedly, of protecting the "the environment" and the planet. I observed and documented this phenomenon as the UK Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return climate science was generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy objectives. This policy was of course challenged by those unhappy with the proposed government-stimulated replacement of carbon fuels, but this need not concern this Committee beyond noting that it increased the anger of climate "sceptics" who saw science misused for policies they doubted. Others liked the policy and kept quiet. Opponents were gradually starved of research opportunities or persuaded into silence. The apparent "scientific consensus" thus generated became a major tool of public persuasion."

Another 'inconvenient truth'?

The BBC are in full attack mode

I note that tonight's Newsnight will include this:

"The Conservative donor and deputy party chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he is "non-domiciled" in the UK for tax. How damaging has his affiliation been to the party? Our Political editor Michael Crick will be considering why the Conservative poll lead is narrowing."

I am assuming that Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, William Bollinger and Mahmoud Khayami will not be mentioned at all; after all why should they as they are lovely Labour donors not evil Tory ones.

Nick Robinson tells only part of the Labour equivalents to Lord Ashcroft story

Nick Robinson reports on Lord Ashcroft's statement re his tax-status in a long piece that starts thus:

"At last. The truth is out. The man who's bankrolled the Tories for much of the past decade and has consistently refused to answer questions about his tax status has finally come clean. Michael Ashcroft is a "non-dom" - in other words he's not been paying British taxes on his non-UK earnings throughout the time he's been central to the Conservatives campaigning."

In one comment near the end Nick Robinson does manage to mention one of Labour's non-dom financiers

"Labour MPs have long obsessed about the man they accuse of trying to buy an election in a country in which he does not even bother to be fully resident for tax purposes. Their attack is blunted somewhat by the fact that Gordon Brown made Sraj Paul - a Labour donor and non-dom - a peer and a member of the Privy Council."

But that is it. So for a more extensive list of Labour's money-men, you should turn to Iain Dale:

"latest figures show that since 2001, Labour have taken over £10 million from eight reportedly ‘non-dom’ donors:

• Lord Paul – £69,250 in donations to Labour, including £45,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. A close friend of Gordon Brown and appointed to the Privy Council last summer, he has admitted to being ‘non-dom’.
• Lakshmi Mittal - £4.125 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Ronald Cohen - £2.55 million in donations to Labour. Cohen was appointed chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, which was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown.
• Sir Christopher Ondaatje - £1.7 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Gulam Noon - £532,826 in donations to Labour.
• William Bollinger - £510,725 in donations to Labour.
• Mahmoud Khayami - £985,000 in donations to Labour including £5,000 to Hazel Blears’ deputy leadership campaign. He has helped bankroll two flagship schools, one of which Gordon Brown opened, and was personally thanked for a donation by Tony Blair.
• Dr David Potter - £90,000 in a donation to Labour. He has previously delivered a lecture at Downing Street."

That's just over £10.5 million to Labour from non-doms but to the BBC it's just not a news story.

So since 2001 Labour non-doms have contributed around £7million to Labour's coffers whilst Lord Ashcroft has contributed around £5million to the Conservative party. Yes I can see why the BBC ignore the Labour non-doms.

It's 4 o'clock and time for tea

"Gordon Brown has doubled the national debt. Every second, it rises by another 5,000 pounds. Our deficit is 12.6 per cent of GDP compared to Greece’s 12.7. All this despite the additional trillion pounds taken in taxation since 1997."

Those were some of the words used yesterday by Daniel Hannan at the first UK tea party. You can read more about the UK tea party at Daniel Hannan's blog here and here.

A contrast in speakers and free-speech

For the context of these videos take a trip to American Power Blog for what's happening on UC Irvine's campus.

"worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method"

The Institute of Physics have submitted written evidence to the inquiry into the CRU Climate Gate affair. Here are some extracts from their evidence:

"What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.


2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.


3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.


4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.


5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.


6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the
e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.


7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.


...


9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.



Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?


10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.


11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.


12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity."

