Thursday, October 30, 2008

Oh really.

Do you remember back in 1985 Bob Geldof wanted Margaret Thatcher to knock off the VAT on the Band Aid single?

Well, blow me down with a feather if Alastair Darling hasn't gone and done just that for the X Factor Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes single.
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced today that the Government will waive VAT on the sale of the X Factor finalists' charity single Hero.

Except that he hasn't, has he.
An exceptional one-off charitable donation will be made, equivalent to the sum of the VAT receipts collected on its sales.

You see what he did there? He said he'd do something, then in the next line he said he'd do something else on the same topic but not the same as the original and hope that people wouldn't notice.
Mr Darling said he wanted to ensure that every penny people pay for the record goes to support the work of Help For Heroes, who provide care for men and women wounded in the line of service.

Ignoring the fact that he missed out one of the charities (one of the biggest in the UK but hey, he's in charge of 17 banks, who am I to argue?) he's just said another porky.

Because whilst he may be donating 17.5% of the total raised from the track from tax payers money; something I think we have all realised he's rather proficient at spending, it's not the VAT. Because that money will be going to the EU because VAT is one of the EU's own resources which it doesn't have to get from those pesky council meetings with Heads of State. And the British Prime Minister.

Rather like that whole David Cameron nonsense with VAT and small business, MPs won't admit that VAT is controlled by the EU.

So really, what the Chancellor is doing here is trying to raise his own popularity by appearing to support troops injured by the war he voted for using money which isn't his and lying about where it's coming from.

Classy, Darling.

Wake up Britain, it's already happening

It's not often that I slip into a deep depression about something which happens in politics. I frequently get wound up. Today, for example, Alastair Darling saying that he was waiving VAT on the X Factor CD when he was doing nothing of the sort because he doesn't have the power to.

But when I heard the news that a Judge at Westminster Magistrates Court has given permission for Andrew Symeou to be extradited I felt sick and scared.

District Judge Quentin Purdy, sitting at the City of Westminster
Magistrates Court, today ordered Symeou, from Enfield, London, be sent to Greece to stand trial.

Sick because a young man is, realistically, going to be deported to a Greek prison on the grounds of evidence obtained by torture of his two friends where he may be held for up to 18 months without trial and where the likelihood of a fair trial, given how the Greek authorities have behaved so far, is unlikely.

And scared because the ruling of the judge was that despite the lack of prima facie evidence, a British court has no power to stop a British subject having to face such injustice.

As Andrew's father said:

"It's a very emotional time for him. We have conclusive evidence that proves Andrew's innocence; however under the European Arrest Warrant the requesting state does not have to provide any evidence to a British court nor is a British court concerned whether there is a case to answer.

Why isn't this headline news? How in any way is the resignation of a producer at the BBC or some tedious unfunny prank phone call more important than the possibility of someone being locked up under extremely dubious circumstances?

And where is the champion of liberty, Mr David Davis in all of this? He was told on national television and radio of this case and I personally e-mailed him with details. So come on David: you resigned your position in the Shadow Cabinet so people would think you actually cared about individual freedom and wanted to roll back the state (even though you voted for 28 days)and yet once the cameras have gone, the rhetoric stops and it's pretty fucking quiet.

Nothing to say? Not worth it when you can't grab a quick headline, eh? Bit too complicated given that your party are libertarians in the same way that I am the Queen of fucking Sheba?

This is a real person, with a real life and real hopes and real dreams and although the family will be mounting an appeal we know from the Factortame Case which secured the supremacy of EU law over UK law that a Magistrate cannot overrule EU law. EU law which MEPs, including some who are now MPs, voted for.

What has happened to the country which was supposed to champion liberty? Why are we sleepwalking into this revolting, belching totalitarian state, pushed on by politicians of most parties except two, with most people completely oblivious and uncaring so long as big brother, I'm a stupid moron, shoot me in the head or similar, is on the telly.*

As Gerard Batten said outside the courtroom:
Providing the details have been filled in properly then a British
citizen can be sent off to another EU state with as much ceremony as
posting a parcel.

Wake up Britain. Please. Because what's going on in this country right under your noses is fucking terrifying.

*I'm still collecting funds to produce my ideal 'reality' show where Big Brother etc contestants will be welcome: 'When celebrity parachutes go wrong'.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Strictly Irrelevant

Readers may know that Trixy is something of a fan of Strictly Come Dancing so will understand why this really irritated me:

Viewers of BBC's Strictly Come Dancing have been accused of racism after the show's only black contestants were involved in a "dance-off".

Complaints have flooded into the BBC’s website in their hundreds since last weekend’scompetition.

The furore follows Rising Damp star Don Warrington and M People singer Heather Small coming bottom in the public vote last Sunday even though judges gave them more points than three white contestants.

I watched that and wondered how long it would be before there were cries of 'racism'. I've watched all the series of STD and I can't imagine how anyone would say that the viewers were racist, sexist, homophobic or any other words so loved by Quangos.

It wasn't too difficult to work out that Heather and Don were going to be in the dance off because it followed most results since the show has been going.

Couples at the top of the leader board don't go in the dance off because they have lots of points from the judges, even without the large numbers of votes they get from the public who vote for them because it's a dancing competition.

The ones at the bottom get votes because we British love an underdog so actually make the effort to call to 'save' them. If they have a personality or a large following this is even more influential because, like every single GMTV presenter who has been pretty dire but stayed in the competition for ages.

The ones in trouble are the ones in the middle of the leader board, as professional dancer Ian Waite commented on the show. This is because the dancing didn't hugely impress and the scores didn't evoke enough sympathy or concern from the followers to vote.

As someone who ballroom dances, Heather and Don's performances were rather dull. They didn't have the humour of John Sargeant's performance or the terrible scores, nor are they particularly well known. I wouldn't have known Don Warrington had he walked down the street next to me until SCD and I was not a fan of M People.

It really fucking irritates me when a programme I love, which encourages people to dance and keep fit, still cannot escape the equal ops brigade who aren't happy unless everything is monitored and patronisingly biased in favour of minority groups as if they can't cope without help.

Just bugger off, will you, and let us watch the show without some guilt if I chose to vote for someone who happens to be white. Because skin colour is really not something that strikes me as relevant when it comes to dancing.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

There has to be a reason

I've often wondered what it is which drives our politicians to hand over so much power to the EU. I've thought this was odd behaviour because I'd presumed that politicians were power hungry savages.

DK has reminded us of one of his eloquent phrases:

As I have said repeatedly, socialism is about taking property from those who have earned it and handing it to those who have not. It is theft, pure and simple, and no amount of whining about fucking "social justice" will ever detract from that fact.

I was thinking about this, and then I started thinking about Daniel Craig which is understandable, I think:

Which then reminded me of the first production I saw him in, which was a TV adaptation of Daniel Defoe's novel 'The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders'. In this, Moll Flanders perfects the art of being a rich lady in order to secure a rich husband who will provide her with security.

It's all an illusion, you see, but does it matter? Especially once she's married, what's the difference if she has a penny or not because the deed is done.

And I think that a combination of illusion and the theft of socialism is what drives politicians to hand over power to the EU. The only way they can get through their totalitarian measures is through a higher organisation than a directly elected and accountable national parliament which no one pays attention to. Believing as they do in getting something for nothing, they also have no problems with handing over the duties they were elected to do to other people, provided they still get paid the same. In the UK, not only do they get paid the same, they are getting more money for less work because the majority of people in this country and the national media are quietly slumbering whilst the EU legislates.

MPs still get paid, housing allowances, to go on TV and write in their local papers, meet dignitaries; all the 'trappings' which come with being elected to Westminster in this day and age. But without actually having to do most of the work.

It's the same money for a fraction of the work, and almost everybody is none the wiser so you get treated the same as if you actually were an MP who could affect big decisions.

When you think about it, if you were the sort of person who hates most people they ever meet, who thinks nothing of taking money earned from hard working people and essentially setting fire to it and you have no concept of responsibility or democracy, it all rather makes sense.

However, I'd rather MPs weren't actually like that. If you don't mind.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Sarkozy and Barroso admit their goal of 'new world governance'

Listen to the president of the European Commission bathe in the delight of financial misery and death and destruction in Georgia and Sarkozy try to say that he, as president of the EU, brought about an end to the Russian invasion.

They openly boast of New World Governance and a New World Order.

It's known as the Doctrine of Beneficial Crisis.

How is this monster reformable, anyone? Hello?

Lib Dems: do they keep a bandwagon parked in their garage?

The Lib Dems really are so predictable. All you need to do is say a few key words to them, even out of context or with no background information and they behave like a well trained labrador who performs for the promise of food.

The latest example is in reference to Nigel Farage's interview with Total Politics magazine where he said that the politician he considered his political hero was Enoch Powell.

True to form Chris Huhne got on his high horse, in my head he's foaming at the mouth, saying that he chose a "second-rate politician whose only ability to get into the headlines was based on a revolting dalliance with racism."

Conveniently ignoring that Powell was actually one of the most forward thinking politicians of his time, Huhne, someone paid to make decisions for the country, decided to focus on a tiny aspect of Powell's political career.

Powell was a true Liberal who, Nigel Farage says "was the most sincerely and geninely small state MP we've had since the war."

His reasons for this, which I'm surprised the Lib Dems don't agree with*, are the fact that he voted to Liberalise the laws on homosexuality, he opposed the death penalty because he didn't think the state should hold that much power. He resigned from the treasury in opposition to the expansion of the PSBR and he was in favour of low tax and regulation; something I wish more of our rulers, and MPs, of course, were in favour of.

Of course, I completely understand that they are not fans of his total opposition to the Common Market, which he did because he knew where it would lead us: down the road to an undemocratic socialist wannabe superstate.

On his famous "rivers of blood" speech, there are plenty of examples which highlight how race relations have not been handled brilliantly by successive governments, including proof that certain groups of people, at certain times, have felt aggrieved.

Rightly or wrongly, this is the case.

Highly strung lib dems please note: the examples linked to are examples of riots between different ethnic groups.

*Given they're supposed to be Liberal and Democratic if we are to believe their name and not report them to trading standards...

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The first poppy of...autumn?

So the first poppy sighted on national television at 2.33pm on BBC News 24 on the lapel of an interviewee.

For more sightings of poppies, follow the 'Poppy Man' blog where you can send photos if you spot him around the country.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Hackney council to start book burnings?

Listening to the Today programme this morning I heard an item which shocked even cynical old Trixy. In summary, an author had a long standing arrangement with Hackney Library to launch his yet-to-be-published book, at their invitation. Just a small launch in a community facility for an author who takes a keen interest in local affairs.

So why did the council order the library to halt the plans? Because, in previous articles, the AUTHOR HAD BEEN CRITICAL of the Olympics.


I'm critical of the Olympics on an almost daily basis because I think they're being organised by a group of people whom we know we can't trust, especially with money: politicians. But on what level does this mean he shouldn't be allowed to read some of his book in a local facility which he helps fund through his taxes? Along, of course, with the Olympics he dares to speak out against. Taxes don't take into account personal preferences of the payer, do they.

Who are these petty local government pen pushers who look longingly at the totalitarian measures our government are putting into place and seek to emulate them.


What level of mental capacity and awareness do you have to sink to to get a job in Hackney council these days? Nothing to do with intelligence and independence of thought and a blind devotion to the great leader and the little red book are clearly the only requirements.

Even worse, but no less surprising, is that the council decided to release a statement defending their decision in which they pretended to know the contents of the book, even though it has not been published. It actually doesn't mention the bloody Olympics, but so fucking what if it did? It's about freedom of speech and freedom of expression, ideas which clearly passed Hackney Council workers by like ships in a different bloody ocean. These jumped up fanatics have followed so many politicians before them by mistaking public services and property with their own little fiefdoms and the people of Hackney who pay their wages need to remind them of that. Demand that the reading is reinstated and the council issue an apology for straying into such totalitarian territory and trying to excuse their behaviour.

Because as much as we say to ourselves that such behaviour in the western world, like controlling what people think are acceptable opinions to hold and voice or the writing of books which criticise, actions such as this prove that it's slipping through our fingers like sand running through the hourglass and it's no good relying on someone else to stop the flow. We have to stand up and be counted to protect our liberty like those who died for it not so long ago.

And in the meantime, we have another recipient of an inscribed copy of 1984. I'll sign this one: the gist of the message will be 'fuck off and die; for the sake of liberty and freedom'. But they probably won't understand.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Let me count the ways...

Phil Woolas is an unusual member of the Labour government as far as Trixy is concerned, mainly because she actually likes him. However, that is not going to stop me raising some points regarding his statement on immigration today, namely that it's bollocks in all but sentiment.

The number of migrants allowed into the UK under the points system may have to be reduced because of the economic crisis, an immigration minister says.

Phil Woolas told the Times immigration became an "extremely thorny" subject if people were losing their jobs.

I can see how talking about immigration in the same week as unemployment raises its ugly head in the media again is seen as quite an important thing to do, particularly for a newly appointed immigration minister. But what our politicans must try to remember is that there are people out there who are aware of the issues surrounding subjects, including laws and political ideals affecting those subjects. And currently, immigration is one of those same subjects.
"This government isn't going to allow the population to go up to 70 million.
"There has to be a balance between the number of people coming in and the number of people leaving."

As I've said probably a billion times, that's all well and good but our membership of the EU allows half a billion people to come to live and work in this country. And whilst the recession may put some people coming to the UK, I can't see it putting off people who are going to be much harder hit in their own country and who don't have the flatulent, obese fetid welfare state that we do here: one that actually pays people not to work.
Then there's the other story I wrote about last week:
A job centre for African migrants intending to move to Europe opened yesterday in the poverty-stricken desert state of Mali, the Daily Express can reveal.
The £8million EU project – which has been funded by taxpayers – is designed to help people find work legally in Europe...
A European Commission spokeswoman told the Daily Express: “The idea is to try to help British and other European farmers fill vacancies so that their crops don’t rot in the field as happened with strawberries in England this year.

So not only can't we stop people from the EU coming into the country, the EU are also using our taxes to let lots of other people come in and find work. It's not looking good, Mr Woolas.

The last point is regarding the charming French President Nicholas Sarkozy who next Tuesday is going to make a speech in the Strasbourg wing of the European Parliament about how desperately we need the Lisbon Constitution and, of course, an EU Common Immigration Policy. Which just goes to show how soon we won't even need an immigration minister in the UK because the EU will do it all for us. Maybe we could even get rid of the Home Office soon; at least that would mean the end to Jacqui 'Kebab' Smith gracing our screens and newspapers.

Friday, October 17, 2008

This should come as no surprise to anyone

A lot has been written over the past 48 hours about the government's plans to reenact scenes from V for Vendetta

Plans for a massive expansion of ‘Big Brother’ state surveillance to cover every phone call, email, text message and internet visit in Britain were unveiled yesterday.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed
that storing details of individuals’ communications was vital to prevent further terrorist atrocities.

Activities which will be subject to snooping for the first time include visits
to social networking sites such as Facebook, auction sites such as eBay, gaming websites and chatrooms.

I shall quote the blogging world's Aunty Claire Rayner for a quick summary of what I think:
So, Jacqui-baby, here is what I think...

I think that you should strip the skin from your arms, legs and breasts with a blunt, rusty cheese-grater; you should then go and have a bath in salt (making sure to rub it well into your flayed limbs and tits) and then, whilst still screaming loudly, you should give yourself three hundred papercuts all over your genitals and then scrub then with wire-wool dipped in lemon juice.

However, it doesn't appear that it is as simple as that, as is oft the way.
On 24th October there is a meeting in Luxembourg of the Justice and Home Affairs council.
News reaches me from Brussels that a letter from the UK representation in Brussels (UKREP) sent to MEPs set out the agenda from Sarkozy and the French Presidency for this meeting. It should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that the French Presidency have decided, as part of their ongoing plans for further integration, to push ahead in the field of Justice and Home Affairs and push for the EU to make legislation on phone tapping, monitoring internet sites and the such.
adopt the conclusions on the principle of 'convergence' with regard to internal security.
Along with the Criminal Records Database and Schengen information I and II.

I shall be making enquiries with UKREP on this and following the council meeting as best I can, but I think it's going to be another situation where the UK population will be woefully uninformed about their real masters, and our government will take the blame for a hateful act rather than admit their loss of powers and what they have hurled this country into.

Seriously. How much are the EU paying our MPs to vote in favour of the EU?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

A heel of an upset

Two shoe stories on two consecutive days; what a lucky little Trixy I am. Today is the story of Miss Tina Knight, a successful business woman who was awarded the Woman in Business Award by Margaret Thatcher in 1988. She rewarded her hard work and success by building up a collection of 200 pairs of high heeled shoes. Well done her, I say. I have made a good headway into my vast collection of shoes which I funded through the fruits of my labour.

She has hit the headlines again because she will be awarded damaged after slipping on a puddle of water in the baggage reclaim area of Stansted Airport because the injuries she sustained included broken limbs and a broken toe which means she can only now wear flat shoes.

Netch, the story is revolving around her shoe collection which I think is wrong as it allows people to say 'She's been awarded damages because she can't wear her high heels anymore'. Maybe that's the plan, who knows.

As she says, broken limbs are the main reason why she should be awarded damages: if Rentokil Initial Facilities Services (UK) Ltd who were awarded the cleaning contract at Stansted Airport leave pools of water all over the floor then it's their fault and they should pay to compensate for the pain, upset and downright inconvenience they have caused someone.

Should the fact she can't wear high heels be brought into account when considering the damages? Damn right, I say. She's minus a choice and a passion other women have on a day to day basis through no fault of her own, regardless of how 'luxury' her collection may be.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Madonna and those shoes

I read in the Metro today that Madonna was criticised because she wore a pair of Chanel shoes which had a gun as the heel.

Madonna has been branded 'uncaring' by a British murder victims' group after she controversially stepped out at the premiere of her new movie wearing a pair of shoes with handgun heels...Lyn Costello, from Mothers Against Murder And Aggression (MAMAA), said: 'I am horrified that Madonna can see these shoes as fashion.

It really does get on my wick when someone can't step out in a pair of shoes without being branded an 'uncaring mother who should know better'. The shoes aren't actually real guns: Madonna isn't going to whip them off and start shooting down kids from rival gangs in South London. And I think it highly unlikely that someone would take a look at those shoes and think 'hey, Madonna has plastic guns as heels in her shoes. That must mean guns are hip - hey, I'll go shoot someone.' Correct me if I'm wrong but the socio-economic groups who are most linked to gun crime aren't the kind of people who would pay the slightest bit of attention to a 50 year old mother with a penchant for poppy dance tracks and an unusual timbre.

No, I think the worst crime committed here is a crime against fashion. Sorry, Karl, but it doesn't do it for me.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Celebrities for silver spandex

Waiting for strictly come dancing to come on the telly I discovered this new tv programme which, from what I can tell, consists of 'celebrities' dressing up in right aluminium foil and being thrown into a pool of water.

As viewers can tell, it has all the requirements for crap Saturday early evening television, including Dale "is he gay" Winton, a tv audience kept alive by e numbers from their tv dinners combined with intravenous ovaltine drips and the static electricity produced when too many polyester slacks are found in the same enclosed area.

But I am trying to discover if this clip is worth my license fee alone:

I can hear the bloodlust from here. Well, who wouldn't want to see the fear in that sanctimonious harridan's eyes as she sees a fairly svelte shape bearing down on her bottom which no amount of 'celebrity fat club' can hide once entombed in silver spandex.

I will leave you with this delightful treat from our cousins across the pond:

They must have been falling over themselves laughing when they sent that shape out...

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

The plot thickens

Last week I wrote about how I'd been told that Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan didn't attend the fringe event by the Bruges group because CCHQ had issued a fatwa/decree/thrown a tantrum.

However, due to 'heavy pressure' explained Barry Legg, the two Tory MEPs were not in a position to attend. As Trixy hears it, both MEPs, who sit with the non attached in the European Parliament because they did not tow the line of the Europhile group they sit with, received letters from CCHQ telling them they were not allowed to share a platform with Nigel Farage MEP. Ever.

Well, the plot, as you may guess from the title of this post, thickens.

And on an interesting day too; the day I was informed that the Tory party only put the line about about the EU referendum to try to neutralise the UKIP threat and that they shall be throwing everything they can at these EU elections to remove the gadflies who rather inconveniently highlight that the Conservative Party never wants to talk about the EU because it's so divided and that they're in favour of paying them billions of pounds a year to have them destroy this country.

By whom was I told this? Someone who was chatting to a regular dinner companion of David Cameron. Take it or leave it, it bothers me not.

Anyway, I digress to satisfy your nosy urges. For I was talking about the Bruges Group. Roger Helmer has written about it on his website:
They may have had the impression that we had simply failed to turn up, or had cancelled at the last moment, but this was by no means the case. I had written to Robert Oulds of The Bruges Group on September 9th, nearly three weeks before the event, to tell him that Dan and I would not be able to attend, and I was rather sorry that no attempt seems to have been made to reflect that in pre-publicity for the meeting.

Not surprisingly, Farage’s proposition was “Conservatives running scared of a UKIP debate”, and “Tory high command gags MEPs”. Neither of these points is true, so let’s look at what actually happened.

I am prepared to debate against UKIP any place, any time. However, a number of colleagues (in Brussels, not in CCHQ or Westminster) felt that by sharing a platform with the leader of a fringe party at our own Party Conference, we gave UKIP unnecessary airtime and credibility.

What Roger says is true, he did cancel three weeks in advance and consequently, there weren't any empty chairs.

But what I'm interested in is really why he cancelled. My sources tell me, and I quote:
the threat was one of deselection, and if ever he appeared on stage with NF [Nigel Farage] not just one off! Same for Hannan I think.

Given the brave decision Roger took which lead him to no longer sit with the EPP (he backed Nigel Farage's motion of censure on the Commission for not declaring holidays and gifts and ignoring requests of MEPs to answer their questions) I find this all rather confusing. Why authorities in Brussels? Roger Helmer sits in the Non Attached group away from the other British Conservatives.

Why is there an e-mail talking of threats an deselection if it was just an agreement to ignore Nigel and Heffer because they didn't want to give UKIP credit at Tory party conference, which would obviously happen because the Tories in the EU are not the Tories they like to pretend they are at home and anything brave which has happened has been generally at the instigation and budget of Farage and the Ind Dem group and not the Tories.

It seems more likely to my cynical mind that there was a real threat and that party loyalties and a wish to be reelected are keeping that under wraps.

If that were the case it is rather sad: Hannan and Helmer are two figures used by Tories for not voting UKIP because, with those two in the Tory party, another political party championing the cause of self governance outside of the EU is not needed. That would not be the case if the other scenario has truth in it.

So My Miliband has said that the EU summit next week will focus on the financial crisis rather than the Lisbon Treaty.

That's rather convenient for them considering that it was this summit that Ireland were going to report back on why the Irish thought for themselves instead of doing what the Commission told them to do. So do we get to hear whether they will be forced to vote again, or will it just be covered up by talks of guaranteeing deposits? I wonder.

Mr Miliband was asked by Tory Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) how European partners could be encouraged to put aside "potentially very narrow self interests" and act collectively.

Very eurosceptic.

EU in talking bollocks shocker

From The Express
A European Commission spokeswoman told the Daily Express: “The idea is to try to help British and other European farmers fill vacancies so that their crops don’t rot in the field as happened with strawberries in England this year.

Can anyone tell me why firstly our political parties are still pretending we have control over immigration in this country and secondly, why the EU think anyone will be taken in by this pathetic argument. And I use the word 'argument' in it's loosest possible way.

There are people sitting on their arses being paid from the money I give in tax because I get up in the morning and go to work and they watch Jeremy Kyle and eat crisps and smoke fags instead of earning enough money to live on.

Why, if there are jobs going, are we paying ANYONE who can work not to work. It's a fucking disgrace.


From the Press Association:

More than 20 young Muslims are to be given direct access to Cabinet ministers to advise on issues affecting their everyday lives, it was announced today.

The Young Muslim Advisory Group of 22 young men and women aged between 16 and 25 years old, will talk to ministers and policy-makers about issues affecting their day-to-day lives.

And guess who launched it? The woman whose favourite food is also her mental state: Hazel Blears.

Ms Blears said: "Ensuring young Muslims have access to constructive, democratic channels for dealing with concerns and frustrations is crucial to our efforts to build strong, resilient communities.

"The contribution young people can make to finding solutions to issues in society often goes unrecognised and untapped."

Why is that? Why are they getting special treatment? Because a few of them like to strap on explosives and inconvenience people by blowing things up? The government clearly haven't been listening to that supernanny woman because by being so selective and religionist (how else do I describe it?)it is rewarding them for being difficult, stubborn, expensive and in some cases, murdering fuckheads.

Why not young Hindus? Or young atheists? They don't get special treatment because they don't belong in the all same circles in the Venn diagram to those who like to fly planes into buildings and blow up embassies?

So fucking what.

I don't particularly like their religion which says that women aren't equal to men (quite right, they are superior) and they should kill me for not thinking Allah is the only God or similar.

Haven't we worked out that this mamby pamby bleeding heart socialist 'oh they've behaved badly it must be all my fault' bullshit doesn't work?

I am furious at this; maybe because it's just another example of how this pathetic group of people who we pay to ruin this country and make our lives as difficult as possible simply won't learn and preach equality whilst doing everything they can to ensure that certain people get a fucking easy, cushy life and never have to grow up and take responsibility.

I was told the other day that even if a Hindu couple have a Hindu ceremony which lasts about a week and a half (okay, 6 hours) they still have to have a civil ceremony to make it legal but Muslims don't.

How is that fair? How is that equal? How is that encouraging 'community cohesion'?
To quote P J O'Rourke, it's the integrational equivalent of giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

But will they listen? Will they learn? Will they bugger.

Monday, October 06, 2008

New Bond Film

Quantum of Solace out fairly soon, so I thought that was a good enough reason to post a picture of Daniel Craig minus most of his clothes.

He's not minus his clothes all the time in the new film, though, as this picture shows:

Still rather hot, though, so that's the main thing.

Your time will come, my darling

Let joy be unconfined as the news trips from the lips of our mighty leaders to fill our hearts with such bliss as we didn't know existed. As the nation wearily treads the path of economic inevitability, a glimmer of hope like a rainbow glimpsed through thundery storm clouds, the first snowdrops to push their way through the hard, winter earth; for can such news be anything other than to know that a corner has been turned?

David Blunkett could return to the Cabinet in a Gordon Brown ' Government of the living dead'.

The speculation in Westminster is that Mr Blunkett - another double disgraced minister like Peter Mandelson - could be made Labour's elections supremo ahead of crucial town hall and European polls next June, and a General Election in 2010.

In a TV interview new Business Secretary Mr Mandelson, who had been tipped for the elections job, said cryptically: 'I think you will find someone else affirmed in that role - someone I know and trust and admire.'

With such news, I think it is time to remind ourselves of the David Blunkett Policy Maker:

Of course, less good is the news for my beloved, David Miliband, who has a new obstacle in the way of his inevitable rise to the top.*
Meanwhile, Labour insiders revealed that a bitter row was raging over Mr Mandelson's recall – and its devastating impact on David Miliband's Labour leadership ambitions.

One senior Minister said: 'Peter's return means David Miliband's hopes of getting Gordon out are dead and buried.

'If Miliband wants to challenge Gordon he has to get past Peter first, and he wouldn't dare.'

I shouldn't worry too much: It's clear that given the return of two such laughable and monumentally disliked figures what Gordon Brown is trying to do is to stop himself being the most hated person in the cabinet. A wise move, of sorts, but it shows his weakness. And in the mean time, I'll back you up and give that MEAN MANDELSON what for in the best tradition of a fag hag: I shall relentlessly criticise his shoes.

Your time will come but for now I would let the public remove those two men standing in the way of your dream and then you can rise like a phoenix from the ashes and bring back the spectacle of the is-it-left-or-is-it-right-of-centre Labour party whose policies and raison d'etre no one is quite sure of.

And then where will Peter bloody Mandelson be, eh? Not in your shadow cabinet of talents, I'll be damned. Perhaps in David Cameron's given the 'attractive' hoodie he is wearing in that photo, complete with shoes which don't match. But not in yours.

And then he'll wish he stayed in his cushy job in the European Commission, the, the...TURD!

Am not the only one who feels slightly light headed at the prospect of Mr Miliband as I copy this photo from a blog post entitled: 'Dreamiest Foreign Secretary'

*of the Labour party, obviously, not the country

Saturday, October 04, 2008

The gaping chasm grows ever wider

Chris Huhne has decided to speak out against the man arrested for holocaust denial in the UK when it is not a crime here, which I wrote about a few days ago.

I'm glad that someone has joined UKIP's Nigel Farage in speaking out against it (not that any press bothered to publish that) but there is a large dollop of hypocrisy which we have come to expect from the Liberal Democrats

British courts should refuse to act on an EU arrest warrant requesting the extradition of an alleged Holocaust denier, a senior Lib Dem has said...But home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK and he should not be extradited.

Well, I quite agree, but it's a shame if he thinks that he voted in favour of the European Arrest Warrant when he was an MEP.
Rapporteur: Graham Watson, Liberal Democrat MEP

In favour

Nick Clegg, Chris Davies, Andrew Duff, Chris Huhne, Sarah Ludford, Liz Lynne, Bill Newton-Dunn, Nicholson of Winterbourne, Graham Watson
Sir Robert Atkins, Chris Beazley, John Bowis, Philip Bradbourn, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Martin Callanan, Giles Chichester, Den Dover, James Elles, Jonathan Evans, Robert Goodwill, Dan Hannan, Malcolm Harbour, Chris Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer, Caroline Jackson, Timothy Kirkhope, Edward McMillan Scott, Neil Parish, John Purvis, Robert Sturdy, David Sumberg, Charles Tannock, Theresa Villiers
Gordan Adams, Michael Cashman, Richard Corbett, Robert Evans, Glyn Ford, Neena Gill, Mary Honeyball, Richard Howitt, Stephen Hughes, Glenys Kinnock, Eryl McNally, David Martin, Ben Miller, Simon Murphy, Mel Read, Catherine Stihler, Gary Titley, Mark Watts, Philip Whitehead
Jill Evans, Ian Hudghton, Jean Lambert


Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford,

Why oh why do the majority of the population and our main stream media allow politicians to get away with such blatant hypocrisy? How do they ever expect politicians to behave themselves and act like respectable human beings when actually they have no motivation to do so? When it came to genuine, honest statements I'd trust a cream cake over a politician and statistically I'd be wise to do so.

And there will not be a link between the governors and the governed until we have an example of politicians deserving our trust. But it has to come from all sides, else our 'ruling elite' will grow further away from the people they are making laws for, the people who pay their wages and further despised by the populace.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Handbags at dawn

The gays have been let loose on the Mandy story. According to my friend Minge:
so Mandy's back at Dept for Business, so that means no matter who wins the election a queer will be guiding the future of British enterprise. The economy may be shit, but the curtains at the department will be just darling.

The return of the Prodigal Son

Does Gordon Brown really think we'll stop hating him and his useless band of fellow ministers and vote for him because he's promoted someone to the House of Lords who should be in the Tower of London?

Peter Mandelson has been drafted back into government in a surprise move, as Gordon Brown reshuffles his cabinet.

The EU trade commissioner was twice forced to resign from Tony Blair's cabinet. He will be made business secretary with a seat in the Lords.

I'm sure he'll be very happy in the Lords with all the other EU Commissioners that get sent there: it's turning into something of a rogues gallery:

As Nigel Farage said, he'll find the house prices cheaper in London now so he won't have to go to so much trouble to get a mortgage, and with his luxury pension from the EU he won't struggle for cash. Of course, that pension is dependent on his promoting the EU so his loyalties will still be to his former paymasters unless he decides not to take the pension and to be impartial instead?

He is being replaced in Brussels with someone who is perfectly qualified for the role, Baroness Ashton. I sat in the House of Lord listening to the debate on the Lisbon Treaty and heard how eloquently she argues her goal of selling this country down the river and being governed by Brussels. With hindesight I am sure she is glad she did do it as she will be one of the people in this country who will manage to gain from this treaty.
Having sat through many interesting hours of debate, noble Lords will know where the Government, and I on behalf of the Government, stand on the issues before us. I want to focus on three points. The first is parliamentary sovereignty. Noble Lords have spoken across the House about the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, in the Question that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked just before we began this debate, that issue was raised again. I stand firm by what I said then and what I have said before: it is important that we act as a sovereign Parliament on behalf of this country and do things which are appropriate for that parliamentary sovereignty, not least in determining the position that this Parliament holds on a treaty of this importance...It is completely within the abilities and propriety of your Lordships' House to do so. We are 96 per cent of the way through our deliberations. It is important that we should ratify...

The second point has not much featured in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, came closest to covering it. Why are we doing this? What is this treaty about? Why do I think it is a good thing for this country? Noble Lords have touched on issues of, for example, reducing the size of the Commission and making sure that Europe can work more effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others talked about that. That is important because Europhobe and Europhile alike have said for a long time that Brussels needs to work more effectively, as does the Commission. How much money is spent has featured in discussions, as far as I can remember, over the past 20 to 30 years.

The treaty also gives national Parliaments a greater say in making European Union laws. That is an important aspect of our deliberations in the past 24 days across your Lordships' House and another place. It is important to recognise that that makes a difference. The treaty also sets out what the European Union can and cannot do—the competences, on which we spent a great deal of time in our earlier discussions. It deals with some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, in his life and work in Bosnia-Herzegovina when he dealt with the problems of a European Union with two heads. These are resolved by the treaty. Perhaps more important than anything, it sets overarching priorities for eradicating poverty and introduces children's rights for the first time into the European Union's objectives.

