George Pascoe-Watson gets it very wrong

The political editor of the Sun has made a few errors in his article about Cameron and UKIP....oops!

DAVID CAMERON has proudly declared himself a true blue Thatcherite – to snuff out the threat of the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP could be the one hurdle standing between Mr Cameron and the door to 10 Downing Street.

Jumping up and down and saying "I'm a Tory, I like Thatcher" does not a convincing argument make. Don't tell me, show me, I say. Especially when every speech you make points to the opposite.

Thousands of EU-hating Tory diehards could ditch Mr Cameron at the next election. And they risk handing power to Labour by default.

Well, if you don't like the EU, why would you vote for David Cameron? He is PRO EU, after all. And handing power to Labour by default? It's not one or the other, George.

So now Mr Cameron has left no one in any doubt by shouting from the rooftops that he IS a Tory.

Well, no, he hasn't actually. He's left plenty of people in no doubt that he's worried about UKIP, and is desperate to try stop yet more people defect to UKIP. Actions speak louder than words, as I said.

He said yesterday: “We believe in freedom under the law, personal responsibility, sound money, strong defence and national sovereignty.

Yet we want to remain in the EU, which has taken away huge amounts of our national sovereignty, and makes 75% of our laws, his concept of personal responsibility is to do what he says you should do, he doesn't want to cut tax, wants to keep state spending high and is happy for the EU to keep a Common Foreign Security and Defence Policy (it was Major who signed up to Maasctricht after all. )

“Those who ask whether I am a Conservative need to know that the foundation stones of the alternative government that we’re building are the ideas that encouraged me as a young man to join the Conservative Party and work for Margaret Thatcher.”

Alternative how? What does Cameron actually want to change?

The Conservatives must win more than 125 more seats at the next election to form a government.

Then they had better start fighting for them. Some policies would be a start, instead of all this window dressing and empty rhetoric.

Mr Cameron needs many more than that to give him a fighting chance of staying in power for more than one term. Every single marginal seat must turn blue.

Although it will be faux-blue. Because the Conservative Party under David Cameron is not a traditional party of low tax and small state.

A few hundred hardline Tories voting UKIP on the night could prove the difference between success or failure. Their supporters have given up on Mr Cameron sticking to traditional Conservative values.

That would be because they have given up. People will vote UKIP because they feel that UKIP are the party who represents them. If that is the case, why should they vote for any other? Why should I care about the Tories getting in when they don't represent me?

He has spent an entire year rebranding the party as a modern-day force interested in the environment and public services.

Without actually bothering to look at the science behind climate change, either. He's pushing full steam ahead with this 'save the planet' bullshite that I think is just a convenient way to raise taxes and demand more state control. And I do wish that people would stop holding up our public services as some kind of indication of excellence. They aren't. They are shit.

In trying to bring his party screaming into the 21st Century, he has left many feeling they no longer belong.

Presumably because they don't. I used to think I was a Tory, but I ain't!

And so UKIP have already enticed two Tory peers and one of Iron Lady Mrs Thatcher’s most respected economists to their ranks. Conservative funder Stuart Wheeler might even follow suit. Yet UKIP have absolutely no chance of ever winning a Commons seat.

Is there some kind of ban on UKIP holding seats that I haven't heard of? Or is this just a fatuous remark? If enough people vote UKIP, then they can win a seat. Simple.

They won just 2.2 per cent of the vote in the 2005 General Election yet cost the Conservatives around 30 seats.

In a very bad year for the party, when the politicians and media made sure that the EU was not mentioned during the entire campaign.

UKIP’s uncompromising “quit Europe” message still appeals to large numbers of dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives.

Like your dad? And Labour, and Greens, and Lib Dems, and people who don't vote. People like your father actually, George. People who don't want to be ruled by Brussels, people who want free trade, who want low taxes, low state interference. Those are the people who want out of the EU.

UKIP’s leader Nigel Farage has himself cost one Conservative candidate a seat. Mr Farage contested Labour marginal Thanet South for UKIP, coming fourth with 2,079 votes. If just 667 of those had voted for Tory candidate Mark MacGregor, he would have taken the seat from Labour.

Considering that Norman Tebbit told people not to vote for MacGregor, I think it's a pretty clear indication that voting for Mark would have been the same as voting for Ladyman. Why should the people in Thanet South not have the chance to vote for someone who represents their views?

UKIP are trying to blackmail Tory MPs by promising them no opposition if they sign up to a campaign to pull Britain out of the EU.

Erm, no they're not. They're just saying they are not going to stand against people who stand for the same things they do. Seems sensible to me.

Mr Cameron is furious and has warned his troops not to touch the UKIP offer with a bargepole. He has already declared he would pull Britain out of the EU’s social chapter, which saddles firms with job-destroying costs.

George. The Social Chapter does not exist. The Social Chapter was a protocol of the Maastricht Treaty, signed by John Major, which he secured an opt out to. Since Labour signed it in 1997 (and let's not forget that you supported the Labour party then) we no longer have a choice about opting out. The clauses are now contained in Articles 136 - 145 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which David Cameron does not want to withdraw Britain from. This is just another example of Cameron saying anything to get elected, like the Tory promise to withdraw from the CFP, when to do so would have required leaving the EU altogether as it is contained in the Treaty Establishing a European Union.

He has vowed never to scrap the Pound or sign up to an EU constitution. And he has already pulled the Tories out of cosy links with pro-EU parties in Brussels — which predecessors William Hague and Michael Howard never did.

Wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

He has promised not to sign up to thisConstitution, but not any.
And as for saying that he has pulled the Tories out of the EPP, where have you been? They are still quite happily sitting there, being led by a man who may soon face criminal charges for misuse of public funds, unless MEPs vote to allow him immunity. Please, if you must write, get your facts straight.

The irony is this: If UKIP are to blame for a hung Parliament, the pro-EU Lib Dems will hold the balance of power.

Why would UKIP be to blame? What, for having the audacity to stand in an election because the other political parties do not represent them? Naughty, bad UKIP. How dare you have a voice in politics.

To me, it matters not one bit if Labour, Tories or the Lib Dems are in power - they are all the bloody same.

More Daul

I was rather amused by the first e-mail Joseph Daul sent out to the staff of the EPP group, which started:

Chères Collaboratrices, chers Collaborateurs,

And thanks to Eliab for pointing out to me that Daul is a Frenchman from Alsace who only ran for the presidency of the EPP because the outgoing leader, German Hans Gert Pöttering, told him he would have his backing as a candidate.

Pöttering, who is of course now the President of the European Parliament folling a collaberation of his own between the Socialists and the EPP over who got to president of this committee and that.

Oh, European Politics. It's so corrupt.

The European Parliament: making us angry since 1957

Or whenever the fuck it was.

'The Equal Opportunities Unit would like to remind you that the process of proposing candidates for the Equality Awards 2007 is still ongoing. This year you can propose candidates for two award categories - "Role Model" and "Best Practice".

A candidate for a Role Model award could be any colleague who, either through their professional work, or through having overcome obstacles associated with gender, disability, age or any other factor that could give rise to inequality, has helped to promote equality and/or diversity. For example, a woman working in a male-dominated environment, a colleague who has overcome difficulties associated with a disability in his/her professional work, etc.

A candidate for a Best Practice award could be any colleague or department/unit/DG having devised and implemented one or several initiative(s) aimed at promoting equality and/or diversity. For example, a department/unit/DG that has taken steps to reduce the gap between men and women in its management team or to encourage a better balance between work and family life, or again to integrate disabled colleagues.

The Selection Committee will make the final decision on the awards winners based on the motivations, so it is worthwhile to argue for your candidate's case well! Please take your time to fill in one of the attached candidate proposal forms (EN, FR, DE). When you open the form, click "Enable Macros", fill it in and press the button at the end of the form to return it to the Equal Opportunities Unit. The deadline for sending in your proposals is 5 February 2007.

For further information see the Newshound articles

http://www.europarl.ep.ec/inside/newshound/articles_arch/prix_egalite_061212_en.htm

http://www.europarl.ep.ec/inside/newshound/articles_arch/prixegalite_interview_061219_en.htm


We look forward to receiving your proposals.

Best regards,

The Equal Opportunities Unit

DG Personnel

KAD 01E018

L - 2929 Luxembourg

tel: +352 4300 23715

e-mail: egalitédeschances@europarl.europa.eu´

I think I should get the award: I managed to get into work on time despite wearing heels that, as a woman, society dictates I wear. Now, who is going to nominate me, eh? I have the forms on my computer just waiting to be filled in....

This is what my money goes on. These bunch of PC wankers..fucking equal opportunities Unit: I hope there are exactly the same number of men and women working there, unlike the Lesbian Commission*, which employs 80% women.

*okay, so it's not actually called that, but it may as well be.

Tories: shitting their pants?

Trixy has managed to get wind of a very interesting e-mail via a selection of people I have never met before in my life. I thought the comment was very telling about the current real world* Tory attitude to all these defections to UKIP over the last week:

07:20 Lord Kalms has joined UKIP. Stuart Wheeler has met Nigel Farage. Stuart Wheeler, big Conservative donor: I think DC has done well for the Conservatives and part of me doesn’t want to wreck that but the party hasn’t done enough on Europe. I want the Conservatives to form the next Govt and UKIP won’t be doing that. Nigel Farage’s view is that he’s got to force DC’s hand to make him be a lot tougher. What the EU costs us: 40b for the average family is £2000 a year.

So despite the Boy Blunder standing by his comments that UKIP are 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly...' his loyal party workers are slightly more worried than he.

Or maybe he is worried, but the snake oil salesman just turns up looking like nothing bothers him? Still, I suspect that The Anaconda's shoulder may be a little damp with tears of a crying Tory leader at the moment. Thank heavens he has some friends....

*i.e not the wankers in Notting Hill

First there was Barrot

and then Toubon and now Joseph Daul!

For those of you who don't remember, Jaques Barrot was the Commissioner who Nigel Farage revealed had received a two year suspended jail sentence for misuse of party funds but who had been granted a presidential amnesty by Chirac because...well, just because. M. Toubon was the MEP from the same party as Barrot who, during the speech by Farage, started running up and down the Hemicycle saying that it shouldn't be spoken about. (Kilroy told him to sit down and told him to "speak English" so people could understand him). MEP after MEP stood up and denounced Farage for telling the truth, including the effortlessly kickable Toady Watson who never apologised, of course.

Anyway, now there is a new chapter in the 'how many French politicians can threaten to sue Nigel Farage for telling the truth' feature. On Tuesday night, Joseph Daul was elected to be President of the EPP group in the European Parliament, which is, of course, where the British Conservatives sit.

All well and good, you may say. Can anyone be worse than that nasty little fucker Hans Gert Pöttering? Well, at least we are fairly sure that Harry Pottering wasn't facing any criminal charges in the near future, unlike M Daul who, as reported in the financial times today, may be having a bit of bother in the future.

Even more amusing is that even though the UKIP team were in touch with the lawyer involved in the case, Daul has threatened to sue Farage for his 'lies'. Nothing to do with the fact that Daul has parliamentary immunity, and like M Barrot, it will probably be a crime to mention the case in public.

Le Monde picked up on a rather nice angle to the story: the misuse of funds which Daul is charged with (yes, you are) is to do with agriculture and the unions involved were hoping to get support for their case from the EU Agriculture Committee.

And guess who their chairman?

Well, I am sure that the British Conservatives will have a lovely new time with their President, and will fully support Hans Gert in his coronation to be the EP President, even though he expelled Roger Helmer from the EPP for doing what he was elected to do....

And, of course, they can join the delightful Lid Dims, Labour and Greens in voting through huge amounts of legislation and then conveniently ignoring it so the news doesn't get reported over here where the people who elect them can read about it.

Ah, I love politics.

Things that annoy me

1) The failure of people to grasp that the Consumer Price Index isn't just some nasty thing dreamed up by Gordon Brown, but is the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices which was forced on us from the EU, and which was supported by the major UK political parties, including the Tories. (I have sat in plenty of committees and heard this said)

2) People not getting their facts straight over the Plymouth / West Dorset 'mass resignations'. There weren't any mass resignations. A couple of, erm, members decided to go and to cause as much trouble as they could. Political commentators such as Iain Dale reporting that hundreds of people have resigned from all over the country is not true and is not clever commentry.

3) David Cameron: So many things

a) how to save money on food is a classic example of how little the Boy Blunder actually understands. Want to save money on food? Withdraw from the Common Agricultural Policy which raises food prices by an estimated £20 a week for the average family

b)The Three P's: People, Planet and Poverty. Or as I like to call it, Piss Poor Policies.

"'And pushing for a WTO deal to reduce tariffs will help reduce poverty in the developing world.'" said Dave.

How are you going to do that? We don't have our own seat at the WTO and instead have to rely on that prat Mandelson, who thinks it's a good idea to impose EU wide tariffs on shoes and clothes. Oh, and bikes, ironing boards, and anything else he can think of. This is exactly what stops the developing world developing. Free Trade increases global parity, and we should be abolishing all of these ridiculous trade barriers. Alas, that will not happen whilst we are held back in our policy by other countries having a say. France, Spain, Italy to name but three have not adapted to globalisation and don't want to. They want to stick to unproductive, highly regulated industries which can't compete with the rest of the world.

So here's an idea for reducing poverty. Take back our seat at the WTO and let's get on with free trade.

Planet: Well, my first suggestion to Mr Cameron would be trying to get some scientific proof about the impact of global warming, instead of encouraging people to walk around with windmills attached to their heads. Oh, and how about investing in nuclear energy? intead of rushing blindly to meet the EU renewable energy targets for 2020, which are for 20% of the UK's energy to come from renewable sources? I don't want to live in a country covered with windmills, and with any kind of flowing water dammed up for HEP, thanks. A couple of efficient nuclear power stations would do me nicely.

But, oh no!: ''Cooperation on the environment and the Emissions Trading System to reduce carbon emissions would help improve the environment of the planet.'

People: Well, seeing as Dave and his crew think that Polly Toynbee is talking sense on social matters, clearly he has no idea about social matters. Maybe the best way of helping people would be to cut taxes, stop interfering in every aspect of their lives, make small government and cut regulation. Of course, this would be much easier if we withdrew from the EU, since the most harmful social legislation comes from there. Examples? Age discrimination laws, the working time directive, the harmonised accounting procedures, MiFID, immigration policy, continual push towards higher taxes, including a miminum of 15% VAT and a limited number of exemptions?

However: 'Mr Cameron reiterated his backing for positive engagement with Europe at the Christian Social Union (CSU) party conference in Bavaria today.'

And of course, no to the EU Constitution which will just fuck this continent over.
'The Conservative Party will not support a Constitution that is about transferring more power to the EU.'

But you haven't ruled out a Consitution in principle, then? Well, I suppose that tallies up with the Built on Sand Built to Last pledge from a few months ago which again did not rule out the Conservatives supporting any EU consitution. Presumably they would only not support one which the media found out about. He's been very quiet about the FCO writing up the new document, for example...

Oh dear, Cameron. You really have no clue, do you.

I went into

the newsagents yesterday to cancel my order of Cosmopolitan magazine. "Would you like to take anything else", the newsagent asked me. "Yes," I said. "I'll take menopause magazine."

"Does it come monthly?" the newsagent asked.

"There's no reason why it should do," I said.

(with thanks to Victoria Wood for that one. That, and helping me get through the uncontrollable itching.)

Eugh

I think I have leprosy. Woke up yesterday covered in hideous and horribly itchy rash. Even more annoying is that DK would not let me scratch myself until I bled - kept saying that it 'would make it worse'. Not quite sure, of course, how it could be worse: my plans for today were to go to a park and scare children since that is how ugly I look.

Still, at least I didn't have to spend 7 hours in hospital yeserday waiting to be diagnosed and given approproate drugs to deal with it. