Saturday, December 30, 2006

Ding dong the murdering arsehole is dead

So, Saddam Hussein has been executed for the murder of 148 Shia muslims. Personally, I am against the death penalty (mainly because in places where it is still carried out, such as in America, it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison, and I don't think murdering bastards should have such a huge amount of money wasted on them) but in this case, I think the only pity is that he could only be hanged once.

That is not to say that I agree with the invasion of Iraq; far from it. I was studying International Law at the time of the invasion of Iraq under a highly esteemed professor who is one of the foremost international lawyers in the country. He had resigned from his position advising the government when they declared they were going to go to war. On top of that, a friend in the FCO recently told me that she had seen documents from her department being sent to N0. 10 outlining the lack of post invasion preparation and warning of years of insurgency and violence if these things were not planned properly. The response from No. 10 to these in depth documents? A scrawl on them saying 'thank you very much for your input.'

Nice to know that our government hadn't already made up their mind and were, in fact, interested in fully examining the situation.

Watching the reports today over the life of Saddam I was reminded again of how mistaken we were in going to war again in 2003. In my opinion, we should have finished the job off in the 1990s.

One could almost say that they were continuing the first gulf war the second time around, because they justified the use of force under UNSCR 678, 687 and 1441. But these resolutions did not provide a legal basis for invading Iraq. Indeed, the US ambassador to the UN said "this is not a smoking gun" and that they would need another resolution for the invasion to be legal under international law. Indeed, a further resolution was attempted by the Americans and the British, but this was not passed, essentially because it was based on what one could term a large streaming pile of dog poo.

Please note: I am not even going to get into a debate about international law as a concept. The US and the UK have signed up to it, and so I am approaching it from the angle of, sign up to it and stick to it until otherwise.

Furthermore, 678 and 687 were specific to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and so using these resolutions, which permitted the use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, is rather like using anti terror legislation to evict someone from their council house.

So, let's leave aside the resolutions - rather in the manner of our great leaders - and have a look at these weapons of mass destruction. 45 minutes, hey? Well, not according to Margaret Beckett the other day on the Today programme.. I am sure that it was mentioned in the dossier from 2002 which outlined the case for going to war? Wasn't that rather the whole premise of going to war? that Saddam Hussein was not only a threat to the region, but that on his ordered, WMD could be launched on the rest of the world and reach us in only 45 minutes.

It would have been nice, I suppose, if the weapons inspectors had been sent to Iraq to do a proper job, rather than as some fickle ornament, less meaningful than a trill on a top note in a Chopin nocture. But completely ignoring what the inspectors found (or didn't)was rather a bad move as surely people would raise more than eyebrows once they read the transcripts from the Security Council meetings?

Of course, when it was discovered that the whole 45 minute claim was a big, fat, lie then Dubba started talking about the importance of the invasion because of 'human rights'. Sorry, chaps, but
human rights comes under Chapter VII which does not permit military force to be used. As any fule kno.

So, essentially, under international law it was illegal. And it was unjust. And now the country will probably be split up because there is a civil war taking place.

But, hey. At least that murdering cunt is dead: every cloud has a silver lining!

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Dosh for Dining-Rooms

Conservative MPs are being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over the alleged misuse of House of Commons dining rooms.

More tea, vicar? Is David Davis slipping Theresa May a length before the late night sitting? Legs spread, her hands slamming into the ramikin dishes full of mustard, globules dangling from her fingers before they are thrown against the wall as her whole body shudders in ecstacy?

Not quite.

Sir Philip Mawer launched a preliminary inquiry after two Labour MPs said 22 Tories were using the facilities to raise party funds.

Perhaps whoring Theresa May out in the dining room, then? The David Davis escort service?

Wrong again, Trix. Get your mind out of the gutter. Or at least DKs lap.

It seems that the holier-than-thou Mambpy pamby lets-all-sit-by-mother-at-the-party Tories have been hosting dinners to raise money for their party. Well, they don't have any policies, people aren't joining (try getting some policies?) and they can't get any more big loans from people as that all went a bit tits up, so I suppose a quick dinner of melon balls, chicken supreme and trifle is as far as they are prepared to risk it.

I think I gatecrashed one my friend was hosting the other evening. He's a candidate so I suspect he falls into the category of:

But Labour MP Kevin Jones told the BBC: "They're using private dining rooms for direct fundraising, not only for sitting members of parliament but also for target Liberal Democrat and Labour seats.

Is it just me, or are these two Labour MPs the sort of dribbly nosed prim sneak that always ended up having their head flushed down the lavatory because everyone couldn't stand the fact that they were such a no fun tell tail tit? Really. I am no fan of the Conservatives (although I did send that nice Mr Cameron a bunch of flowers the other day to thank him for all his hard work) but two members of a political party whose own leaders are being arrested and questioned by police over a financial scandal really are just grappling around for anything they can lay their hands on to divert attention for the mess the Labour party is in.

It's no surprise it's in a mess, though. Nor any of the others. What with them being dominated by self serving, herpes infected cunts with free-flowing flapsnot.

Monday, December 25, 2006

Death of a legend

James Brown has died. I liked his music. And I am sad to report that the bad taste jokes, courtsey of my cousin's other half, have already started....

Papa's got a brand new body bag:


Merry Christmas

Sunday, December 24, 2006

I am fucked off

I went down my local tonight to celebrate what some people think to be the birth of the Messiah. Well, have a lovely religious festival.

I personally went down the pub to see my friends. It's a local in a village I live in (but only for a few more weeks) which is basically full of people who think the Sun is a literary masterpiece. In many ways, it could be considered so, but for actual political content, it really isn't. And I love the people who write for it: those politics guys are bright, funny, sharp and know exactly what's going on, but they quite simply don't have the space to write it all.

Anyway, my big 'Moan of the Year' goes to inverted snobbery

These very same people I drink with on occasions are the people who will -not to my face - slag me off. Come on; I'm a big girl. I can cope with someone telling me they don't particularly like me. I've said it to enough people myself. But when grown men and women can't accept the fact that someone younger than them is more qualified, more intelligent (maybe a presumption, but I am fairly on the ball) and better paid than them, they can only cope with it by ganging up and being spiteful.

Can you imagine if I refused to speak to someone on the grounds that they only flipped burgers for a living? Me, with both my degrees by the time I was 22 decided that I was too good for them? Me, who put myself through university, including spending many years working behind bars, decided I was better than other people because of my qualifications and my job? There would be an outrage.

But in Nu Labour's Britain, that's exactly what happens. Those very same people who sit there drinking their child benefit which I pay for, also have the right to be evil to me because I am younger than them, and, in their eyes too, more successful. They are allowed to slag me and my friends off for not being like them, because in their eyes, being successful is a bad thing.

Fuck you. Shove your fucking attitude back up your fundament where it belongs. You sit there being so cunting smug, so polite to my face, so full of yourself and yet what have you actually done but as little as you possibly can, whilst those of us who wake up to go to work around the same time you are finishing your last beer, who pay in tax more than you will earn because they work hard, are supposed to feel sprry for doing so?

I will never feel sorry for working hard. I will always strive to be successful. I will always do what I think is best; and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself.

That is, of course, after you've spend my tax payments on beer making yourselr feel like the ruler of the universe.

Cunts, the lot of you.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Don't you know who he is?

European Parliament = a big building
Lots of rooms, very boring meetings, shit gets left around. Consequently, anyone using an EP e-mail gets bombarded with messages about lost items, requests for phone chargers (you're very welcome to use mine, but I am in London) and how to say Merry Christmas in 25 different languages. It's a bit of a community, you might say.
A certain Tory MEP hasn't quite got to grips with how it all works; or maybe he has, and he's just very important and busy?

Dear All,

I have lost my leather coat, it is a soft, brown, leather jacket. I believe I left it in Agriculture Committee yesterday in P01002, if anyone has found it, could you please bring it to E14***!!

Thank you very much and happy christmas to everyone!

Tory MEP

Comment from friend in the Parliament:

'If I lost my jacket, and somebody found it for me and had the decency to let me know, I would at least get off my arse and go and collect it myself!

But then he is a special person, isn't he. And they wonder why only senile old farts and wannabee spivs vote for their shitty old party of the dead!

If I find it, I'll piss on it.'

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Again, why?

Am slightly bothered as to why, during the many debates and articles on ID cards, no one has seen fit to mention the EU angle of them.

The EU is currently in the process of harmonising the format of ID cards including the biometric details stored on them. Don't believe me? Look at this then [PDF]:

2. Biographical data
The ID-card shall be machine-readable in compliance with Part 3 Volume 1 of ICAO Document 93031 ("Size 1 and Size 2 Machine Readable Official Travel Documents") and the way they are issued shall comply with the specifications for machine-readable cards set out therein.

The portrait of the holder shall not be affixed but integrated into the material of the front side of the card by the issuing techniques referred to in Section 5.

[from Council Document 15th november 2006 15356/06 JAI 598]

The EU is not actually forcing the UK to adopt ID cards, because this Labour government signed up to the measures at EU level. However, signing up does make them committed to their introduction.

Also, as Open Europe point out, it makes it very difficult for political parties who are opposed to ID cards, but want to remain in the European Union, to scrap the proposals if by the next election, the harmonisation process is very advanced.

Another thing which is so typical of the EU is the way they are going about it. I recall reading the European Parliament legislation on this, and having also read the council document and proposals, they are not going about it in a legislative way. No, because that would require Parliamentary scrutiny and then the press might report it (although I can see both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives being incredibly quiet about that one for fear of embarrassment)and then someone might say something unkind about the beloved EU!

No, softly, softly, catchy monkey is the attitiude. Let's all just lay down the minimum requirements so we all have the same ID cards which can be read in all our little machines and then once national law makes it all proper and above board, and thoroughly like 1984, we will have our way without anyone blaming the EU.

How about that, eh?

But why should I?

Sir Hayden Phillips has announced that the only party opposed to a cap on political donations was the UK Independence Party. The proposal is causing a big row amongst the other political parties, especially the Labour party who get loads of cash from the Unions. And flats for Fatty Prescott too.

But the case for a limit on individual donations was boosted by an influential committee of MPs which called on the parties to back a binding cap in return for extra public cash.

Why, but why should the public have to give any more money to our defunct policial elites? They pass very little of our legislation, they don't stop damaging legislation from the EU being passed into UK law, and public opinion of politics is pretty damn low at the moment.

But can you blame people for not being inspired by our current shower of politicians? We have a Deputy PM who doesn't actually do anything but get paid and a Prime Minister who has been investigated by the police. The leader of the Opposition hasn't quite yet managed to come up with any policies apart from mimicking Tony Blair and the Lib Dems appear to have disappeared into the ether. Which is a shame because they are always worth a laugh.

So why, then, should people have to give more money for politicians who don't inspire them, who they don't feel represent them and who they may not agree with. Their money will go towards funding political parties and MPs who do not represent them and who may actually be in favour of policies which those same tax payers are fundamentally opposed to, such as ID cards, membership of the European Union and higher taxes.

Why should politics be allowed subsidies? If political parties want more cash, perhaps they should try address the problems of why people aren't joining up with their parties or making donations. If a company was losing money say, by not selling it's product, would it be allowed to ask tax payers for funding to carry on? No. It would either sink or adapt so people did want to by their products.

And I think politics should be much the same, which is why I am glad that at least the UK Independence Party do not want yet more money from the public purse. People should spend their money they earn how they see fit.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Polly should stick to putting the kettle on

I tend not to read Polly, but as it's rather quiet in the office today (and I have a huge bruise on my bottom which makes moving too much rather difficult) I thought I would have a browse round the political commentators. And so here she is...

Here is a Christmas message from the Department for Work and Pensions: there will be a harsh crackdown on lazy, feckless, work-shy scroungers

Ooooh, are all the MPs going to get sacked?
This social contract (hand up, not hand out) has mostly been kept by both sides under Labour. Tax credits and benefits for children have doubled and, for the first time

And unemployment has risen, along with the tax burden, the number of homes being repossessed and personal debt rocketing. Nice.
there are now virtually no young long-term claimants, thanks to the New Deal.

How can you be 'young' and have a long career history? Surely a dubious comment, Polly? Or perhaps you weren't actually thinking what you were writing. Did it all just pour forth like bile onto the keyboard?
Is it that simple? There is a very grey line between the plain idle and those who are illiterate, mentally unfit, psychologically odd, ex-prisoners, unattractive to employers, non-English speakers (Labour has stopped free English courses), drug addicts, alcoholics and other bad prospects. In Glasgow, for example, what are these vacancies? Mostly part-time hotel and catering, bar work and waitering with unsocial hours.

I've had to work anti-social hours. I still do, in fact. So do most people I know. Not everyone can just swan into the office, Polly, write a couple of paragraphs of complete bollocks and then fuck off home, or to number 11, for a quick drink and a fuck on the hearthrug. And as for psychologically odd, well I think you have proved to us that £140,000 a year is a potential salary for someone suffering from that particular mental disorder.
the jobseeker's allowance is a pathetic £57.45 a week, not enough to survive on. I tried, and fell into unavoidable debt within weeks. Those in debt fear taking a job as loans sharks chase them once they start earning.

Champagne is expensive...
Let's look at how the state breaks its side of the social contract. The real value of that £57.45 has halved since 1979: it's now worth just 10% of the average wage and falling every year.

But they're not actually working, are they honey. Why should they get the same wage as someone who has to get up in the morning, travel into work and actually do something all day? Why should I be funding someone to survive through the money I make by spending most of my life working? Where is the incentive there, sweetheart?
Rents are sent sky high, making it impossible for the unemployed to lose housing benefit by taking a job. They will never own a shed in the capital as the gap yawns ever wider between the 70% homeowners counting untaxed winnings every month, while the rest and their children are consigned to social housing forever.

How do you get these housing benefits? I'm still enjoying living with my parents as I coundn't afford to rent immediately when I travelled back from London. But soon, I will be renting and paying those sky high rents. Yes, It'll take me longer to pay back debts, I won't be able to go out very much, or to have so many lovely things. But it's my choice. It's what I have chosen to spend my wages on. And clearly, if rents are that high, then other people have also chosen to spend their wages on it, too.
Why is the language of rights and responsibilities, of the duty to contribute as well as to draw out, never applied to those who dance on the ceiling as they spray jeroboams of Cristal over those living on the floor?

Memories of a night with Gordon, darling? Him shaking the bottle and spraying the fizz over your snatch before licking and sucking it up? Or was that just in your dreams

Actually, that's a bit unfair to you, Pol. You strike me as more of a babysham kinda girl.
But before you despair of Labour,

Too late
wait for next July's comprehensive spending review.

Before I emigrate?
But, above all, he repeated Labour's pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 - no shirking, no moving the goalposts. That means some £4bn of credits and benefits must be announced within the next seven months.

Oh fucking great. No tax cuts for me, then! I'll continue to work my arse off, pay back my student loan and wait until my parents retire before I can even consider getting on the property ladder.

Monday, December 18, 2006

A Christmas message from St Thickchilds

My eyes have been opened to another blog which is rather good: and from it, I have stolen this little work of genius:

A Christmas message from St Thickchilds

Dear Parent/Guardian/Window licking Inbred,

Just to remind you that this year we break up on Friday 15th December for the Christmas holiday. After this time we have no desire to see or hear from your charmless offspring until Tuesday January 2nd. The caretaker has asked me to remind you that your foul mouthed child should be kept away from the school grounds during this time. (He would like to know why this is so difficult when you seem to be able to manage it perfectly well during the term)

Before my telephone starts ringing to herald an earful of your witless prattle, I am well aware that the 15th is quite early to begin celebrating Christmas, but since you have had your awful glowing Santas up since mid October, you have no cause to complain. Frankly we are all heartily sick of your child demanding to be entertained with traditional Christmas activities (Mindless scribbling whilst watching violent DVDs) in lessons, rather than attempting what they laughingly refer to as ‘work.’

Many thanks to those of you who attended the Carol Concert last week. If any reader should know the current whereabouts of the computer and printer which disappeared from my office on that same night, perhaps you would be good enough to inform me. If the parent who decided to spraypaint ‘Mr. Morris is a qweer’ on the wall would like to get in touch, we do have a few school dictionaries left.

The Prize draw in last months ‘Quarterwit’ (a lever to open a car lock, should you have ‘lost’ the key) was won by Ryan, formerly of Year 11; now unfortunately behind bars. We will therefore hold the draw again next month.

Congratulations to Tamsin Sprouthead who has successfully completed her first term at Downtown University, where she is pursuing a Degree in Celebrity Studies. We also offer commiserations to Chavney whose Lottery winning parents bought her a swimming pool to celebrate her GCSE success (in Drama) only to have it filled in by the Council due to an unfortunate lack of planning permission.

Finally, let us not forget as you go about your alcohol fuelled mayhem; that Christmas is a time for giving as well as receiving. By this I do not mean that you should give a mouthful of foul abuse to the telephone receptionist when you receive your benefit cheque a day late; but rather… oh never mind.

Yours Faithfully
Mr Morris

Friday, December 15, 2006

Don't do as she says, or as she does!

From my article about why I feel prostitution should be made legal, I notice that the ragged old fleabag charming and intelligent Harriet Harman thinks the opposite.

Always nice to have someone like that disagreeing with you; it rather confirms to me that I am probably correct.

Ms Harman said the "awful" Ipswich serial killings demonstrated the need for a change in the law to make soliciting illegal.

But honey, it is illegal already....

She claimed the only way to make women safe was by toughening up laws to include a total ban on buying sex.

Erm, no. Some old chap whose wife has died and who wants a bit of sex every now and again is hardly a danger to a woman who is perfectly happy to partake in the arrangement. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most people who pay for sex actually want to have sex, rather than strangle the prostitute and leave her naked body in the wood. Oh, and you're never going to stop people buying sex.

Ultimately we should be criminalising the demand for prostitution, criminalising the men who pay for prostitution...

Hmmm. Sounds to me like you are wanting to criminalise libidos...That could be a tough one. Bromide for all men as soon as they reach 13? A higher dose for the ugly ones as they are less likely to be able to get a shag without paying?

The minister, who sits on the cross-department committee on the issue, warned that prostitution in London was part of organised crime involving drugs and guns.

Yes: by prostitution being forced into the underworld, the risk makes it highly profitable. It provides demand for brothels run by pimps and people traffickers who abuse women and force them into sex, in a way which would be less likely to happen if women and men were just allowed to be prostitutes. And if you're trafficking people across (it's so much easier now with no internal border controls) then why not ship drugs and guns too. Maximise profits by sharing costs?

The London MP, a candidate for Labour's deputy leadership, rejected claims that the "oldest profession in the world", could not be eradicated. "Just because problems are old, doesn't mean you can't try to solve them."

But why should they be 'solved'? What's actually wrong with someone paying for sex, and someone else providing it? It's not my cup of tea, personally. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who reguarly paid for sex, but that's my personal opinion and I don't think two consenting adults hammering out (sorry) an arrangement between the two of them should be anything to do with the state.

The street prostitution I admit could be a real problem for people who lived around the area, but if you took it off the streets, then that antisocial aspect of it would rapidly diminish. I'm sure these women would much rather sit in a nice, warm house than parade about on the streets in cheap shoes.

I think Ms Harman's views are based on her opinions that prostitution is 'wrong'. I don't think politicians should legislate on their personal morals, just as these days we tend not to have politicians running the country based on their religion.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Please sir, can I have some more, sir?

So, Alastair Darling is going to ask the European Commission very nicely if he can provide investment of £1.7 billion for the Post Offices, is he? It's so nice to know that these people we elect to run our country, who have recently decided they just don't get paid enough, can't even decide how they are going to spend tax revenue.

Mr Darling said the annual £150m subsidy to help rural branches stay open will be extended beyond 2008 until 2011.

What, however, Mr Darling doesn't say is that under Article 88 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, a national government needs permission from the European Commission to grant state aid, and under Directive 2002/39/EC, this permission must be granted before the aid can be given.

In fact, this figure of £150 million a year to the post offices was allowed to be made after the EC decided that this was the maximum figure they would allow. Never mind that the actual cost of these post offices are £4 million a week, which leaves a £58 million a year black hole...oops! Still, at least they've extended the time this can be paid from 2008 to 2011. How lucky we are to have such a generous Commission to let us do these things!
The closures are likely to begin next summer and will continue for 18 months, reducing the size of the network to about 11,760.

This has all come about, because the European Postal Services Directive decided that the reserve for the national monopoly had to be cut from post weighing 350g (No, I don't actually know what that is in real measurements) to 50g, meaning that the money which was made by the post office could be pumped into the rural post offices etc. which do not make profit.

Not that any of our little poppets in Westminster are actually bringing themselves to say this. They can't even bring themselves to say 'market failure' when it comes to services such as the post office, as then they would have to explain why they are not funding the rural post offices properly, even though it is one of the few roles which the government can actually do better than private companies.

Can you imagine the grief Mr Darling would get (oh, if only he was a Captain) from dear old Tone' if he stood up and, perhaps, told the fucking truth about this post office debacle?

"Sorry, chaps, the European Commission says we can't fund post offices, even if they are the only facility in a rural area or tiny village miles from anywhere, somewhere that the elderly rely on. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They are the bosses now, and if they want to bend me over and bugger me with the Acquis Communautaire then they can."

Why are our politicians allowing themselves to get the blame for things which they could blame on the EU? Oh, yes. Because they keep on dragging us further and further into the stinking, corrupt cess pit that is the European Union and so they have to keep hiding the truth from people or they won't get their way of a wonderful, happy political union based on the recollections of someone who read 1984 whilst on acid.

I tell you, there must be something really good in it for them if they are prepared day after day, week after week to lie on behalf of the Portuguese orange cunt Barosso and his gang of merry men. Maybe a one way ticket out of the mess they are creating, perhaps? Sunning themselves in Latin America along with the rest of the political crackpots and assorted nasty bastards, whilst we try frantically to keep up with the rest of the world who aren't restrained by the most convoluted, harmful, regressive, spasticated organisation ever to exist.

Just let us leave...before it's too late...

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

My Winter Treat

Normally I go ice skating at Hampton Court, but this year, following the complete failure of DK to actually move any limbs this weekend, my plans to go whizzing around the ice rink in Edinburgh did not happen.

So, have decided instead that the devil will have to put a woolly hat on his horns and wrap a scarf around his tail and I can push him around the ice rink at the Tower of London.

Perhaps he's afraid that it signifies that hell has frozen over...or maybe he's just rubbish at skating?

If it's so old, why is it illegal?

As someone who had the pleasure of spending many, many hours in the lesbians women's committee in the European Parliament, I am used to listening to well meaning, yet rather ignorant people talking about prostitution.

I even had the joy of reading a report which suggested that the European Union should make prostitution illegal across the EU.


Why can't a consenting adult charge someone money for having sex with them? Why can't someone who wants to pay someone for sex do so?

Prostitution has been around for longer than democratic politics. Soliciting for prostitution has always been illegal. It has been pushed onto the streets, making it unsafe for most concerned. And yet it is still here.

I think it should be legal. I really can't see why it can't be regulated, with prostitutes paying tax and their clients can ensure that the women they are sleeping with are safe because they have regular health checks. These women (and men) can come off the streets and into a safe environment, and the need for pimps would be removed.

Also, one thing which is regularly mentioned is people trafficking. I notice the Tories put some caring advert about highlighting girls trafficked from Eastern Europe. Surely if they really cared about stopping this they would:

1) Impose some kind of border controls between EU countries. Whilst open borders facilitate legal trade it does, by nature, facilitate illegal trade to a great extent.

2) Remove the market for these women forced into prositution by having a legal market. If prostition is not a crime, then criminals will not get involved.

Or am I missing the point?

Friday, December 08, 2006

I wonder if that's what he meant....

The German Commissioner, Günter Verheugen, has been snapped frolicking on a nudist beach with his newly promoted aide.

The 62 year old German was snapped in nothing but a baseball cap on the beach in Lithania, and apparently his wife knows about it.

Well, am not actually that interested in other people's private lives. Let's face it, it frees up two sunbeds for the other guests who want to soak up the sun around the swimming pool.

No, what really got me and made me laugh until my colleague had to hit me over the head with a copy of Vacher's quarterly were the comments by José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Soviet:

José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, rushed to the aid of his German Vice-President yesterday, saying that he expected “people’s private spheres” to be respected.

And which 'spheres' might they be, Mr Barroso?

*cue yet more chuckling....*

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

European Affairs debate a complete joke

Am listening to the European Union Affairs debate in the House of Commons and am getting rather angry. Firstly, there are about five people in the chamber and, considering that the European Union is really the biggest issue in British politics, I think this shows what a complete bunch of losers we have in our parliament.

Get your heads out of the fucking sand, you bunch of rabid ostriches. You all sit there listening to Gordon Brown waxing lyrical about a 1.25p rise in petrol duty, and then you all fuck off and ignore the debate which is controlling far more of our money and the plans for this country to give away even more power to Brussels. Why are you there if you have no interest in the important matters which affect this country? Hmm? I mean, you've all sat their with your fingers up your arses saying how little you get paid and how you need to take yet more of our money for your wages, but what are you actually doing?

Secondly, am desperately trying not to grab TV and throw it out of the window whilst I hear the so called 'opposition' agreeing with the 'basic thrust' of what that facially inept Foreign Secretary says. And she is saying that she wants enlargement, that the European Union should have more powers, that we should continue being members of the European Union because that's the only way we're going to compete with Asia...

Compete with Asia whilst being part of a socialist trade block which thinks that trade protectionism is a good thing? Which has a globalisation fund to subsidise countries and industries which have lost money 'due to globalisation'? What the fuck? Our MPs support subsidising inefficient industries and countries which can't be bothered to become more efficient and compete on the global market - surely the quickest way for these countries to go down the pan.

The way we compete with these Asian countries is to embrace free trade, lower taxes to encourage investment and hard work and to rid ourselves of the burden of harmful EU regulation such as the Working Time Directive. Not by jumping on the large waterbed of the EU orgy and gang-banging everything to do with 'cooperation' and 'the future of Europe' and 'combined decision making with our neighbours'.

After hearing Graham Brady encouraging further migration from the EU to the UK, despite the Shadow Home Secretary making numerous comments about how immigration needs to be controlled, I think that if the UK Independence Party did not exist, rather than vote for any of these shower of shits, I would rather poo on my ballot paper to properly register my disgust with this millenium consensus in Westminster.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Learn to Love the EU

From the Mail on Sunday:

A multi-million pound propaganda war to force the British people to love the European Union and Brussels bureaucrats is to be launched by Tony Blair as part of his legacy as Prime Minister...

It's actually taken me a day to calm down and try and discuss this rationally, but just typing that out again makes me want to run the short distance over to Westminster and scream "what the fuck are you doing with my tax money, you bunch of utter cretins?"

Don't get me wrong: As much as I hate the EU I would welcome debate. But fair debate. The EU itself already has a huge propaganda budget with which to try convince people that what they are doing is all about fluffy bunnies and happy, smiling children, as opposed to the plans for a super state with a spot of third world death along the way. So why do they need more money?

I suspect it's because no matter how much they love the EU, people can see beyond their lies, their deceit and their selfish disdain for the feelings of others. The fact that they have to hide the truth from people means that even they must know, ignorant and spasticated as they are, that the CAP, the Euro, the Constitution, the 'aid' deals with the developing world, the biometric passports, the Euro Army with Germany, France, Italy and Spain (because they have such a good military record) are not wanted and not needed by the general public, and people can see how much damage they do.
The operation is to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften voters up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting

Would these be the plans currently being undertaken in the FCO for the British to lead the way in a new treaty? The ones which our leaders (and I use that in the loosest sense of the term) think they can scam past the public because British people wrote it, so it can't be something 'nasty' from Brussels? The one which will probably appear in some shape or form on the 25th March in Berlin, possibly under the name of the 'Berlin Constitution Declaration'?

I haven't filled in my tax forms yet, but I think I may be deducting some from the final total: EU contribution, funding of Hamas and paying good money for these shower of spastics to tell me what to think about the EU. I'll tell you what I think - I think you should shove your 'Blue Flag' clean beaches up your fundamental...

Friday, December 01, 2006

Smoking: funding the NHS for nearly 60 years

Forgive me if my typing is not so accurate today: I am combining writing this post with smoking a delightful cigarette. In the office. I felt that I had better make the most of it before that malevolent witch Patsy Hewitt makes it illegal to do so.

"A ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces in England
will come into force on July 1 next year, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, announced last night. From next summer all offices, factories, shops, pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, public transport and work vehicles that are used by more than one person will be smoke-free. The new law will also mean that indoor smoking rooms, still common in workplaces, will no longer be allowed. Anyone wishing to smoke will have to go outside instead."

There are three people who work in my office and we all smoke. There are a few other people who come into the office occasionally: some of them smoke, some of
them don't, but if they have a problem with the foggy air then we tell them to fuck off don't smoke whilst they are there. The point is, that we don't need some mad old bat who is completely fucking up our health service trying to tell us how to work.

More annoying than that was this comment from the Express:

"However, people will still be able to smoke outdoors, in private homes and places that Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt says are "like homes", such as care institutions, Army barracks and prisons."

Right. So some criminal who would probably have to have murdered 25 people, raped a few children and mugged the entire population of Kent to actually end up in prison can smoke, but I can't.

Let's not forget that inmates these days are allowed to take drugs, which if I recall correctly are illegal, and six inmates actually received compensation for their horrific 'cold turkey' treatment.

The cost of treating smokers, even at the highest estimate, is £1.2 billion. The money raised by smokers is £9 billion. Maybe that's the reason why smoking is still legal? Because as much as Mrs Hewitt hates smokers, and peers out of the window of the dept of health giving her evil glare to anyone in Main Building nipping outside for some 'fresh air', she needs us smokers to fund her department and the establishment which she is slowly running into the ground.

So if I summarise the few articles I have seen in the media these last few weeks I would draw the following conclusions. If, on July 1st 2007 I am still a smoker, the best place for me to go would be prison. Because there not only would I be able to smoke, they would give me drugs or compensation, I wouldn't have to work and I wouldn't have to pay tax.

Mind you, the chances of anyone actually being sent to prison these days is pretty slim: even our own Home Secretary quietly told some troublesome youths in Westminster to 'behave themselves lads' "you know the prisons are full."

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Justice and Home Affairs

You may or may not have seen this topic in the news recently, but it's one UKIP were pushing pretty hard on. We did manage to get the Sun and the Telegraph to comment on it, but alas they did not mention UKIP. I guess it's all part of the plan not to highlight how desperately pathetic the Conservative Party are and not to weaken them by pointing out there is a party out there campaigning on the issues people care about...

At the end of the last Commission in 2004, an evaluation took place which highlighted major obstacles to 'progress'. One of these areas was the requirement on unanimity in the Council on Justice and Home Affairs.

The basic plan is to transfer criminal law and police cooperation from the 3rd pillar of the EU treaties into the 1st pillar. In English:
The first or ‘Community’ pillar contains the EU’s core policy areas such as the environment, single market and employment law.

The Third pillar covers “Provisions on Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.” Which was formerly known as the Justice and Home Affairs pillar before the transfer of policy on asylum, migration and judicial co-operation in civil matters to the Community pillar.
The plan is for a 'bridging clause' which, in the Commission's own words would, 'constitute a solution to overcome these difficulties in applying the 'Community method' to the policies in the area of freedom, justice and security.'

This would abolish the national veto and would massively increase the power of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, the in-house court, who has as it's aim the supporting of an ever closer union.

The ECJ already has power to declare any national law which is inconsistent with a law of the EU invalid. Moving JHA into the community pillar could potentially widen the scope of the Commission's Competence to almost anything involving police and the judiciary. It means that if the EU legislates on anything to do with JHA it becomes a Community competence. On 13th September 2005 the ECJ gave the EU powers to set criminal penalties for the first time: a combination of these factors could prove explosive.

The UK govt. in May stated that they would not reject this. The House of Lords has warned of the 'creeping competence' of the Commission which this change could bring about.
Transferring Justice and Home Affairs issues into the first pillar would mean that all proposals to harmonise criminal law across the EU and matters of police cooperation would:
• Be agreed on by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers
• Come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice which has until now had only a very restricted say on third pillar matters
• Gradually confer more power over criminal matters to the EU. Once the EU gains competence in a certain area the member states lose the right to propose new laws in that field of law
• Give the EU Commission the sole right to initiate legislation in these matters. By gaining a monopoly over the right to propose laws on criminal justice and police cooperation the EU Commission would enjoy greater power than it would have received from the EU Constitution under which it would have had to share the right to propose new laws.
With decisions being made by the Council of Ministers, it has already turned the British Constitution on its head, by allowing ministers - supposed 'servants' if one knows Latin these days - to dictate to Parliament. Now, even if a British minister votes against a proposal in the Council, he cannot put it out to pasture. Instead, the British Parliament would have to enact laws made by foreign ministers, unelected by the British public which were not supported by the British representative.

The loss of trial by jury would probably be the most visible alteration. Habeas Corpus is an alian concept to the European Justice System - who do not have to have evidence before they arrest people and can keep people locked up in prison without charge for weeks, as in the case of Chris Lees, who was locked up in a Spanish jail for 50 weeks with no case ever brought against him.
There already exists a miniature EU police force called the Euro Gendarmerie Force - made up of 5 countries. (Spain, France, Portugal, Italy and Belgium). They are military police who have as a logo the ring of stars with a sword and a flaming grenade inside. They are not controlled by their government - they are a supranational police force who recognise the EU as their authority.

For pretty pictures and the such, visit :

A few home truths

Am back! And so happy to be so.

Am no longer working in Brussels, but in London where I have been endlessly frustrated with these stories on immigration and foreign prisoners.

Firstly - immigration.

Let's get this one straight - the EU is not just about trade, it's about the free movement of people. If someone is a member of an EU country, they can travel into the UK and stay there for 3 months without having to get in touch with the immigration authorities. Considering that this government can't keep control of who comes in and out of this country, can you really imagine them spending time and money tracking people down after 3 months if they didn't know they were here in the first place?

Our embarkation controls were removed in 1994 by the Conservative Party - which had David Davis in it at the time. In fact, he was the Minister for Europe. So why, then, are the Conservative party saying that the government has failed on immigration when their MEPs voted for enlargement, the Major administration allowed the free movement of people from the EEA and they don't want to withdraw from the EU which is where the Directive saying who can come in and out of the country comes from? Don't believe me? have a look at

You'll also find some useful comments in there about people with criminal records, which brings me to my second point.

If John Reid wants to change the law to allow the UK to deport criminals from within the EU he is going to have a pretty tough time. Considering that it's the aim of the EU to have a common decision on Justice and Home affairs and they don't think that their powers over immigration go far enough, how is he going to get them to repeal that Directive?

He's not.

If we want to control our borders, decide who stays in this country and refuse entry to criminals, then the only way is out.

We are forbidden from having border controls from transportation from EU countries. We can't deport foreign criminals. We can't stop foreign workers coming into the UK, along with their families.

Isn't it about time the government and the opposition stopped with their outrageous hypocrisy and told the British people the truth?

At least UKIP is there to try get the message out.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Funding of Hamas

Have been getting a bit wound up about this: previously mentioned e-mail author Luisa morgantini has been spamming e-mail inboxes with some mulch about how the innocent of Palastine shouldn't suffer from lack of funding. Here are my issues:

1) Why should we give them money?
2) Are they really innocent if they elected a bunch of murdering terrorists to represent them?
3) Why should we give money to murdering terrorists?
4) Maybe if they stopped trying to kill people and fight the whole time, and concentrated on leaving people the f*ck alone then they wouldn't have to rely on money because they could go to work, companies would invest, they could, essentially, make their own money.

Seriously - why should we be giving money to these people? They make their choices and they should abide by it without needing the rest of the world to prop them up. Those who live by the sword, die by it.

Monday, May 08, 2006

UKIPwatch give away their fears

A little look on UKIPwatch and I notive that mr Corbett et al have been encouraging UKIP voters not to elect Nigel Farage as their leader. This in itself tells me that voting for Nigel Farage as leader is exactly what we should do, as it has the opposition rattled.

What did rather amuse me was that one of the reasons they put for not voting was that he was accused by some mad tart of having sex with him, which he denies outright. Indeed, I understand the words 'order' and 'harrassment' have come into the situation. Yet, this was published in the same week as the news broke about John Prescott (two johnnies)and his two year affair using public money with a colleague. I'm not a purist who thinks that someone elected to public office should live the life of a nun, but my problem with Prescott is that he spent so many years attacking the Tories for 'sleaze' and has done the same thing himself.

I sent an e-mail to Richard Corbett asking what he thought about John Prescott, especially in light of his comments about Mr Farage. I am still waiting for an answer but I will let you know.

Another e-mail I am awaiting a reply from is regarding Mr Chris Davies. He has been forced to resign after writing to a constituent saying that he hoped 'she enjoyed wallowing in her own filth'. Classy, Mr Davies, but at least he had the decency to apologise and step down. More than Mr Prescott, let's face it, and Mr Davies didn't have a bit of slap and tickle in Ardmiralty House!

Naturally, people have been e-mailing to express their solidarity and support to Mr Davies:

'Subject: concerning freedom of thought : no comment

My solidarity and respect to MEP Chris Davies. I dont know if he used rough words. But for sure he is right on the violation of human rights and international legality perpreted by the policies of israeli government.'

What we have there is someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about assuming that justice has not been done because she doesn't like Israel, and neither does Mr Davies. I am so glad these people have a vote in European legislation.

Wait for the next one, though:

Dear Chris, dear all

I would also wish to express my deep respect for your firm position, Chris.

It is shocking that you are punished for being courageous enough to express a clear critique of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied land. This ill-treatment is clear for everybody with open eyes and scandalous for everybody with a warm heart. The EU is in a shameful position, our passivity and silent acceptance of what is going on is also an offence against the Rule of Law.

Best Regards

Margrete Auken

Punished for being courageous? What planet does this woman live on? Even Mr Davies thinks he went too far, but Mrs Auken thinks insulting the people who pay your wages is good and proper!

I wrote to her, copying in the Daily Telegraph article just incase she didn't have a flying fuck of a clue what she was talking about, and am waiting for the response....

Friday, April 28, 2006

I can't stop watching this...

This is quite funny. It is a Belgian TV chat-show interview with a man who was castrated by mistake during an operation. The man's wife is sitting next to him. The entire conversation is in Flemish, but this does not matter.

Click below, and make sure you have sound turned on.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Dave the Chameleon 2

Very funny...

England Expects: March 2006

England Expects: March 2006

hmm...I wonder if I can go into the 'not making shoes business' and therefore qualify for some subsidy for keeping Spanish shoe makers in business?

Dave the Chameleon

From Question Time last night....

Question Time – Osborne argues distinction between ‘Dave the Chameleon’ and UKIP ‘fruitcakes’

Thu, 20 Apr 06 | Adfero Report - Broadcast

The Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has dismissed suggestions that the Conservative Party are just as likely as the Labour Party to use negative campaigning to attack other political parties.

The Conservatives have attacked the Labour Party over negative campaigning after the Labour Party, in their first local election broadcast before the local elections in May, decided to brand Tory party leader David Cameron as a chameleon. Although, the Conservative leader himself made disparaging comments recently on a radio phone-in that the UK Independence party were ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly’.

Speaking on BBC One’s ‘Question Time’, Mr Osborne responded to the chameleon comments: ‘I thought it was a pretty significant moment. Here is a government that’s been in office for nine years, that keeps telling us and is desperate to tell us “don’t worry we haven’t run out of ideas and we’ve got lots of things we want to do in the future”, and here is their big change- they’ve got their party political broadcast… and they choose to do a negative attack on the new leader of the Conservative Party.’

He observed: ‘This is a party by the way [Labour] who came to office saying “I will never ever use negative advertising ever again” and that’s what’s happened nine years later.’

‘They’ve got nothing to say for themselves’, he remarked.

However, when suggestions were made by a members of the audience that the chameleon slur was not dissimilar to David Cameron’s suggestions that the UKIP were ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly’, Mr Osborne stressed: ‘There is a difference between a radio interview and designing a party political broadcast because this is all part of a Labour strategy.’

Commenting on Mr Cameron’s comments, he said: ‘The fascinating thing about that was the reaction of the UK Independence Party, which I promise you said “We don’t mind being called fruitcakes or loonies, but we object to being called closet racists” .’

‘Then the founder of the party, a guy called Alan Sked, came out and said “actually he was right to say that about us” ‘, Mr Osborne added

Odd thing is, Dr Sked isn't a member of UKIP. Guess which party he is a member of.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Cameron, the Tory Party, hypocrisy and nepotism

After the childish Mr Cameron threw his toys out of the pram by calling UKIP "racists" I thought I would write to his office and ask for either a jusitification or an apology.

My letter to him:

Mr Cameron,

I am writing to request from you an apology for the unfounded slur you made on the UK Independence Party, it's supporters and voters. Indeed, as a former member of the Conservative Party I know of many of your elected officials and long time members who have voted UKIP and who, therefore, come under the umbrella of your accusation.

I had the pleasure of your company one evening at a dinner at Royal Holloway College where we were sitting next to each other: I trust then that my company did not lead you to believe that I was a racist.

Politics is made interesting and lively by people sharing different views, and debating those views. My opinion that the UK would be better off outside of the EU, where we could experience a proper democracy, sensible legislation and our own trade and development policy is one shared by many, and does not make me a racist. Nor does my view that those of us living in the South East who would prefer not to have an extra 1.5m homes built, essentially in our back gardens, make me a fruitcake: particularly given that with the current hose pipe ban, car washing and manicured lawns in Surrey is made very difficult.

You must be aware by now of how answering the question of why you think UKIP are a bunch of racists with the jealous and spiteful mutterings and lies of Dr Alan Sked is not taken seriously by anyone. I await your reply with interest and hope,

Yours etc,

'his' reply to me:

Many thanks for your email to David Cameron about his recent comments regarding UKIP - I'm replying on his behalf.

I must apologise for the delay in replying to your email - I'm sure you can understand that we've been completely inundated with correspondence since David took over as Leader.

I can appreciate your views, however, a number of people have made allegations about UKIP’s links to the far right. David Cameron was simply reflecting that fact when he was pressed about his opinion of UKIP.

You might be interested to know that Ashok Viswanathan of Operation Black Vote has said: ‘There’s no doubt that when you talk about the UKIP they’re wolves in sheeps clothing… We know that a number of candidates who have stood for UKIP have BNP links – there’s no question there are links’. He suggested UKIP had been spreading ‘hate and bigotry’, adding: ‘It’s not just about anti-Europe. It’s anti-black, it’s anti-minority, anti-migrants, anti-asylum seekers. And we should be very clear about that when we vote on June 10th’ (Black Information Link, 9 June 2004).
The Commission for Racial Equality in Wales has also stated that during the European Elections in 2004, ‘we received many complaints from members of the public about election materials issued for both the BNP and UKIP’ (Annual Report, Commission for Racial Equality in Wales, 2004).

Regarding Europe, we want Britain to be a positive participant in the EU, championing liberal values. Britain has an enormous amount to gain through co-operation and free trade in Europe. The EU does much that is worthwhile. It allows people and goods to move freely across Europe. Just as importantly it has brought stability and has helped to entrench democracy in newly free countries.

But the European Union is not working as it should. It does too much and too much of what it does do, it does badly. The EU needs reform, and Britain, one of its leading members, must be at the front pushing for change. We must challenge the culture of the EU - leaving it to focus on its real job: making the single market work properly and championing free trade. Every European country needs to be competitive with the emerging giants such as China and India. Britain needs to be able to operate a highly flexible labour market. British jobs depend on British Governments being able to retain and enhance that labour market flexibility. That is why our priority is must be the return of powers over employment and social regulation.

The EU needs reform in other areas too. The Common Fisheries Policy has not worked well. We can do more to conserve fish stocks through local management and bilateral agreements. Our farmers have already made tremendous efforts to adapt to change in the Common Agricultural Policy, but reform here too must go further.

We believe in an open, flexible Europe. We do not believe in a United States of Europe. That is why we oppose the EU Constitution in principle, and why we must make sure that the federal agenda contained within it is not introduced through the back door. It is best for Britain’s economy if Britain controls its own interest rates, so we rule out ever joining the euro.

Thank you once again for taking the time and trouble to write.

Yours sincerely,

Alice Sheffield

Christopher Booker's notebook, Sunday Telgraph 16th April (hasn't the Telegraph gone all sensible recently!)

David Cameron spells out his new recipe for disaster
'Catch the bus when you can." "Get to know your neighbours better." "Pick up one piece of litter from the street every day." "Don't overfill your kettle." With advice such as this, the leaflet handed to delegates at last weekend's Tory spring conference in Manchester must rank as the most self-parodyingly condescending piece of litter ever produced by a political party.

Last week it became more apparent than ever just what a catastrophic blunder the Tories made in picking David Cameron as their leader. In talking to Tory activists, MPs and councillors, three incidents seem to have confirmed their view that the party has been hijacked by a gang of spoiled children who appear to have no contact with the realities with which the rest of us live.
The first was that toe-curling speech in which Mr Cameron seemed to emphasise that the only policy in which he believes is the "green revolution", typified by his plan to spend three days "watching glaciers dry" in Norway.

The second was his outburst against the "closet racists" of the UK Independence Party (Ukip). When various Ukip supporters wrote asking how Mr Cameron could justify this insulting claim, the reply from his correspondence secretary, Alice Sheffield, was that his view of Ukip had been confirmed by Ashok Viswanathan of "Operation Black Vote".

It then turned out that Miss Sheffield is Mr Cameron's sister-in-law and that Operation Black Vote is a rum outfit indeed for the Tory party to be consorting with: an aggressively propagandist black lobby group, chiefly funded by the European Social Fund, the European Parliament, various Labour councils and Ken Livingstone's "Government of London". If a similar body were to be set up calling itself "Operation White Vote'", it would soon be prosecuted under the Race Relations and Public Order Acts.

The third shock, just when our country is ruled by the most incompetent, corrupt, discredited government in its history, crying out for trenchant opposition on almost every conceivable issue, from the shambles of the NHS and the destruction of our local government, to the selling out of our Armed Forces to political correctness and a cracked dream of European integration, has been the way that Mr Cameron and his gang seem to have decided that their "Not The Conservative Party" must stop trying to be an opposition - the very task for which we taxpayers give them £4 million a year.

"The real problem," as one dismayed senior Tory put it recently, "is that it is going to take two more years before this disaster can be undone. Labour walks the next election, and then we're going to have to start all over again."

Monday, April 10, 2006

I couldn't have put it better myself

Mr Heffer was excellent on Any Questions, and this editorial in the Telegraph marks a much welcomed change in the Torygraph coverage. I had actually stopped reading it, ever since work UKIp did on a story and quotations from Nigel Farage were attributed to Dan Hannan and the Tories. Not cricket, my dear fellows.

Simon Heffer on Saturday
By Simon Heffer
(Filed: 08/04/2006)
Not all the loonies are in UKIP, Dave

You won't believe this - no, really, you won't - but there are people now running the Conservative Party who think it was brilliant of Dave to describe UKIP as "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly". One of them is his own party chairman, Francis Maude, who was clearly on something yesterday morning when, with no regard at all for the truth, he described UKIP as wanting an "all-white Britain". These two "loonies" regard this smear on thousands of decent, harmless and patriotic people as a masterstroke in Dave's desire to
"reposition" the party.

More in sorrow than in anger - I can't take Dave and Francis sufficiently seriously to get angry about them - I feel I must offer some advice. They are repositioning their party in much the same fashion as Senator Ted Kennedy used to reposition cars after a night's boozing. It's all very well abusing your core vote, provided you can find others to vote for you instead: but the UKIP blunder has simply served to remind everyone of Dave's inexperience, stupidity and shallowness, and that is hardly going to help drum up support.

Two years ago, a friend who is also a Tory MP - indeed, who is now a member of Dave's shadow cabinet - asked me to speak at a dinner in his constituency. I delivered a speech about the wickedness of the European constitution, then not the dead duck it is today. It was a month before the European elections. Afterwards, streams of people queued up to tell me the same thing: that, despite being members of the Tory party, they would all be voting UKIP in the euros.

Dave would like to pretend to the contrary, but a sizeable proportion of those activists on whom his candidates will depend to run their election campaigns in 2009 or 2010 are regular UKIP voters. That is because they regard the Tory party's position on Europe as dishonest and unrealistic. They are right to do so.

This does not make them either loonies or fruitcakes, and by no stretch of the imagination does it make them racists, closet or otherwise. And they will this week have heard what their leader said about them, and been horrified. Indeed, their horror has been eloquently expressed on the letters page of this very paper.

The more one thinks about what Dave did, the more idiotic he seems. If he finds UKIP's position so appalling, why is he proposing to shift his own MEPs towards it by withdrawing them from the EPP grouping in the European Parliament? It couldn't be because he needed to say that to win the backing of Right-wing MPs during his election campaign, could it, and that, since he has no principles, it was an easy promise to make?

More stunning even than that, though, is the failure of this man - whose friends are always telling us how clever he is - to apologise for what has universally now been recognised as a damaging and stupid mistake.

With that smug, self-righteous arrogance we have come to expect of a man whose only training for high office was to be a PR spiv, Dave has not only failed to do that, but he has also compounded his offence by attempting to defend himself. The overpaid teenagers who work for him and write his jokes will have told him that this makes him look decisive, resolute and tough. In fact, as older and wiser hands in his own parliamentary party readily concede, it makes him look a little plonker.

Well, Dave, old boy, if you want to continue this strategy of cleaning out your core vote, here are a few more suggestions. Use a keynote speech at your conference this weekend to attack the Women's Institute ("bigots"), the Brigade of Guards ("fascists"), the Salvation Army ("paedophiles"), the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association ("Nazis") and Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother ("crackhead"), just to liven things up a bit. And enjoy your retirement!´

The Times have another excellent article today, about the absence of Europe in Cameron's speech. As they point out:

Any policy without a European element is only half a policy, if that.

The reason? Westminster just 'rubber stamps' the Brussels work, and very little original legislation actually comes from MPs. Mr Cameron, trying to appease his eurosceptic supporters said that the Tories would oppose ID cards and regionalisation. Yet both of these come from Europe. A major area he chose to talk about was the environment, now a competence of the EU, and the Court of Justice has precedence to take countries to court if they do not obey EU envirnoment legislation.

As my friend and Tory councillor put to me 'is he a socialist plant?' because Blue Labout is going a pretty good job of being more unrealistic, more incomeptent and more left wing than new Labour!

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Wet behind the ears? What gives you that impression?

Oh Mr Cameron, what have you done? You can't go around accusing your political opponents of being 'racist' because you are bitter they have parked their tanks on your lawns.

We know that you have completely abandoned your traditional spot on the centre right, and are no longer the party of low tax, choice and independence but accusing UKIP of a criminal charge isn't really the right way to react now, is it.

Isn't it somewhat telling that you could not get a single elected official to follow the party line on newsnight last night, which is why you had to wheel out Dr Alan Sked to lead the attack? A bit odd, though, basing your opinion on the words of the man who, when he was leader of UKIP, brought a BNP activist in to be head of research, and was subsequently expelled?

I am sure there are people of dubious opinion in all political parties - indeed the above mentioned Mr Sked is a member of none other than the Conservative Party - but the elected officials and senior officials in UKIP are not racist, nor have they been, and an apology must be forthcoming. Or is Mr Cameron too scared to admit that he is a young, naïve politician who is only used to dealing with a positive image?

It must have been hard for him, I guess, when his plans to only tell the Electoral Commission the names of people who had been funding 'Blue Labour', fell through after UKIP reminded him that the Electoral Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Did he not know that? Odd, considering he voted for it...

The trouble for him is that UKIP read legislation. We were the party who found the clause in the Treaty Establishing a Consitution for Europe which said that if 20 countries ratified, then the Super State Scheme could press ahead without the others. That was, of course, ridiculed at the time and, as you could have heard on Radio 4 the other week, is now stated as fact.

Politics is becoming such a dire game: the expectations people put on politicians that they are whiter than white (although in the context of this, maybe that phrase will not be allowed?), have no past history, don't do anything wrong, never experimented when they were younger surely rules out in the future any politicians having gone to university? And who wants the governing elite (I use that losely, we all know that about 80% of our laws are made in Brussels) who are tediously dull with no life experience? That is the way I see the new faces of New Labour and Blue Labour going. To quote a friend who text me last night:

'To suggest that I am in touch with the modern Tory party would be missing the point'. And I met him through the Tory Party....

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Burning cars and waving placards

I am not surprised that a few months ago large numbers of the French immigrant population were rioting in the streets. Unemployment amongst this area of society is currently 49%. Youth unemployment averages in France 23%, and total unemployment is desperately struggling to get down below 9%. This, in a Western European economy. It's no wonder economic growth for 2005 was only 1.9%.

Over half GDP in France comes from the public sector - private businesses are in the minority, and why? Because it's almost illegal to fire someone so there is no incentive for businesses to expand and new jobs to be created. With all the risks that come with starting up a new business, having the additional fear that you will be lumbered with wages for people who aren't making money for you isn't going to encourage you.

Unfortunately, this is an example of the European Social Model being thrust upon the unfortunate members of the European Union: A Union so blinded by its desire for a single state, it fails to see how chronically ill so many economies are, and how it's prescription will cause the vibrant economies to stutter to a halt in time.

Here is a little summary from the Guardian today about welfare systems and employment in some EU countries:

FRANCE: Job protections include generous vacation, pensions and maternity leave,
and subsidized meals and transport. It is extremely difficult to fire anyone
with a permanent contract, and layoffs can be blocked by courts. High youth
unemployment prompted a new law that would make it easier to fire young workers
to try to encourage hiring. The law has prompted protests and strikes.

BRITAIN: Most benefits are decided by the employer, not the state. Layoffs for
economic reasons are common. Mass protests are rare, though anger over a pension
dispute prompted public sector workers to stage a one-day strike Tuesday.

GERMANY: Workers enjoy several weeks of vacation and generous pensions, and most
work weeks run less than 40 hours. The two ruling parties agreed last year to
ease the regulation of the labor market to encourage firms to hire more staff,
but the move has met wide opposition.

ITALY: Job security is playing a key role in the campaign for April 9-10
elections. The government introduced temporary work contracts in 2002 after
protests forced them to water down deeper reforms. Like France, Italy has
generous protections and high youth unemployment.

NORWAY: With a booming oil economy, Norway has just 3 percent unemployment.
Norwegians have strong rights in the workplace, good unemployment and sick leave
benefits, legislated time off, holidays and working hours. Employers often
include a contract clause of a six-month trial period for new employees.

BALTIC STATES: Labour laws in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia favour employers, who
have few restrictions in hiring and firing. With many young people having moved
to Britain, Ireland and Sweden since 2004, employers are offering health plans
and career training to entice workers. Estonia's laws protect workers with
children younger than 3 and make it nearly impossible for employers to fire
pregnant women.

POLAND: The EU's highest jobless rate at 18 percent. Its rigid labor laws - in
part a legacy of the strong social safety net once guaranteed by communism -
make firings difficult.

SWEDEN: Strong worker protections and generous welfare benefits are hallmarks of
Sweden's cherished social model. To fire a worker, an employer must show it is
absolutely necessary because of cutbacks or the worker has severely failed to
live up to expectations. Offers a minimum of five weeks paid vacation or the
right to up to 480 days of paid parental leave.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

I prefer cats myself

Whilst trying to book a hotel for the boss in Brussels, which turned out to be nigh-on impossible due to the world and his wife descending on Brussels, I stumled across a rather pretentious hotel.

Comfort Art Hotel Siru - Brussels - 3*

A showcase of Contemporary Belgian Art, between 1989 and 1990, the Comfort Art Hotel Siru gave free rein to the imagination of 130 painters, sculptors and comic-strip draughtsmen to turn its 101 rooms into as many paintings and in the process turn this property into the first "museum-hotel" in the world. The imaginative and individual decor of each room makes for an enjoyable and refreshing visit.

I wondered if Todd might like a trip at some point, so I checked their pets policy:

Pets policy

Children welcome

ooh, that's a shame. If cats were allowed I might have paid them a visit, but children - no thanks!

Thursday, March 09, 2006

The truth about the Labour Party

The truth about the Labour Party

Our author takes no prisoners! A very interesting read.

It's easier to do it this way

My computer at 'work' doesn't let me attach pictures but some clever person has managed to do it for me!

In the spirit of solidarity I put these on my blog! I am not constrained by their religous laws, and until they start treating women a bit better, I'm not that bothered about them jumping up and down about their 'rights' and 'respecting them'.

Eastern Europe gets rubbish from EU

Literally, and not just via stupid, ill-thought-out regulations! Well, I'm afraid they can't have it all their way:
Czechs fear EU garbage plan could worsen dumping
08 Mar 2006 17:19:46 GMT
Source: Reuters

PRAGUE, March 8 (Reuters) - EU plans to relax rules on refuse disposal could see
poorer members swamped with rubbish from their richer neighbours, the Czech
Republic said on Wednesday.

Prague, worried by how much German rubbish has come into the country where
disposal is cheaper, has barred foreign waste for dumping and burning, allowing
it in only for recycling.

But under a proposed European Union directive, to be discussed by ministers in
Brussels on Thursday, a member state could no longer refuse to import waste for

Czech Environment Minister Libor Ambrozek said he would protest against the

"The directive does not reflect the difference in the economic conditions in the
new EU member states," he said in a statement.

"The different price levels in the waste treatment area create preconditions for
an undesirable cross-border transfer of waste ... to new member states, for

The Czech Republic, which borders much richer and larger Germany, has
experienced a rise in cases of often illegal waste imports -- "eco-dumping" --
as companies try to cut costs.

It fears the new plan could cause a massive rise in shipments, including illegal

There are about 20,000 tonnes of illegally dumped German waste in the country, a
ministry spokeswoman said.

Customs officials have tightened up border controls and have caught six trucks
this month trying to enter Czech territory with undeclared illegal waste, the
news agency CTK reported.

The Environment Ministry said Prague would try to widen opposition to the
planned directive, and discuss this with nearby Slovakia, Hungary and Poland.

They have received huge amounts of money from the EU budget - and if I recall then the UK paid £7bn into the slush fund, which was going out to the underground system in Warsaw and the sewers in Budapest: both of which represent huge, sensible investments to the British tax payer who wants to save for their pension or their childrens' university fees.

The comment about the different economic situations also angers me somewhat. We know here in the west that there are different economic situations: this is why we have had about 300,000 economic migrants from eastern europe since 2004. They can't have their cake and eat it, I'm afraid. Whilst the EU may seem to them a way to be a player on the international stage, a way of getting free money from hard working tax payers in other countries and new working destinations it's also about the eradication of laws based on what is best for individual countries and the erosions of national borders and customs until we are one fat, sinking, economically retarded federal state. Just ask Richard Corbett. Or the Communists.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Let's celebrate womens day

By talking about the rape laws in pakistan and the abortion laws in South Dakota.

Let's start wíth the rape first:

In 2002 six men were sentenced to death for the gang rape of a woman. Gang rape is hideous enough, but what makes this case even more so is that it was actually ordered as a punishment by a council. Mukhtar Mai was raped by four men on the instruction of tribal elders after she refused to marry a member of a clan whose relative buggered her 12 year old brother. What I cannot understand is how these people can think so little of women - that she is just a pawn and a bargaining tool so men can get what they want. She wanted justice for the crime committed on her brother and instead gets brutally raped, degraded and humiliated by people who are supposed to be the leaders of the village. Can someone explain that to me? Maybe when they do, can they also explain what is honourable about murdering a female member of your family for having an independent spirit and not wanting to live their lives for others? Why women jump on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands, so they aren't a 'burden' to anyone? Why are there so many people in this world who seem to think that women are inferior to men? Without women the human race would not exist. Without men, the human race would not exist. Surely it's logical that both sexes are equal and that such attitudes are just a way of control and power?

On that happy note, let's go to the South Dakota abortion laws. A marmalade-dropping moment if ever I heard, although I don't eat marmalade. From July it will be a crime in South Dakota to perform any abortion unless a pregnant woman's life was in danger.That means that pregnancy from rape or incest is not included! Danger from whom? Danger from what? From herself? From trying to self abort through sheer desperation, because when you make abortion illegal, the number of abortions do not fall, but the number of women who die rises. If you ban abortion, you end up with some very seriously injured women: back street abortions end up with severe bleeding, internal damage and hysterectomies. But presumably the "pro-lifers" (whose life, may I ask? Certainly not that of the pregnant woman - her wishes for her life are not even taken into consideration)consider this to be some kind of punishment for having the audacity to end an unwanted pregnancy.

A woman cannot be free until she has the right over her own body and her own future. This means access to contraception, to abortions, to education, healthcare, the same wage for the same job as men, to public positions and to legal personality. Not being able to decide what happens to your own body is an abuse of human rights. And no, I do not think that a foetus has the same rights as a human, because rights come with responsibilities. A foetus at ten weeks might look like a baby when magnified and stuck on the front cover of the Daily Outrage, but considering it's about the size of a walnut I can't see it surviving. And until it can survive outside the womb, the wishes of the pregnant woman must come first.

Happy Womens Day: I'm going shopping.

Friday, February 24, 2006

If Kinnock thinks it's good, it must be bad

So we need to change all our road signs from miles to kilometers do we? And why is that? We hear again today that the Commission say that the UK will not reduce it's budget deficit to under the 3% target before the end of the year so what a good thing to spend yet more money we don't have on changing road signs just for the sake of harmonisation.

Alastair Darling MP last night on question time said that he didn't think it was necessary but when Nigel Farage MEP said that the EU Directive due to come into force by 2010 was going to ban imperial weights and measures he called him 'nasty' and 'anti European'. Darling, please try come up with something convincing as an argument and try not be hypocritical.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Whilst we have our heads in the sand...

Yet more proof that this idea for a Single European State will press ahead regardless of what people in Europe really want. The French and Dutch said "no", the Commission went "la la la, we're not listening". The majority of people do not want Turkey to join, so negotiations opened. The Parliament repeatedly reject the Port Services Directive (for different reasons, because countries are not the same, Mr Barrot)the COmmission keeps on trying to get it passed.
Verheugen predicts political union in 20 years
20.02.2006 - 09:53 CET | By Mark Beunderman

EU industry commissioner Gunter Verheugen has predicted that some EU states will
in 20 years form a political union.

In in an interview with German daily Die Welt, the commissioner was asked how he
sees the EU in 20 years' time.

He responded by saying "I believe… we will have a political union, but maybe not
with all states that now form part of the EU."

"Certain European states will agree to have common competencies in foreign,
economic and financial policy as well as in judicial policy," he explained about
his long-term vision.

The remarks point to the possible creation of a "core" Europe of EU states
further integrating policies, with other states opting out.

This vision emerged in the 1990s in German conservative political circles, and
has since won supporters mainly in France and Belgium, with the Belgian prime
minister Guy Verhofstadt recently suggesting closer co-operation between the
eurozone states.

The commissioner also appeared to predict predicted a further enlarged EU
encompassing the western Balkans, Turkey, Switzerland and Norway - but excluding
states like Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Russia.

"In 20 years all European states will be members of the EU, except the
post-Soviet states that do not yet form part of the EU now," he said.

Mr Verheugen served as the EU's enlargement commissioner in the previous Prodi
commission from 1999-2004, succesfully managing the bloc's 2004 expansion while
championing further enlargement, including with Turkey.

© 2006
Printed from 20.02.2006

Unless we actually do something solid about it, and elect people to power who aren't bribed with nice positions in a new central government, we will no longer have national identities. But the people of Britain appear not to care - they act as though if they ignore it, it will go away. And slowly, they accept the creeping changes until they are used to seeing the EU pirate flag hanging from buildings in Brussels, and being waved at the last night of the Proms (an event which is full of patriotism and national pride - I bet the BBC paid someone to wave it about). It won't go away, we can't ignore it so hello media, can we have some coverage on what is going on over here. Hello people, stop saying you hate the EU and don't want Britain to be a part of it, and do something about it!

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

slimey creatures

Fish are. scaley and odd colours. Still, as much as I don't particularly like them, they aren't anywhere near as slimey as Tory politicians! I grant you, many of the other denominations are bad - but their hypocracy never fails to astound me.

The reason I mentioned fish was because this new gut wrenching tory comment is about fish, fishing, the Common Fisheries Policy and a stable. At least, that's what the Shetland box sounds like.

The Tories, in particular Struan Stevenson, have been slagging off UKIP MEPs for voting against the preservation of this Shetland box because they say that we should be happy that we are allowed 40% of fish stocks as long as the Germans, Norwegians and some others could come along and fish too. They don't seem to understand that according to UNCLOS III, that area is part of the British Exclusive Economic Zone and selling our fishing rights away has not only caused havoc for fish stocks but also cost British fishermen and their communities greatly. The EU allowed Spain to sue each and every fishing village under the CFP because they were fishing in British waters and they weren't allowed to!

We should have 100% not 40%. So Mr Stevenson, you are part of a party which has already lied about the CFP when you said the Tories would renegotate, and now you lie about this being a good deal. Tories jumping into bed with Labour - continual evidence for this centerist politics we have now. The Commission themselves, when they were asked by Nigel Farage years ago, and by Catherine Stihler a few weeks ago have said that if you withdraw from the CFP, you leave the EU. And the Tories don't have the backbone to come up with a sensible policy such as withdrawing from this hideous, economically retarded dictatorship.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

I am enjoying this

Over the last two six nations championships, England haven't really done that well - because they had lost key players from injury and resignation after the 2003 World Cup win. I had a plastic Taff boyfriend some time ago, and last year, even though we had split up (his fault) I still had to endure his triump of Wales over the 'hated Saes'. Hated, I think, because the English were successful in the Empire. I noticed yesterday when Chelsea were beated 3-0 to Middlesborough? that people wanted to see success brought down: it was these people who were happy that Chelsea lost who were also supporting Italy against England, even though they were not Italian.

But, ha ha, we won. AGAIN. Maybe not with such pizazz as we would have liked, but we did. And I sincerely hope that Scotland beat Wales today, because to see the table lead with England and follow with Scotland, and have Wales at the bottom would make me supremely happy.

What's wrong with selection?

Am just listening to a programme on the education proposals and yet again I wonder where this country is going to. Well, that country, since I am not there at the moment.

Ma main gripe is that political correctness has gone mad, and when it affects how well children are educated, this really, really bothers me.

Only yesterday someone told me that in AS level economics text books they are promoting the euro and in exam papers, they ask for one sided opinions on why the euro is good. This is not acceptable.

But why are schools not allowed to select their pupils? I went to a school where I had to pass an exam to get into and we had streaming in certain subjects. And guess what, the results were excellent. Higher with the internal streaming than without because the school was open in admitting that some children are more clever than others, and some children were good at things that other children weren't.

Why can't schools be allowed to select pupils? Why should really bright children be held back by children who need a different teaching method? Why should parents who encourage their children do their homework, and read and learn more have their efforts thwarted by people who don't care how their children behave and feel that someone else should do it for them?

I am simply not intelligent enough to be a brain surgeon, and I hate the sight of blood too. I accept that, it's fair enough - and those who are clever enough and dedicated enough: I applaud them. If you refuse to allow children to be taught in ability groups and in different methods then you will increase the illiteracy rates to higher than they are now (and now, they are higher than in Victorian times) and you will polar the system as parents who can and care enough to, send their children to private school.

Friday, February 03, 2006

How far will Richard Corbett go?

He first incurred my wrath when he accused me of lying about being attacked in the European Parliament: I was protesting peacefully about the EU Constitution (his baby -literally) when I was pounced on by 4 security guards and then in the forthcoming investigation, they failed to interview the one member of staff who was acutally involved in it (me). Corbett in his deepest, wildest fantasies came out and accuse me of being a liar, without ever having met me, asked me about what happened and not evenbeing a spectator to the incident.

He seems to spend his time following everything to do with Godfrey Bloom; one can only guess he is in the pursuit of a personality. He has now decided to openly accuse UKIP of being racist.

Now, the OED (it's produced in England, Richard, not Belgium so you probably won't have read it) describes racist as:

discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

When you google UKIP, and actually bother to research anything about, it rather than get in a small hyperactive fit about a party saying that the forcing together of nations who want to be individual is anything other than a good thing, you will find that UKIP is a non racist party. Yes, honey. Wanting control over your own borders doesn't mean you hate people from other countries. Saying that the embracing of cultures that are different doesn't make you racist. Saying you want trade, rather than aid (in the spirit of education I point you in the direction of any book containing the 'lost decade of development') doesn't mean you are a racist. Quite the contrary. In fact, saying someone or a party is racist without actually checking any facts is actually an offense.

May I suggest, angel of the north - or wherever you live - that you spend a little less time exerting your considerable energies over your obesession with UKIP, and more time trying to so something useful. I would not be so bold as to suggest what that could involve.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Todd, come in! It's past your bedtime

Pets will now have 5 freedoms enshrined by law. Well, that sounds lovely and fluffy, just like tummy of a kitten, but shall we think about this.

Firstly, the RSPCA haven't called for such legislation - there are already animal cruelty legislations in UK law. Secondly, when I studied law we were taught that rights come with responsibilities. That is why parents undertake many actions for children and are responsible for them, and under 18 year olds don't vote in elections.

The practicalities of this do seem rather anti-pet, too. My cat has a right to have a cordened off area to do a poo, but I have to make sure he comes in at night. My cat, Todd, is rather more bright than most. Firstly, he does no work and gets looked after like a king. He also had a vote in this years Conservative party leadership elections. (he voted for David Cameron). When he wants a poo he tends to go outside as that is rather more private than most. Okay, the neighbours may not like that extra large truffle on their rhubarb, but that's cats for you. He's nocternal and a hunter - he sleeps during the day and goes out at night and he doesn't want to be locked up because the Labour party thinks that he should have to. Mind you, maybe it's not too long until he's not allowed to hunt....

Shouldn't the government be concentrating on the abysmal state of the NHS or the worryingly high levels of adult illiteracy rather than trying to make household pets the subject of costly legislation which can't be inforced and doesn't need to be in place?

Are the cast of Watership down going to be knocking on my front door to inspect health and safety standards around the food bowls? Will Lassie be monitoring my phone conversations to make sure I am not planning on letting Todd out after nine in the evening? Is David Blunkett's dog going to become a cabinet minister?

Friday, January 20, 2006

first bras, now shoes...what's a girl to do?

Well, Peter Mandelson isn't going to be the one to answer that, is he. Not sure how varied his knowledge of all things female is.

A glance the other day in my copy of 'forthcoming items of legislation' and my eager eyes spotted the words 'shoes' followed by imports. A day or two later, and Eliab sends me this from the European Foundation's Newsround:

Now It’s Shoe Wars

By Svetlana Subbotina

Shoe-producing EU members are lobbying for anti-dumping duties on shoe imports from China, which now take up about a quarter of the EU shoe market. The EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, is resisting demands from domestic producers worried about their profits. Imports from China went up by 322 per cent during the first nine months of 2005 after quotas were lifted on January 1 2005. EU officials observed that dumping — exporting goods to another country and selling them at prices lower than one charges at home — is not linked to the volume of imports.

A separate source suggested that the price of Chinese shoes plummeted from €13.8 to €7.7 per unit which could mean shoes are being sold at prices below the cost of production. China called these figures “flawed” and threatened to refer the EU to the WTO if tariffs for Chinese goods are introduced. European shoe retailers also said that action against Beijing would threaten some 600,000 European jobs. Sales would also go down leaving price rises of up to €20 per unit.

Well, if they are charging below the cost of production then the WTO need to get involved. However, had price ever really been the issue when it come to shoes. Potatoes, yes: normal goods with quantity inversely related to price. Shoes aren't quite the same, though. Many people like the fact that their shoes cost lots of wonga - they are status goods and, rather like with Chanel handbags (not LV, though) the more expensive they are, the more they are demanded. I don't think that just counts for ladies shoes either - I cold get a Gina pair and some Jimmy's for the price of one pair of mens shoes (and they are no where near as pretty).

I think that most of these queries from China are more to do with the protectionist attitude of the EU and their failure to grasp free trade.

Let's face it, when it comes to reality, the EU institutions either have their heads in the sand, or stuck somewhere else where the views of the people of Europe can't reach them.

More on that tomorrow.