Monday, December 28, 2009

Port or Starboard?

Another highly amusing post over at Mr E's place has alerted me to this article on Carbon Taxes; something that I consider to be a way for a clique to make a stack of cash.

That aside, this statement in the article confused me somewhat:

I am an economist, and so I supported a carbon tax. A carbon tax means that we can leave it to the market to find the lowest-cost way of reducing global warming, with governments setting the tax at the rate necessary to bring global warming emissions within appropriate levels as determined by natural scientists.

The concept that controlling price and supply in some way means that we're leaving it to the market it one which is hurting my booze-addled post Christmas brain. I thought that if we wished to leave something to the market then we did just that: left it to the market. Laissez faire; let's not have any government interference and leave it all down to utils. Surely by imposing a tax we are shifting everyone's indifference curves around?

Is this wrong? Is this the view of economics only seen by libertarians whilst the left have hijacked economic theory to suit their own ends? I wouldn't be surprised if they had, of course, only disappointed and left hoping that this isn't taught in schools.

Whilst Tim has changed his mind on carbon tax, alas it's only because he wants to see it as part of a huge scheme of measures designed to regulate us back to the stone age. The only people I can see this climate change fanaticism benefiting are the well connected in developing countries and people who benefit from carbon trading. Like the chairman of the IPCC.

Or maybe it's just the port talking.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Our Christian Government

I can't help but wonder, come christmas time, if our dearly beloved government don't want us to continually remember the story of Christ's birth, for the Gospel according to St Luke doth say:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Just like us.

All the time.

But as the pages of the calendar flip towards the festive day itself, as we brace ourselves for The Queen talking to us about saving the polar bears and wonder how we'll pay the bills given that most of our money has been stolen by the Treasury, remember that this could be the last Christmas where Gordon Brown is our Prime Minister and we have a government intent on ruining this country.

Okay, the likely option is that the people who will take over wouldn't know a decent policy if it smacked them round the face with the Smeltings Stick and still want to be governed from Brussels. But there's a chance that they don't love tax rises as much as the current lot and possibly they do want to give us some freedoms back. But it still means that this season, as well as stuffing ourselves silly and drinking too much we can remember that next time around we would have been given the opportunity to have a say on how a tiny piece of our lives are run. And currently that does include tax policy.

Merry Christmas!

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Britblog Roundup - the snowbound edition

The bumper Christmas Stocking edition is courtesy of Mr E and Eurostar.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Big Brother State

I'm not a fan of Big Brother; the only possible decent use of the house would be to keep the people who win the auditions in there, minus the cameras. So I was quite pleased to hear the news in the summer that Channel 4 would not be renewing Endemol's contract to produce the dross. Unfortunately this means that we do have one series left in 2010 to keep actual news out of the papers in an already watered down media.

But an e-mail which passed across my desk has moved them lower in my estimation: something I didn't think was possible. Casting directors have been e-mailing various organisations asking them to encouraging members to contact the production company along side the usual open auditions which, one can presume, aren't going that well. That wouldn't be so bad, I suppose, if they hadn't contacted a particular charity who assist vulnerable veterans suffering from homelessness, drink and drug abuse asking for 'case studies' to contact.

Men and women who have bravely served their country and fallen on hard times or dealt badly with the transition from the Armed Forces to civvy street are now ideal people to be under continual observation and media scrutiny, are they?

How fucking heartless do you have to be to think that putting a homeless person in a house where they face a weekly eviction vote is a good idea?

note to readers

It's too cold for me to write anything. When this global warming turns up, normal service will resume. Until then I'm off to sit under the hand dryer in the ladies loo.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Why are jobs being closed on Teeside?

It's our old friend, the chairman of the IPCC who, as Mr Eugenides points out, is rather more qualified in economics than in climate change:

Just on a point of basic accuracy, Rajendra Pachauri is not "the world's leading climate scientist"; in fact, he is not and never has been a scientist at all. He has postgraduate degrees in industrial engineering and economics. The only thing he's qualified to lecture me on is the fucking price of rivets.

It appears that he's doing rather well on the economics side of things particularly in carbon credits, as Christopher Booker pointed out in his column on Sunday.
What is the connection between Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian railway engineer who has been much in evidence at the Copenhagen climate conference, as chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and an Indian-owned steel company's decision to mothball its giant Teesside steel works next month, ripping the heart out of the town of Redcar by putting 1,700 people out of work?

According to the President of the European Commission, not only does absolutely nothing link him to the job closures but the suggestion that he does is defamatory.

Debate, you see, is not allowed in the European Parliament. I've told you that before.

No Recession in the European Parliament

Marta Andreasen, UKIP MEP for the South East of England points out in a speech on the EU's budget that the contribution that British Taxpayer makes to the EU has risen from £45 million a day to £50 million a day. At the same time we hear in the PBR that our taxes are rising and there are cuts in public services which amount to around £12 billion.

And of course let's not forget that MEPs are also awarding themselves a salary increase, paid for by guess who....

Rage against the X Factor?

So I see the campaign for Christmas No 1 is once again hotting up with campaigns for alternatives to Simon Cowell's money machine being promoted all over the internet.

Hurrah for alternative music and competition!

But hold on. Reading this piece in The Grauniad alerts me that this supposed alternative anti-establishment-and-mainstream-music group is backed by none other than Sony Music.

Epic Records is an American record label. It is a premier subsidiary label of Sony Music Entertainment. The label was founded in 1953 as a jazz label, but was eventually expanded to several genres of music. The label itself manages several imprints as well.

Remember last year when we were all supposed to buy the cover of 'Hallelujah' which Jeff Buckley did:
The release of Burke's cover created interest in the previous versions of the song, including a Buckley fan campaign to take Buckley's cover to the top of the Christmas chart in order to deny Burke the top spot.The campaign was fuelled by Jeff Buckley fans' dislike of The X Factor's commercialism and the song's arrangement, as well as a desire by this contingent to introduce younger music fans to Buckley's version

At the same time the original by Leonard Cohen was also released although it only reached No 36 in the charts compared to No 1's for Burke and No. 2 for Buckley.

But the real winner of the day was, of course, Simon Cowell, who owns the rights to all three versions.
I'm not attacking Simon Cowell for being smart by any means. Well done the man for being able to read the minds of the public and the media so well.

I'm just saying that if I worked in the PR department for these record labels that one of the first things I'd do is secretly promote some huge battle between two records in order that the company I worked for raked in the cash regardless of who got to the top spot this festive season.

I personally have decided to download the Christmas Single by The Soldiers because it's not owned by Sony and I know the guys who sing it.

So if you really want to rage against anything, here's a handy link for you.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Strictly Come Scandal?

>Last year some of you may remember that there was something of a scandal because the most popular couple with the public who pay to vote were the least popular couple with the judges who provide half the scores and also decide who goes home in the dance off.

Well this year people like me thought there might be another similar situation with Chris and Ola (skimpy outfits, big boobs) being popular with the public like Tom and Camilla were but not getting the high scores with the judges like Ali and Ricky have been getting.

I was personally sad when my favourite couple, Ali and Brian, left the competition despite getting a massive 50/50 with their American Smooth (and a kiss) but then I realised that in the semi-final there was no dance off. So really there was no point to the judges even scoring that one because the powers that be in the programme had realised that Chris and Ola would have no chance of making it into the final because chances are with the lowest judges score they would be in the dance off and the judges would vote them out because they aren't as good dancers as Ali or Ricky. Thus we'd have a repeat of last year.

It's just that this time the BBC realised in advance rather than wait until the programme had already started before getting the calculators out...

As it happens, I would quite like Team Cola to win because Ricky bores me and because I loved this Charleston.

Friday, December 11, 2009


Can someone tell me why this man needs a hairdryer, let alone one which is on the tax payer?

I'm very pleased it was turned down by the fees office but aren't they only allowed to claim furnishings for their second home? Because if it was the London flat which allegations were made in the Telegraph over the summer, the daughter looks much more in need of a blow drier than he does. And I don't want to be paying for hers when mine is on the blink. Or even if it wasn't, for that matter.

In 2007-08, he billed taxpayers for £1,343.81 in household goods and redecoration including a new bath, although a claim to have the archway between the hallway and lounge removed was rejected. His file indicates that the £223.04 annual home insurance policy with the Post Office was taken out solely in the name of his daughter, listed as “Miss M George”. She began studying in London in autumn 2007, just months after her father bought the flat.

Commons rules state that MPs must only use the second homes allowance to claim back living costs that they themselves incur.

Neighbours confirmed they had seen Miss George regularly in the area. Last night her father said she had been in halls of residence in her first year and now lived with her boyfriend. He admitted she did stay in his riverside flat but denied she was there more often than him.

All looks very suspicious to me; I do hope this isn't another example of an MP trying to fleece the tax payer when it was against the rules.

Perhaps chaps could confirm whether or not they are in need of hair drying equipment as part of their daily routine?

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Thomas the Tank Engine - sexist beast?

This is just hilarious. It's not really worth getting bothered about unless someone actually listens to the woman and takes action.

If you thought the television tales about Thomas the Tank Engine were merely light-hearted fun, think again.
In fact, they portray a world blighted by a 'conservative political ideology' and a rigid class system which stifles self-expression. And they are sexist...According to Professor Shauna Wilton, women are under-represented in the stories and what few female characters there are tend to have 'secondary' roles or be bossy.

Watch bloody She-Ra, then. Silly bitch.

Unless she's too provocatively dressed and aggressive? Something of a role model for me, chaps.

Bell End?

The latest round of expense claims has journalists ploughing through receipts in the hope of another duck house outrage.

Front runner appears to be Quentin Davies MP who submitted a receipt for £20,700 for repairs to his bell tower. I presume that's not a euphemism and the former Tory thought that it was right and proper that the hard up tax payer, many of whom can't afford one home of their own, pay for ornaments to one of his.

Of course there has been the statement that he didn't want tax payers to pay for it, which does beg the questions 'so why did you submit the invoice, then?

Regardless of whether the bell tower was going to "smash through the roof" I still fail to see why I should contribute towards fixing it. I don't live there. I have a fault window in my flat; shall I send the bill for the repairs to Mr Davies in return for my generous contribution?

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse...

Pah! As if. I think we're all used to the fact that no matter how bad things are those bastards in power and their sycophantic hangers on want to push it further.

Latest on the list of those people who clutch their throat and shriek at even the thought of a libertarian idea is David Sexton writing in The Standard today on the subject of smoking.

These days rabbits are larger and more feral, no longer living sociably in cosy warrens.

A similar change seems to have overtaken smokers since the smoking ban of 2007. The remaining smokers are now much more aggressive.

Having been prevented from indulging in their workplaces, they now inhale their poison with a kind of vengeful fury as soon as they can

That's right. When we are forced to stand outside in the cold to indulge in an activity which isn't illegal and provides the exchequer with oddles of cash for them to spend on buying voters we're just doing it to be vengeful beasts. It's nothing to do with the fact that we just want a smoke and there's no where else to go.

So one perverse result of the ban is that there is much more smoking visible on the streets than there used to be. It is not a pretty sight.

Smokers seem to be physically sucking on their ciggies with a new sort of vehemence. It's hardcore now.

Outside every office, shop and pub, non-smokers have to run a gauntlet of such smokers. We don't enjoy it.

Gosh, you have to walk past people standing on the streets smoking. In the open air? With that huge space all around you? The law of unintended consequences is a right bitch. Next thing you know the government will be legislating about things which don't concern them and that thing might be something you'll enjoy.
It now seems simply bizarre that people used to be allowed to smoke in planes, on the Tube, in hospitals, offices and restaurants.

In time, it will seem equally improbable that they could once do so with impunity in the faces of people sharing public space outside.

The arguments may no longer be about the dangers of secondary smoking but they are no less compelling. It's not just that they smell so terrible and throw their butts everywhere.

It doesn't seem bizarre. The only thing that is bizarre is that people just sit back and let the government take away their liberties. It's a sad state of affairs when an argument for banning something is that it smells. Does that mean that I can ban Old Spice, brussel sprouts and cabbage? Just because I don't like it?
When you see a smoker, sucking in hard as soon as he or she gets to the threshold, what you are seeing is not just addiction but self-harming of the most terrible kind. Half of all regular smokers are killed by their habit.

No other vice, not even drinking to excess, is so directly and inherently suicidal. We would not find it acceptable to see people routinely setting fire to themselves in public.

Yet that is precisely what smoking in public is equivalent to. Children should not grow up thinking that's normal.

Er, hello? Was that a misprint? Someone didn't just compare having a cigarette to setting yourself on fire? Because it's fucking ridiculous that someone would even contemplate saying that let alone it sneaking past sub editors and finding itself on a page of a newspaper, even if it is now a free sheet. Next thing we won't be allowed to have a glass of wine without reminding ourselves that it's the equivalent of running a sharp blade along bare skin or a hamburger without being concerned that a child may be traumatised at the self harm being displayed so grotesquely. What are people thinking of!
Properly understood, smoking is a moral affront every time. So long as we smile on it, we are approving a holocaust.

So not only are we rotting the brains of the future generation but we're also exterminating people on a mass scale without their say so?

Are we still talking about smoking here or has David Sexton just got his todger out and decided to write his article by slapping it about on the keyboard?

If this illiberal affront to civilised society was intentional I might suggest that he try the latter option to ensure that his next offering to the people of London is not the literary equivalent of my cat's litter tray after someone forgot to let him out in the morning?

Best music review ever

Is found at 'Pop Justice' when discussing a Christmas Single by girl group The Stunners:

If you're looking for this year's most crass and self-serving Christmas charity single you may have found your winner: 'Santa Bring My Soldier Home' by US girlgroup The Stunners. The band may be familiar to a couple of you already - they're like Pussycat Dolls without the subtlety or the complex feminist agenda and they've got a brilliantly-titled song called 'Dancing Around The Truth' which sadly has all the originality and natural energy of a mid-ranking track on the current Saturdays album.

'Santa Bring My Soldier Home' - which, it's fair to say, slightly overestimates Santa's true level of influence on the world politics stage...

Go read the rest and also take a look at that video.

Would it be cruel of me to suggest that even Santa, however fictional, would be better at representation on the world stage than Baroness Ashton?

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Guest Post: democracy in Switzerland

Please note: the author is not The Lovely Trixy

Minarets and direct democracy

Since last Sunday it seems that Switzerland has become a country with an intolerant population, a place where the freedom of religion doesn’t count anymore. I’d like to give a reflection about this issue. What happened? The Swiss decided about an initiative, launched by the Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP) and other small parties and organizations, for banning the construction of minarets in Switzerland. 57% of the Swiss citizens said yes to this initiative in a referendum.

What was the case history leading to this initiative? In four different towns in Switzerland there exist minarets. Those exist since the 1960s. Since 2006 there have been applications by many Muslims all over Switzerland to build new minarets. The residents of the affected towns in Switzerland argued and protested against the construction of these new buildings. That’s why a national committee launched this initiative and collected more than 100000 signatures for it: they wanted a clear and consistent rule for or against the construction of minarets in the whole country.

The minaret is not part of the religious practice of Islam. The minaret is a sign of power, rulership and conquest, which is also confirmed by experts on the Islamic culture and religion. The minaret is a symbol of a political Islam and shows its dominance in a country. In 1997, the mayor of Istanbul and today’s Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, compared minarets with bayonets.

That’s the reason why a committee started a campaign against these buildings. The minaret is only the first step of further demands. Soon afterwards they claim the Muezzin, the introducing of the Sharia law and the acceptance of those rules. We could see these developments in other countries and cities, where the beginning was similar. And now, in the suburbs of Berlin or Paris, a parallel society has established and the Sharia is the only law which counts.

And even in Switzerland we have problems with some muslim families. I am talking about girls who are not allowed to go in swimming lessons and I am talking about forced marriages. Our politicians didn’t want resolve these wrongs. I don’t know why, maybe because of Political Correctness, who knows. But now, after the referendum, we can talk about these problems. We can talk about what kind of Islam we want in Switzerland and which parts of it are incompatible to our laws and orders.

Please let me say: This initiative was and is not against religious freedom. Muslim people are allowed – as well as Christians, Jews, Hindi and all others – to practise their religion freely at home and in their mosques. But the minaret is not necessary for the Muslim people to pray. It is important to understand that this initiative was never against the Islamic religion. But in a Christian country it is not acceptable that other religions show signs of power or conquest. That would be a negation of the Christian roots and the origin of the Swiss culture.

The initiative was supported by the Swiss People’s Party which represents the conservative-libertarian wing of the Swiss Parliament. But also feminist groups and the society of ex-muslims advised a yes. All other parties and the Swiss Federal Council – the executive of Switzerland – did not support the initiative. According to this fact, the clear result of almost 60% of yes-votes in this referendum is obvious. It represents the great majority of the Swiss voters and their will.

After the referendum, I was really shocked and upset about the reaction of the political elite and the press in foreign countries. “Switzerland is intolerant, Switzerland breaks human rights laws, Switzerland has to vote again about this initiative.” What the hell is that? The initiative was launched by a committee which has collected more than 100’000 signatures for it. There was a debate in the Swiss Parliament and there were a lot of town hall meetings, talks and adversary podiums to inform the people during the referendum campaign. The discussions were factual. And now, a majority of 57% said yes to this initiative. To say that this initiative breaks human rights laws or restricts the freedom of religion, that’s not true. The minaret is not necessary for praying and there are a lot of mosques – even in Islamic countries – which has no minaret.

It is a shame, that foreign countries criticise the democratic vote of the Swiss people. I think that politicians from France, the UK or Germany should resolve their problems firstly. In Britain there are Islamic fanatics who are shouting “Freedom go to hell” and “Sharia is the answer”. In Holland, a stage director was killed because he produced a islam-critical movie. In Denmark, cartoons “provocated” massive and violent riots. Before those politicians say, that the freedom of religion is menaced in Switzerland, they should wonder if the freedom of speech is still in force in their own country. And a revision is no option. The Swiss will not act like the Irish: To vote until the political elite is satisfied.

The people don’t want minarets; they don’t want a political Islam. And not only Swiss think so. Just read the messages on Times online, Spiegel online (Germany) or Krone Zeitung (Austria). Most people also want to have a referendum about those issues. It shows me that the politicians – and the press too – are really far away from the will of the people.

David Herzig

All you need is meat

AS readers may well be aware, I am a vegetarian. But that doesn't mean that I impose my views on everyone else and forces them to do what I want, else I would have run for parliament years ago.

I was amused by this video from the European Parliament where Sir Paul McCartney flew over to Brussels to tell people what to eat because, he thinks, we're all going to die from cows farting.

Never mind the enormous amounts of hot air which emerges from European Parliament committee meetings or the vast waste that is the monthly jaunt to Strasbourg, the answer to the fiction that we're all going to boil to death whilst polar bears swim around the Thames is that we have to eat is dead wife's sausages. Minus the ones with thumbs in.

We had Prince Charles obsessed with the greenie weenies (nothing to do with his advisor, I'm sure. Oh no) and now a be-at-le. What next? Will Natalie Portman be parachuted into the land where fiction rules to tell us all that we have to wear her vegan shoes? Will Helen Mirren take a stand against 'global warming' and keep her clothes on in a film?

Why do I have to be lectured by people who know fuck all about how I live my life? I already have to spend my evenings bumping into furniture because the European Union has decided that I am not allowed proper lightbulbs in my own house and my cigarette packets are covered in pictures so vile they can only be of MEPs. Why is there this obsession by people to continually tell me what to do? Fuck. Off. Fuck Off. I don't tell you how to live your life so could you do me the courtesy of keeping your nose out of mine? You already spend my money without asking and refuse to allow me to participate in democracy but you've reached the stage where the only solution can be to call in air strikes.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Polly - no reputable scientists refute AGW

I have been sent this little snippet by a reader regarding an event held in London this week by Godfrey Bloom MEP where people were encouraged to talk about the possibility of climate change not being man made. Risky stuff, what. Far as the BBC is concerned they don't even need to have anyone talking about the risks of Copenhagen let alone someone who says that climate change has happened before and that recently temperature has been declining.

Dear Mrs Toynbee

In the light of irrefutable evidence that the globe is now cooling, together with the significant swing in opinion by independent scientists against the anthropogenic climate warming hypothesis, we feel it is time for a re-appraisal of the dogma “the science is settled”.

There is now a very serious financial threat especially to the emerging economies from drastic and ill conceived policies by politicians and those with vested interests.

We have seen recently in the United Kingdom the enormous pressure for government scientists to toe the line or face dismissal.

We are familiar with the bogus statistics in the form of the hockey stick graph from the IPCC, an organization disingenuously posturing as scientific not political.

To redress the balance of information we have asked one of the world’s leading academics in the discipline of climate change to make a presentation at the Royal Over-Seas League, Over-Seas House, Park Place, St James's Street, London, SW1A 1LR on 1st December 2009 before the less rational jamboree begins in Copenhagen on December 7th.

Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer from the University of Adelaide will make a
presentation of his research to a selected audience of opinion formers and take questions.

This is an unrivalled opportunity to raise the level of debate before it
is too late.

As the lunch will be held in a club, Gentleman’s Club dress is the order of the day.

At first it would appear that there was no response but when asked again we get this delightful reply:

Sorry, but I have absolutely no time to waste on non science that has been
comprehensively disproved by all the world scientists of any weight or

So there you go. Prof Plimer doesn't know what he's talking about even though he's a geologist but an economist knows all about the climate. And a Guardian columist also has the authority to decide who is a reputable scientist and who isn't. Well, she'd know. She's never wrong. Is she.

If you have time on your hands you could visit this completely inaccurate blog which uses statistics rather than rhetoric. He won't be getting a column in the Guardian!

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

A thought

Whilst the weather is bad and I'm feeling sad, a quick thought about the Teletubbies.

It must be a nice place to live: green fields, flowers and rabbits along with a sun that always shines, even if it does have a slightly scary face. And even a vague consideration for the environment and EU legislation with a singular windmill.

That voice thing might have Orwellian overtones, though.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Films vs Stats?

This was posted in my comments section and I rather like it because it highlights how the Greenie Weenies are happy to completely ignore such things like facts and instead base their debates on films.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Climate Change - shocking news

Following on from this super article by Gordon Rayner in the Telegraph there's a wee update on how the UN are taking the news about the fact that that the CRU were providing information to the IPCC.

The CRU has the largest archive of global temperature data in the world, and its research formed the basis of the United Nations' key document on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2007.

The e-mails now appear to have made it around the world and are having some effect on the governments of countries where climate bills are going through parliaments.
In the US, where the CRU emails have been cited as proof of "the greatest act of scientific fraud in history", there are very real fears that hardline Republicans – together with powerful Right-wing media organisations – will use the scandal to scupper President Obama's proposed legislation to cap carbon emissions.

In Australia, the world's worst carbon dioxide polluter per capita, 10 opposition front bench MPs have resigned in protest at a proposed carbon bill, their resolve seemingly strengthened by the emergence of the emails.

And here in the UK, although the main political parties agree that global warming does exist and is man-made, there have been calls for the head of the CRU to resign over the scandal, and demands for a full-scale public inquiry from the former chancellor Lord Lawson who, this week, launched a new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to challenge the consensus on global warming policy.

the CRU have of course made light of these e-mails, saying that we're getting into a fuss over nothing and of course we're all going to die unless we revert, Osama Bin Laden-like, to living in caves and having dung for dinner. Despite this little beauty:
An email sent by one of Prof Jones's colleagues said: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Travesty for whom, eh? Nice to know that the University of East Anglia's Climate Rogue Unit appear more interested in ripping us off and being important than being pleased that the climate isn't actually reaching boiling point.

So what's the outcome with the United Nations, then?

bugger all it would appear.
Mr Pachauri said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) received contributions from scientists worldwide and had a rigorous peer review system which ensured a balanced view.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he told The Guardian.

So even though we now know that they can't make the globe warmer, have been using tricks and also said they would rather delete the data than let us, the tax payer, know how we're being taken for a fucking expensive ride, the IPCC aren't going to do anything about it.

But then why would they? The Now Show may have mocked comments about politicians and the media having a vested interest in us all being shortly to die but it's true. Most of them are men, after all, and when do men ever admit they're wrong? Only when they're not listening to the question put to them.

They'd have to admit that they were duped or that they either didn't read the information or they did and didn't want to cause a fuss.

The BBC, I think, are breaching their charter by saying that science is settled on this and now we read that a weatherman was sent e-mails on how to spin it.

There were many who were rightly shocked when watching the Antiques Road Show last night where an expert was allowed to talk about how there have been 'warm periods' before and even to finish his piece on the lovely sofa table, designed because of this heatwave along with gorgeous empire line dresses, with a gentle warning about warming
Of more interest, when you read again about global warming just think of this table.

But Copenhagen is politics and spin and nothing to do with proper debate so this inconvenient truth will just be brushed under the carpet.

On another note, the Danes want all Campanologists to ring bells during the conference. Be warned, ringers: There's a chance that this is a new way of producing electricity and you'll be campanicity before you know it.

Brit Blog roundup

Is here and possibly the only place in the country where it's not actually bloody raining.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Yes, I'll talk to David; yes, sure.

The story today, after Lord Pearson has wonderfully won the vote to be the new leader of the UK Independence Party, reaffirms to me that I support a party which puts country first.

The Times ran the story in an interview with the new leader in which he reveals that after discussing with Nigel Farage the two UKIP Lords went to Tom Strathclyde to see if there could be some arrangement.

Seems perfectly sensible to me: try to come to some arrangement on democracy before you go in for a fight in the General Election. After all, most activists would agree that it's time we had the chance to say how our money is spent and who governs us.

And that the Tories rejected it says all you need to know about their position on the EU which is that they don't want the British people to have a free and fair referendum on how we are governed. I don't see how it's possible to argue otherwise: they have the opportunity not to have another competitor when they are wetting their pants to gain power. And weren't they triumphing how Britain would have been safe with them? For Cameron it's all about keeping quiet, staying safe and staying part of the EU. Well, bless him. No. 10 appears to be his long game and the poor man's so dumb he thinks that our membership provides jobs and everyone who worked in an export industry would get fired if we left political union. That's naive in a junior debating championship but the last decade has demonstrated that it's not ideal having an economic retard in charge of the country.

Localism, direct democracy and Boris Johnson as you're head of the Met. Remember that stuff? Well, we can see from Liz Truss, all women short lists and the complete refusal to allow us to have our say, that the Tories couldn't give a flying fuck what you think, so why don't you sit there and be quiet rather than worrying your pretty little head about it.

The Today Programme interviewed Lord Pearson this morning which simply fills my little heart with joy at the different language used by the tired, grey suited career politicians who can't answer questions and people who are in this game because they genuinely want to achieve something. Not just the 'thank you, bless you' at the end of the interview either but the wonderful chance we get to know that the leading current affairs programme doesn't know anything about the new appointee in the world of EU finance. Well, why should they? I don't think it's been much reported, like the EU military mission in Somalia at a time when the government is demonstrating its latest hatred of the Armed Forces and needs more troops in Ghanners, if the top brass rather than Gordon Brown are to be believed.

An EU financial policy. A financial policy by people who don't even have their accounts audited and who, in the midst of perilous financial times, award themselves an additional 10% of our bloody money so they can waste it on living it up, talking shit and telling us how to live our lives.

They're so damned interfering and stupid one isn't even allowed lightbulbs which don't lead to severe bruising from furniture past sundown, let alone owners of businesses to decide who they employ and trade deals which don't land us with unnecessarily large bills whilst allowing the people in developing countries to starve.

I fucking hate them, I really do.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Holding politicians to account - Ashton, CND and a perfectly acceptable question

Today MEP Nigel Farage, democratically elected, questioned non elected - ever - High Commissioner Ashton over her CND history.

This is the same Nigel Farage who exposed to the parliament in 2004 that one of the European Commissioners - more powerful than MPs - had a conviction for embezzlement.

Baroness Ashton, rewarded for bulldozing the hateful Lisbon Constitution through the House of Lords - is in charge of EU foreign and security policy and used to me a member of CND.

The security service (MI5) has carried out surveillance of CND members it considered to be subversive. From the late 1960s until the mid-1970s, MI5 designated CND as subversive by virtue of its being "communist controlled". (Its chair from 1971-77, John Cox, was a member of the Communist Party.) From the late 1970s, it was downgraded to "communist-penetrated". MI5 says it has no current investigations in this area.

Mr Farage was questioning whether Ashton was a suitable candidate for the post because of her past associations with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), given that she will be in charge of the external security of the European Union. He had asked specifically whether Baroness Ashton had accepted cash on behalf of CND from the 'enemies of western capitalism and democracy'.

To which he was told that he:
'restrain his language and refrain from making unacceptable comments in the chamber'.

Perhaps one of our MPs or MEPs who voted for the Parliamentary President why we cannot question people who are in charge of us?

Gordon Brown, David Miliband; do you think it's acceptable that freedom of speech is being forbidden in a chamber which is the only part where the tax payers have an input, is condemned?

Do you think that this is something that should be brought to Westminster or would you speak out and say that actually asking a question which is timely and relevant is something which politicians - spokesmen of the people - should do?

Or will you and the media just fucking ignore it and focus on Katie Price and the fact that she's still a silicone pumped moron?

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Britblog Roundup - The Power of the Blogosphere edition

What ho! Welcome to this latest edition of the Britblog roundup. In writing this edition is has brought home more than ever the importance of the work we all do, no matter what our political persuasion or what we write about. The fact that we do is vital to our culture and freedoms and should be whole heartedly embraced.

That leads me straight into the first subject which Matt Wardman has written about. It's the case of Baroness (life peer, natch) Buscombe, speaking at the Society of Editors about a desire to regulate the blogosphere. Apparently now this will be voluntary but we've had these threats before from the EU. When it comes to trying to cover things up, the internet does prove terribly annoying to our great leaders and libel lawyers.

This was also taken up by Heresy Corner who thinks that the matter might not be so clear cut, not certainly because they don't actually know how to do it. Let's hope it stays like that and remind ourselves that the really clever people go into business. Trouble is, they are trying to control things. Everything.

The F Word looks at how men and women are treated differently when they commit violent crimes:

When discussing a recent high profile child abuse case on The Ten O’Clock News on the BBC, anchor George Alagiah asked if it was more shocking and more “disgusting” because women were involved in the abuse of these children. The reporter covering the case agreed, stating that there are more women involved in abusing children than the public might think: 25% of cases, he informed us.

Women are considered more caring than men but I think we've had enough examples through the ages to realise that women can be decisive and hard. They might stand out because they're rare but that's only because most didn't have the opportunities to be sufficiently reported. For women can be soldiers - not in the infantry and such of course - but all the members of the Army are soldiers first so they must be capable of violence for their own safety and also for the vital role they undertake. All are equal under the law, surely? Everyone should be condemned for violence, unless it's some self defence situation of course. Feminism is still in it's infancy compared to the time human beings have been around and people are still trying to work out how to bring about equality. I personally think that Harriet Harman damages the feminist cause more than most others. On the subject of feminism, Tim Worstall has some figures which he thinks we'll be hearing soon to attack men and businesses with.

Amused Cynicism has started a facebook group regarding Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, a subject also taken up by Charlotte Gore. It's a Bill worth knowing about certainly, especially if Lord Voldemort, unelected, has something to do with

Chicken Yoghurt looks at The Sun at 40. I'm not going to say I agree with his views of '40 years of lies' but I find it a shame that their politics department is limited to few pages whilst moronic entities are splashed far too widely. I hope the next 40 years will herald the arrival of fewer reality TV shows. in fact, I hope that this happens, written to me by a journalist employed by Uncle Rupert:
I think the best way for them to pass from this earth would be by attending a big event, and then being told at the door that they weren't allowed in because no-one gave the blindest shit about them anymore. Then one by one they dropped with cardiac arrest due to the shock.

And then no-one printed anything about it because - as the event doormen pointed out - no-one gives the blindest shit about them anymore. Except The FT, The Guardian and The Telegraph, of course, who went MASSIVE on it.

Enemies of Reason asks who really edits the paper and if it is Rupert 'Nylon Shirt' Murdoch he's made some odd choices. Some of his comments regarding copywrite certainly are extreme, but then, well, he's Rupert Murdoch. Go read more.

Switching from one controlling, powerful man to one who has the power to be but currently has shown that he should remain firmly in a Benny Hill sketch: it's the President of Europe, Rumpy Pumpy
The first President / Emperor of Europe for five centuries is everyone’s third choice and has all the appearance of low-key, lightweight, compromise non-entity; there is nothing presidential about him at all. He looks like just another committee man, of which we have too many already.

Apart from the very existence of the position being bad in some ways for Euroscepticism – although many people say that things need to get worse for our reluctant for change voters to do anything vaguely controversial – it's great for them in many ways. It shows that despite vile people like Barroso and some people (not many voters, though) wanting federalism Heads of State don't wish to relinquish power for someone showy. What would Sarkozy do if Tony Blair had a higher position than him and was known by more people? What would happen to his ego? It's highly likely that's why this man was chosen but keep your eyes peeled for the tax proposals: they've been floating around Brussels for years and of course the EU has just voted in favour of a 10% increase in it's budget and can't just fund it all from VAT and the British tax payer.

The New Adventures of Juliette talks of weighty issues and appears to be doing a very good job (I say appears, there are no photos but you know what I mean) of overcoming her own figure wishes. Nothing works better when trying to lose weight than mathematics: consume fewer calories than you use and voila!

I myself have struggled with weight issues and whilst genetics tend to balance out most people in the population in many cases some people don't understand the lengths others must go to just to maintain a normal size. When you're dieting you have a goal to work towards but when you're there? Then what?
While getting thin is an adrenaline-fuelled battle a la Gladiator, staying thin is thankless, praise less, back-breaking slave labour with no end in sight. There's no finishing line to be seen after which you can start eating all your old favourites as much as you like - unless it's the rather morbid finishing line of your coffin trundling into the flames at your local crematorium.

Kate Moss said recently that nothing tasted nicer than feeling thin. I disagree: lots of things do. I can only say to Juliette as someone in a similar boat that the only way to success is to embrace the change in lifestyle best done by finding an exercise you love and remember that for fitness success, it's supposed to hurt! Alternatively, don't listen to me. I've been single for years so what do I know what men want.

SwissToni's fallen victim to identity theft via PayPal. Whilst it seems they were very good, the company the goods were fraudulently purchased, wasn't. I personally won't but anything from if this is what SwissToni suffered.

I suspect you've all been overwhelmed with the huge coverage that the hacking of the CRU computer systems secured. My God! The breaking news, the front pages, the speeches in Parliaments saying that this news now means we're not all going to die in two minutes because we drive cars. And, of course, those apologies and the about turn in tax policies particularly the ones bankrupting airlines.

Many of us know that already by doing things like looking at non biased stats or reading the full Stern report rather than the bit that says 'if you insist with socialism then the climate might suffer.' The Devil's Kitchen has a list of his posts on this subject - well worth reading as well as the browsable database.
The whole of the anthropogenic climate change reporting and response is co-ordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produces substantial reports every few years on the current state of the science and economics.

The last of these reports—Assessment Report 4 (AR4, as it is referred to throughout the emails)—was released in 2007.

The scientific parts of the IPCC's reports have been based heavily on the research and reconstructions produced by The Club—particularly on the temperature reconstructions of Michael Mann and Keith Briffa. These reconstructions (usually involving a hockey stick graph) have been constantly attacked—and usually destroyed—by sceptics such as Steve McIntyre.

What these emails show is that members of The Club have presented, as fact, data which privately they have acknowledged to be, at best, flawed.

Further, many members of The Club are editors of the reports submitted to the IPCC, and the emails show that they have deliberately cherry-picked those that agree with their position—and conspired to discredit or reject those that do not agree with their political position.

The Club has also conspired to suborne journals, and to oust editors of other journals who are perceived as being unsympathetic to their cause. And they have been successful.

The emails show that, whilst claiming that sceptics' papers are not peer-reviewed, The Club have actively and deliberately used blackmail and smears to prevent such peer-review or, when review is unavoidable, to have conspired to skew the review process to discredit their opponents.

I asked Ma and Pa, who, for the record have been recycling and using the car as little as possible for years just from common sense rather than persistent MPs, MEPs and European Commissioners lecturing us, about this and they hadn't heard about this story.

And let's just remind ourselves again of this e-mail comment:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline

And it's been the blogosphere talking about it. That's why this is the Power of the Blogosphere edition. Knowledge, liberty and democracy needs us.

The Britblog roundup is not to be used for promoting a political view point but this rant is about the fact that a story which I think is hugely important because it's dictating so many changes to our lifestyle is not being debated. Debate is necessary and healthy in a democracy. It's like the USA not allowing the UN to talk about how drug liberalisation might just be a good thing for stopping antisocial behaviour and the such.

Matthew writes regarding Prof Ian Blackshaw's comments on a virtual referee. I don't understand but I have worked out that other people find something about a match quite outrageous.

Edward Woodward has died and Johnault writes about his personal memories.

Liberal England writes about why he has some sympathy for the 'Turnip Taliban' - what a stupid and offensive name for a group of people who just didn't want to have a adulteress as their parliamentary candidate. Localism is triumphed by David Cameron (years after UKIP did but still, I think it's a good thing) for absolutely everyone but his party, who must have his and central office's opinions forced upon them. Ironic anyone?

Liz Truss might not be shagging a married man anymore but she did and many find that not only offensives but a sign of a lack of honesty. Turnip fucking Taliban...are they making vegetable IEDs in Middle Eastern countries to target British troops, taking the use of fertilizer for mass murder a little too far?

Finally (and what a long journey we've had tonight!) a subject close to my heart, having been fortunate enough to read statements around the case of Paul Clarke including evidence from a senior police officer which was not used in court. Jack of Kent goes through the legal aspects of the case.

For me, that a man hands in a weapon - an ex soldier who would be comfortable in handling weapons and making them safe - to a senior policeman on an arranged visit and ends up facing incarceration in my opinion shows that the law and, in my opinion, the local police force, is an ass. From what I have read Mr Clarke appears to have been harassed by the local police force.

It's like RIchard Brunstrom and his relentless pursuit of speeding motorists over burglary and murder in North Wales only this time rather than general obstinacy it appears to be personal.

So that's it, and I do hope you enjoyed it as it took me bloody hours. Next week we're off to Charles Crawford so send in your nominations to britblog [at] gmail [dot] com.

Until next time, toodle pip!



Saturday, November 21, 2009

A note to pedestrians

If there's a bike cycling along the road (that's the tarmaced thing where things travel along at speed and you shoudn't walk into the middle of it) - normally given away by bright clothing and flashing lights don't fucking walk out in front of it. Keep your fucking eyes open and look at what you're doing.

I know the chances are that you have some nice man to do everything for you and even stepping off the kerb to hail a cab is an effort but so try because I don't want to hit you: not because I care about you but because it will really hurt me and my bike.

Friday, November 20, 2009

PA quotes of the day

"Maybe it is healthier but that should be people's choice and not because a pop star thinks farting cows and pigs herald the end of mankind" - Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall criticises Sir Paul McCartney's campaign to encourage meat eaters to go without flesh one day a week to cut greenhouse gases emitted by cattle.

Ed Balls up education

I was delighted to read yesterday that Prince Charles has stopped talking to plants in order to tell that fool Ed Balls that it's a really, really bloody stupid idea to stop teaching children useful things when they're at school.

Traditional subjects such as history and geography are to be sidelined in the biggest shake-up of primary education for 20 years.
Ed Balls vowed to press ahead with changing the curriculum to more general themes and topics...Under the Children's Secretary's plans, 13 stand-alone subjects will be merged into six 'areas of learning'. For example, history, geography and citizenship will be put together into 'historical, geographical and social understanding'.
Teachers will no longer have to cover certain periods of history such as the Tudors, or choose between the Victorians or the Second World War.

The thing with history, maths and geography is that not a lot of children study them in their spare time as they're out stabbing each other or, shock, playing computer games.

Children go to school mainly so parents can go to work and thus not have to spend all day with their ghastly offspring but also to learn about things that might not be that interesting but are quite important. History, culture, being able to work out what 10% of the bill is, how to write a letter or get from one part of the country to the other.

It also helps them find out what things they're good at and what they enjoy so they can develop in certain areas for future studying or even interesting days out for their parents to put on.

I hadn't the first clue about blogging or html before I sat down in my spare time and decided to learn and if I could have done it in my 20s then a child can do it much quicker than me!

Does this also mean that they won't learn foreign languages and once again Britain will lag behind other countries with only the few being able to travel abroad without having to shout 'sausage, egg and chips' to the waiter?

This government is ruining this country and ruining the lives of the children in this country and it's not just them of course but the cosy global consensus where they'll have to learn how great the EU is and how climate change is all the fault of your mum and your pet hamster, whizzy, because he farts too much.
'This is a huge step forward.' said Vernon Coaker

If 'forward' actually means 'backwards' then yes, I suppose it is. A huge step forward for our children and for education would be to revoke Baker's 1986 law on corporal punishment so they actually learn about discipline and sit down in a class room and listen to what they're being taught.

It's another classic Balls up from this foolish, elitest bean counter who needs to lose his seat and quickly.

But no matter how outraged we get at the torrent of incompetence which floods our daily lives, what will we actually do about it?

Tut, laugh when it's mocked by professional comedians on satirical news quizzes but fundamentally what we, the voters, will do is fuck all. We put them there. We put them all there and at the next General Election we'll put another bunch of the same but with blue ties in charge.

So we'll get more of the same.

The same QUANGOS, interference, high taxes and incompetent health care with the word 'choice' possibly thrown around a bit more. Yes, I agree that generally speaking choice is a good thing but wouldn't it be nice to hear some decent options to choose from? I suspect that what ill people want is to see a doctor who will do something within a reasonable time rather than choose between two hospitals they have a preference for dying in.

No one's perfect but are we so obsequeious that we think that people who think Max Clifford has the answer are the right people to govern Britain?

Take your pick of fuck ups: PSCOs instead of police men on the streets, Lisbon Constitution with no referendum, expenses, HIPS, the civil contingencies act, the closure of miles and miles of railway lines in rural areas causing our modern day traffic jams, the removal of liberties of muslim women who live in Britain so not to offend those who choose to deny them a modern standard of living, VAT, John Birt, Defence Estates, the abolition of corporal punishment in schools despite the view, now proven, that this would lead to a breakdown in juvenile respect for adults and a determination to actually fucking learn something rather than give teachers a hard time trying to improve their lives. For their parents who take no responsibility and don't work anyway because they're allowed not to at our expense.

They all are policies of Labour AND Tories so how will one side definitely be better thatn the other and correct the ills when history shows the only thing people in positions of power to is fuck things up royally. Unless we are at war?

And people who stick to their usuals, as if voting were a quick sherbet in the local after a tough day in the office, are to blame. People who make Endemol men rich. People like Peter Bazalgette Who brought us Big Brother and Changing Rooms and Charlie Dimmock's bra less mammories desperately making a bid for freedom over the water feature. Of course his great-great grandfather brought London decent sewerage system. As Stephen Fry so eloquently put it, Sir Joseph Bazelgette did enormous works to clean up London's streets whilst his great great grandson has managed to pump it back into people's homes.

We watch it, we buy the papers with some orange slag with nothing to say on the front. We vote for the person with the suitable wife and the snazzy soundbites. We get excited about MPs expenses more than we do the erosion of our own liberties.

We are, we are to blame. They just take advantage of what we're giving them without thing or chosing to find out who they are and what they really stand for.

And they'll tinker at the edges but they or their successors wion't change because they won't have to change unless we demand wholesale reform and stick to those reforms rather than not bothering because Coro-fucking-nation street is on. A programme I have never watched because it's the bad side of diazepam in screen format and it stops our country actually being a decent place to live. Others might be worse but can we reach for the stars instead of making do with the lowest common denominator?

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The Armed Forces - a taskforce for a task force?

So the latest poll results give a clear indication of what you think our Prime Minister thinks of the Armed Forces

  1. Lots came in at 17%
  2. Not as much as they hate him romped home at 68%
  3. Oh, he wishes they didn't have weapons came a weak third at 9%
  4. I don't know but has he claimed them on expenses came in last at 4%. Presumably because he actually has already.
Earlier today, that vile beast Harriet Harman who knows as much about the Armed Forces as I do about the inner workings of the internal combustion engine decided to make a statement today on including the Armed Forces. According to the press release sent out yesterday:

The package of measures is:
  • The establishment of an Employment and Skills Taskforce, chaired by Yvette Cooper, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to support service families’ access to the same employment, further education and training opportunities as the civilian community.
  • An Armed Forces Champion for each Jobcentre Plus district who will act as first point of contact for service families and keep up to date with local activities to support service families
  • A further Government review of how well local authority plans on childcare reflect the needs of service families, and what good practice examples and problems there are around transport, and consider if additional guidance is necessary
  • Government will review the guidance given to local authorities on school allocations policy to ensure it reflects the needs of service families

The Government will publish a report on this work early next year, focussing on practical steps which improve the lives of Service family members.

I'm sure they will, although it's not actually news because they have to according to the command paper which set out lots of lovely things like priority treatment for veterans which has been as successful as the British public's choice of government.

The only way they can think of solving this supposed crisis with the Armed Forces causing the government PR disasters is to give lots of non jobs to inexperienced, fat women who talk in irritating voices, patronise everything they come into contact be they animate or not, wear skirts made from hemp and studied something pointless at a former polytechnic.

The reason the Armed Forces has been such a PR disaster for the government is because the government has been such a disaster for the Armed Forces. One of their first actions was to close down tens of thousands of TA positions, the U turn in cutting £20 million of the TA budget was the SECOND line of cuts the TA has had to make despite it playing a significant part in the current conflict and they want to cut infantry numbers when what we need is more infantry in Ghanners for more patrols to limit the time the Taliban have to plant IEDs and enter communities and bribe and threaten villagers.

With the £20 million cut in TA funding they also pledged this little beauty for the young men fighting on the front line:
Single Living Accommodation: £14million savings will delay some planned upgrades for 2009, 436 will be delayed and 149 will not be completed this year.

So there's a big 'fuck you' to the young privates and lance jacks. Fuck off - we'll claim over twice that in our expenses whilst you live four to a room in a shit hole.

This is on top of the latest report from the National Audit Office which outlined more delays in the upgrading of married quarters when the previous report showed unacceptable delays nicely rounds off how completely out of touch this bunch of lunatics are:
The condition of Service Families Accommodation is variable: 57 per cent (28,300) are in the best state (condition 1), 33 per cent (16,600) in condition 2, and the remainder are in the worst two conditions (four per cent) or their condition is not recorded (six per cent). Condition 2 is a broad band; many houses within it are a good standard overall, but others have serviceable but outdated kitchens and bathrooms.
These figures are likely to change as a result of a recent comprehensive condition survey. When asked about the condition of their property, 52 per cent of families who responded to our survey rated it as good but 31 per cent said it was poor. The Department’s aspiration is to raise all its houses to condition 1 and it has a programme
to upgrade some 600 properties in 2008-09 to the top standard, with a further 800 a year thereafter. It prioritises work in order to balance a focus on the worst properties with delivering an efficient programme, and targets properties in areas with a long term future. The investment in upgrades has varied over the years. At current rates of progress, and against the previous stock condition data, it would be some 20 years before all properties are condition 1, assuming that funding beyond 2011-12 situated on Armed Forces bases or within the community.

How, Harriet and Bob, with your multiple tax payer funded and furnished homes, here's a fucking thought. How about you stop wasting our time and our money with your 'community outreach programmes' because life within the forces is very inclusive. How about you stop highlighting how you know fuck all and do something about very basic things which are your responsibility. Decent housing, stopping children going to the bottom of the waiting list if their parents move bases, more helicopters and greater troop numbers. You are already so shit that you assist a charity in doing the work that you should be doing, to the detriment of other military charities who have for years plugged the gap in your failing authoritarian state. Not that I don't agree with charities but I do object to them having to fill in such gaping holes when the government already steals so much of our monthly pay cheque.

I simply cannot wait until you leave office and I sincerely hope you lose your seats. You are an embarrassment to this country and you are a danger to our liberty and well being. Go. Leave. You are not just a liability you are downright dangerous.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

What time has told us

That Lady Thatcher was right.

"Perhaps being totally incompetent in monetary matters they'd be only too delighted to hand over the fully resposibilitieis to the IMF, to a Central Bank...

So yes the right honourable gentlemen would be glad to hand it all over.

What is the point of trying to get elected to Parliament on to hand over your Sterling and to hand over the powers of this house to Europe?"

This shows that the appalling Labour Party have not changed from the days when they were in opposition and this country had a strong and decisive leader in Mrs Thatcher. Alas, what has changed is that David Cameron is not fit to lick the shoes of the great lady who knew that when she was elected to be Prime MInister of this country she had a love and responsibility which meant she wasn't going to hand it anywhere.

It's much the same with the Queen, I suppose. History has been littered with having to try correct the mistakes of men but what we clearly need is a Matriarchal society as women actually give a fuck about what they're dealing with, rather than just themselves.

What Mrs Thatcher had to say following Norman Tebitt's comments about the binding of Parliament is exactly what's just happened with this sickening Labour government. No Parliament should be able to bind another and the British people should be able to vote in General Elections to change things. But what these grey suited dullards more interested in cocktail parties and their property portfolio than in actually governing have allowed is the Lisbon Treaty which has changed our political landscape drastically for the worst. The only way we'll be able to get back to a situation where British people can control their own future is by leaving the European Union and replacing it with a simple free trade agreement.

I wish we had her back, or at least MPs in Westminster who not only talk about what happens at these European Summits but that a Prime Minister came back and talked about how they fought for the independence of our Parliament and for our country to be a democracy and a sovereign state.

Newspaper sinks to new depths shocker

Most of us have reached the stage where we're used to tabloid newspapers undertaking the sort of 'investigations' which would make the majority of people shiver and stab themselves before undertaking. Mark Reckons has alerted me to a new such depth undertaken by The Sun following their use of a grieving mother to attack their former buddy, Gordon Brown.

It's a pity that Rupert Murdoch does hold such power in deciding who runs this country because alas the grasp of politics, science and general knowledge by the vast majority of journalists is very slight. Cheers all round to the ones who have to wikipedia the so called 'celebrities' they are often told to write about, even if it does add to the time taken to finish the 'story'. Opinion revolves around who the editors are friends with and which bit they know about, because of course the press don't monitor the parliamentary chamber where most of our laws are debated or spend much time outside their protective bubble.

To sink to attacking the children of a man who was sacked by our Orwellian government for having an opinion is stinking, putrid detritus and also hypocritical since I know of many a hack working for News Int who themselves drunk before the age of 18, have admitted to taking drugs and have no problem with removing their clothes.

I don't object to them doing any of that naturally, it's the fact that they choose to preach and judge people for doing the same thing for no other reason than they work for a newspaper organisation which is too scared to have a debate on the legalisation of drugs. Why? Surely everyone has been told at some point that alcohol and tobacco would be class A should they be made illegal and yet there appears to be no outcry as they trip down to the subsidised bar or have a smoke on the terrace.

I will assume that this didn't come from the political team themselves given one or two of their opinions on these dastardly illegal substances as they, would you believe, are definitely more sensible than the view that not so esteemed organ chooses to take.

This last bit made me snort with derision:

He also came up with one of his trademark far-out theories - accusing us of bribing a pal to send in a picture of him smoking a roll-up ciggie

One, that looks very much like a normal roll up to me and two, I hardly think that paying people for leaking them stories is in any way 'far out' unless 'far out' now means 'accurate'.

I for one have been approached to do the same thing. I don't happen to store photographs of people smoking roll ups, though. But it's a reason why my facebook profile has quite high security settings.

If Mr Coles is suggesting that Master Nutt is slightly deranged with his concept of 'far out' theories I wonder if there's a legal suit winging it's way Wapping-Wards?

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Childish I know

So 1000 anti war protestors have braved the weather for a march past in Edinburgh where the annual NATO Parliamentary Assembly is taking place.

The usual people were there: students, people in back packs, anti nuclear protestors who don't really understand about defence but are jolly good at making parsnip wine and some families of dead soldiers. Fair enough for the latter, but most soldiers do want to continue with the fighting.

Also joining the march, and bringing joy to my heart, was Dutch senator Tiny Koxx.

That's right, Tiny Koxx.

I couldn't give a fuck about the old moaners who will never understand the Armed Forces and quite frankly am not going to give them and their silly march any more publicity.

So I'll just say the fact that there's a Dutch Senator called 'Tiny Koxx' again and smile.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

A thought on the non story

I do hope that these stories in The Sun about the letters don't fall foul of the law of unintended consequences.

It is a fact that more soldiers will die in this conflict and, having spoken to families who have received letters of condolence from the Prime Minister and greatly appreciated them, I'd hate to think that this latest non story stopped this from happening.

I'm rubbish at spelling and rely on spell check to assist me in the same way that many people rely on calculators to do mathematics that I can do in my head. The Prime Minister is also a busy man - I wish he wasn't because the hapless man has all but destroyed this country and continues to do so.

But in a time of grief a hand written letter from the Prime Minister is an important gesture. Okay, it's a gesture but it's not a political stunt because there were no bloody press releases about it when he took the decision to do this.

What would be terrible is if because of this PR disaster for him, spurred on by the paper who until a few weeks ago were all in favour of Labour and a grieving mother other families did not get that personal touch.

I do hope that Gordon Brown, for the short time he has left as Prime Minister does not let this fiasco deter him from doing one of the few things he has done right.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

New Poll - Armed Forces

Did anyone see how pissed off Gordon Brown looked at the Festival of Remembrance last night? One can only presume, especially given his performance today at the Cenotaph, that he objected to them being so loved by the people when he clearly isn't.

He cuts numbers, ignores the advice of Generals about needing equipment and increase in troop numbers to give less time for Terry to plant IEDs and he was desperate to slash funding for other non regular Army elements (and still succeeded with all but the TA) before he was shamed into pretending he didn't want to all along. And that's just the Army.

I've popped a poll up there in the corner so you can express your opinion. I look forward to seeing the results.

Britblog Roundup

As per, The Chameleon has done herself proud. One presumes if she blushes on receiving a compliment she will turn a becoming shade of pink.

rock and a bloody hard place

And not a good hard place. Not, like, a floor with a back injury or somewhere sturdy when you need to plane a door so it doesn't stick in the frame.

Bad hard place and bad rock.

After abandoning plans to hold a referendum on Europe, following last week’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Hague said the Tories accepted that constitutional reform would not be on the EU agenda for some years.

And while the party remained Euro-sceptic, a Conservative Government would not get into a “bust-up” over its new policy of seeking to negotiate opt-outs in a number of areas of European policy and pass a sovereignty bill to stop further powers being repatriated for some time to come...

Right, so no decent hand when it comes to negotiation and now they've told the buggers that they'll effectively just pussfoot around pracitising the French they learnt during the skiing season when they were at uni.
“We will be working with our European partners on climate change, on the single market, on free trade and so on. That will be our responsibility and we will do that very well.”

Oh fuck me. You can't have free trade when you're part of a European Union which has a common external tariff. It also uses 'human rights an that' to impose Western standards of work, employment and other such things on poor countries who desperately need to trade to remove themselves from a subsistence living. And that's without the bastard EU trotting along and buying up their fishing rights then spending our tax money on Leer jets and mercedes for their dictators (that's 'foreign aid', by the way).

So bascially what the Tories are going to do is a big, fat dollop of fuck all. They'll pretend that we haven't transferred most of our law making abilities to the EU and ponce around here having debates about duck houses.

It's as futile as the Scottish blithering on about independence when they still want to be in the EU and Northern Irish politicians debating about policing when the Lisbon Treaty's been signed.

Nut jobs. Read some EU legislation. Have a quick look at the treaty that these bastards have signed you up to and then realise that if you're a British politician, unless you're an MEP outside of a large group with loads of staff, then you can concern yourself with wondering if those scatter cushions would look nice in your office and where to go next recess.

And if you're a voter then blame yourself when you vote Lib/Lab/Con and nothing changes.

I'll be here, ready to say I told you so.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

1000th post - and what they gave me to write about

Forgive, once again, my tardiness in commenting on the actions of the Tory Party when it comes to their least favourite policy: the EU.

Mr Eugenides had promised he would write a little something in honour of this momentous post but due to matters out of my control and probably to do with skirt, he's now too busy. However, I will forgive him because, as frequent readers will know, he has a bewitching hold over me.

But enough of that, for we have the Tory policy on the EU to mull over. And Cameron made a particularly fine effort when he used a lot of words to say not a lot.

The thrust of the argument is that William Hague will go to the other ministers and say that he wants the UK to have opt outs from the EU over issues on employment law, such as the social chapter (now articles 136 - 145 of the Treaty and thus not a 'chaper' anymore), taxation and general sovereignty issues.

I worry that the future Prime Minister, whose eyes appear only to be on getting the keys to Number 10 rather than the future of this country, does not understand that because of the Factortame decision European Law is superior to UK law and has been since The Lady was in charge of the country.

We will also introduce a new law, in the form of a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.

This is not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation.

It is about an assurance that the final word on our laws is here in Britain.

Except that every schoolboy is wrong, and so is David Cameron. That's not bloggertarian hysteria, by the way: it's First year Law at every university in the land.

"Some public comments on the decision of the Court of Justice, affirming the jurisdiction of the courts of member states to override national legislation if necessary to enable interim relief to be granted in protection of rights under Community law, have suggested that this was a novel and dangerous invasion by a Community institution of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.

But such comments are based on a misconception. If the supremacy within the European Community of Community law over the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law. [...]
As he who shall not be named for a few weeks at least points out.
Many Tories appear happy with this decision but whether it's because they think it will actually produce any results or whether it's settled their concerns that the electorate will view them as just another bunch of jumped up fuckwits more interested in power than actually doing anything with it, I am unable to say.

Helmer and Hannan are not happy with it, and as these chaps actually know a lot about the EU perhaps that should light a beacon in the view of the party activists and voters who want the British people to actually have a say.

Because the Tories will go into this negotiation having already informed their opponents that they will not play their trump card, withdrawal, I can hardly see them being a success. Such is the lustful panting of The Boy Dave over our slavish and costly membership of the EU their counterparts can just sit there and say 'NO' in a variety of languages knowing there will be no backlash.

And then what? This is already a five year policy - five years of paying billions of pounds to an institution which is going to vote itself another pay rise of 10% come December whilst the press look the other way. In that five years just think of what can happen seeing as it's only been four years since the French and Dutch said NON and NEE and now we have a Constitutional Treaty which has bound our parliament.

The blindness or plain refusal to admit to themselves and us that these big things we need to deal with, like the economy and public debt are bound up with our membership, is deeply frustrating. Cameron is displaying signs of Polly Syndrome: He says he will be lumbered with this astronomical debt but he won't take steps to stop us paying about £50 million a day to an institution which on top of this financial burden also wants to close down the City of London and does everything in its power to stop people being productive and efficient.

I expect it from Labour and the Lib Dems because I think they're mendacious, dribbling morons. They also don't pretend they are in any way eurosceptic which of course the Tories do.

UKIP now represent a very key part in the General Election and not just the jolly good battle which will take place in Buckingham. Aside from some cunt trying to bankrupt the party - conveniently after they beat Labour in the European Elections but that's the travesty that Blair did to the legal system and the civil service - they are now the only party offering the British people the chance to have their say.

Good news on the UKIP front today is that Tom Wise looks to be spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure. And he used to be a copper which means he won't be having any fine wines unless they're shoved where the sun don't shine.

I am glad that Lindsay Jenkins now will not face charges because she was a pawn in the game of a very nasty man. It was all about the funding of a book, you see. The tale told to me was that one of Sunday Times hack Daniel Foggo's alleged contacts who has been causing trouble in UKIP circles for many years came up with this idea of her book being funded through secretarial allowances. Now, this is not allowed and one must ask oneself why this idea was proposed so vigorously to a number of UKIP MEPs who turned down the idea by someone who would know that this wasn't permitted. One of his lady friends decided to spill the beans on the plot, it has been said.

And why did she spill the beans? Well, our friend the rumour mill says it's because she was pissed off that she didn't get any of the money which was promised to her from Mr Wise. But seeing as I only received that information from party officials and not directly from the source I cannot confirm.

If this was true then surely there should be questions raised about the gentleman in question and, indeed, the lady?

I wonder how old Roger Knapman is taking the news of his friend pleading guilty? When Nigel Farage and John Whittaker took the decision to suspend Mr Wise over this, Mr Knapman was most affronted and one of the people who have been linked to the nutty Junius blog, his former researcher, even sent press releases to the lobby briefing against the party and not informing the UKIP press office. Roger Knapman was aware that Tom Wise was being investigated but had decided not to tell the UKIP leader or chairman. Ah, I was glad when he was no longer leader. It's a shame that one of the people who I understood to be working for a leadership contender also knew and decided not to say anything.

It was a most undignified mess but then most things under Knapman's leadership were including certain diverted e-mails from head office to a former MP who then, it has been alleged, decided to forward them onto the usual troublemakers.

I'd like to think that this has brought an end to the saga of the loonies. Many have left to form their own party and then quit that, some have died, some are still bimbling around inventing stories about Farage and Hannan and calling up Sunday journalists.

In any case, 1000 posts later I do feel that lines have been drawn under a few issues which were at the forefront of my life when I started this blog.

Most importantly, we know where the Tories lie on matters of national sovereignty and we know that when it comes to a vote on the future of our country, they won't be the ones to deliver.

So if we want to take our lives by the scruff of the neck and decide for ourselves then the Lib Lab Con won't be the people to vote for.

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Why oh why do we pay taxes?

Forgive my tardiness on the subject of David Nutt and his sacking for saying something the government didn't like.

But what can one really say that hasn't been said a thousand times on this blog and others far superior to my pink witterings?

The fact is that what Professor Nutt said, and for those of you who've been dead for the last few days, here it is:

He repeated his familiar view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

He also argued that smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.

has been around for years.

Presumably that means that the chap who came to my school to give myself and my school chums a lecture on drugs was also fired for making the point that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than other drugs? It's hardly a new statement and that's because it's true. There are these handy things called statistics which prove it.

But of course that doesn't fit in with the way the government and, as reports show, the Tories want us to live our lives. They know that what professor Nutt said was true but it would mean having to justify why alcohol and tobacco are still legal and why other drugs aren't. Taxes and convenience, mainly. And who would vote for a party which proposed to ban booze? Patsy Hewitt, the wierd woman who lives down the end of the road and shouts at shadows and that's about it.

Alan Johnson should be ashamed of himself for morphing into a beast which despises debate and truth. Sacking people because you don't like what they say is something which this country fought against - years ago with our legislative reforms and also against other countries.
As the row intensified yesterday, Nutt said he had been contacted by more than half the council's members, who had shared their "horror and disgust" over the manner of his dismissal and were now considering resigning en masse.

Do the decent thing and resign. Do the decent thing and stand up for what you believe in. It is what this country needs in the long run along with thousands of people like you who also put their hands up and say 'my god but these politicians are shit.'

And of course what it needs is millions of people not to vote for vile parties who say that people should be sacked for putting the government in a difficult position by expressing an opinion.

Because that's fascism.

This country is fucked, though. Recently I've just been sitting here wondering what the point of it all is. Where can we move to, away from these hidous beasts who need to be removed for the sake of liberty and freedom? People are stupid, that I know. But when people get into politics they become caricatures of the stupid people they repesent and, combined with that narcisism and greed which propels people to scrabble and claw for the upper echilons of power, it turns them into the worst examples.

What has this life, this country become?