Oh dear looks like some scientists understand what is meant by scientific method, peer-review and free availability of information - how inconvenient.

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

This week's award goes to the Diplomats of EU countries who The Telegraph report

"are increasingly worried that amid the turf wars there is a danger of Brussels "mission creep" as squabbling EU chiefs try to enlarge their empires at the expense of each other and national sovereignty. "

Apparently:

"Another diplomat expressed concern that amid the "biggest shift for 50 years", following the Lisbon Treaty, EU institutions were in danger of overstepping the mark.

"It is about getting the right balance between a collective EU voice and the member states. Whoever talks – Van Rompuy, Barroso or Ashton – they need to speak to a position agreed by the 27 member states," he said. "

The EU trying to take power for itself and reduce the role of member countries via "mission creep" - "No shit, Sherlock"

Has the UK already lost its AAA status?

The Financial Times yesterday reported that:

"British government debt is already trading at prices that suggest it has lost its prized top credit rating, heightening concerns that investors already view gilts as less than triple A-rated assets and demand greater rewards for holding them.

Since the end of November, the gap between the interest rate Britain and Germany must pay on 10-year government debt has risen from 0.35 percentage points to 0.9 points."

Lower rated than Germany, well is that so bad? How about this?

"British government bond yields – the cost of servicing government borrowing – have risen above those of Italy for the first time since mid-2008. Britain has to pay much more to borrow than other triple A-rated economies such as Germany, France and the US."

OK but at least we are not as badly thought of as the PIGS...

"the UK’s yields are also only a fraction lower than those of Portugal, seen as the weakest eurozone economy after Greece."

This is the legacy of 13 years of Gordon Brown running the UK economy; we are already being treated by the markets as though our AAA rating had been lost. In 1997 Gordon Brown was told by Treasury officials in what a good state the economy was in after Ken Clarke's stewardship and with typical gracelessness Gordon Brown is reported to have replied 'so what do you want me to do, thank him?'. What do you think Treasury officials would tell George Osborne if a Conservative government is elected later this spring? It's not going to be good news is it.

Reporting some of the news; yes the BBC, who else?

The BBC report under the headline

"Lord Ashcroft admits 'non-dom' status" that: "Conservative donor and deputy party chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he is "non-domiciled" in the UK for tax.

He said he agreed with David Cameron that anyone sitting in the Lords must be "resident and domiciled" in the UK.

He said he expected "to be sitting in the House of Lords for many years to come", suggesting his status would change if the Tories win the election.

Mr Cameron said, in another statement, he was "pleased" that Lord Ashcroft had decided to clarify his position.

A "non-dom" is someone who is resident in the UK but not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes - although they will pay some UK tax they will not be fully taxed in the UK on their interests overseas. "

The BBC repeat the charge that:

"He, and senior Conservative Party spokesmen, have refused to say what his tax status was over recent years, saying it was a private matter."

Oddly (well not really) the BBC don't report Lord Ashcroft's comment that

"My precise tax status therefore is that of a “non-dom". Two of Labour's biggest donors - Lord Paul (recently made a privy councillor by the Prime Minister) and Sir Ronald Cohen, both long-term residents of the UK, are also "non-doms"."

The BBC are very keen to attack Lord Ashcroft's tax status but less keen to mention the tax status of Labour donors; can anyone think why this might be the case? Also I note that Lord Ashcroft has not mentionned another Labour donor of questionnable tax status - Lakshmi Mittal. That's three 'dodgy' Labour donors to one Conservative so far...

Gold, China and Pravda

Pravda report that:

"China has confirmed the intention to purchase 191.3 tons of gold from the International Monetary Fund at an open auction, Finmarket news agency said. "

That should see Gold rise quickly in price today...

Beware the quiet ones - Herman Van Rompuy

I note that Herman Van Rompuy the EU's President is accused of making a powergrab over who is in charge of representing Europe on the global stage. Apparently Mr van Rompuy has been trying to accumulate more power than he is entitled to, what a shock.