I do wish the two UKIP peers, Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby de Broke the best of luck in their debates with Mandy and am very jealous of them. How much fun they will have.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Is anybody there?

Call me old fashioned, but I think that people should only be arrested for something if it's a crime in that country.

An alleged Holocaust denier has been arrested by police after flying into Heathrow Airport in London.

The Met Police's extradition unit detained Australian Frederick Toben under an EU warrant issued in Germany.

He is accused of publishing material on the internet between 2000 and 2004 that "denies, approves of or plays down the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis".

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Holocaust denial is not a crime in this country. So why are we arresting people for denying the holocaust? Laugh at them and poke them with sticks I understand, arrest?
Since when did Germany decide what was a crime in this country? Since when did people think that thought crimes should exist? I know Tory MP Theresa Villiers does because I watched Question Time a few years ago where she said so. But does the average person think someone should be arrested for questioning what is generally perceived to be true? That is straight out of a dictatorship and I do not want to live in a country where what you think and what you say must fit in with some pre decided list.

Well, if you must know, since we signed up to the European Arrest Warrant which was initially to fight terrorists (as if we believed that one) and now is all about extraditing young men to foreign countries on the say so of some magistrate and without the need to present evidence.

Listen up, chaps: this is what is going to happen. It's the creation of a single EU justice area. Next week, MEPs are going to vote on legislation to allow all countries in the EU to share criminal record databases. And you thought civil servants leaving papers on the train was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Abortion isn't legal in Ireland and Malta but people come to the UK to have the procedure. Are the Met to be standing outside clinics waiting to arrest those women who have made that decision and traveled from those countries? Or the doctors who perform it, and ship them off to face trial in another EU country?

Are Hindus in London soon to be packed off to Austria for displaying a swastika?

And it's typical of them to test the water with a man who will be viewed as a bit of a nasty twat by most, for denying that the holocaust took place. Most politicians will be far too scared of people saying 'anti Semite' or calling them a holocaust denier for standing up and saying that this man should not have been arrested on a plane and charged in the UK and so they will use it to set a precedent.

Where do we draw the line? Clearly, the EU don't want to draw it anywhere because they want us to be a single state with one legal code which, by the way, will think nothing of locking people up for 42 days without trial, suspected terrorists or not.

Who knows, but it stands a greater chance of happening if people sit around with their thumbs up their arse instead of speaking out against it.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Yet more financial market hypocrisy

So, the members of UNITE who don't have jobs to go to are prancing around Birmingham in bowler hats and pig masks protesting at donations given to the Conservative Party by people who work in hedge funds. Aside from the fact that most people don't wear bowler hats anymore, and pig masks are more suited to members of the Cabinet and trade union official, it beggars belief how dumb these people are.

From the press association:

Unite also launched an advertising campaign accusing Tory leader David Cameron of being "cheesy and sleazy" and claiming that the Opposition was cashing in on the credit crunch.

The union, which has 180,000 members working in financial services, has complained of a "deafening silence" from the Conservatives over how to tackle the economic crisis.

Said a friend of mine "I think cheesy and sleazy is probably giving Cameron too much credit" but even so.

Unite has 180,000 working in financial services, does it? Who presumably use their salary to give money to UNITE for their subs? UNITE who, according to the Electoral Commission
register of donations
, have given a total of £6,003,929.09 in 226 donation to The Labour Party.

Doesn't that mean the Labour Party have been profiting through those nasty people in the City of London who work in financial services? Surely it does! Not to mention those mean businesses who pay lots of tax to the government for them to waste on their petty vanity projects?

Shame on them.

Gender Balancing - what a load of crap

I'm a woman of the female gender so I'm allowed to say this. Gender Balancing? Give me strength. Discrimination on the basis of gender is deeply insulting and, when it come to Question Time panels, rather unnecessary.

This latest PC nonsense has be brought to my attention because UKIP leader Nigel Farage was supposed to be on QT this week, live from a church hall somewhere ghastly, I should imagine. But they called him up to say that they were moving him to another date because of the financial news and they wanted an economist. Fair enough, although I think that having a politician on the panel who worked in the city and in futures especially for 20 odd years would add an interesting dimension to the other voices of people who are just going to spout voter friendly flannel.

Note who they kept on, though:

David Dimbleby will be joined in Birmingham by Jacqui Smith MP, Charles Kennedy MP, Janet Street-Porter and two other guests to be confirmed.

Janet Street-fucking-Porter.
Because of gender balance.

Here's an idea: how about keeping on the people with the experience and the decision making ability and getting a female economist on? The fabulous Ruth Lea, for example. And then on top of gender balancing, you'll have a very bright woman in the 'clever' slot rather than the woman in the typical woman-type role.

And also someone who will point out that the European Commission had to approve the Bradford and Bingley state aid.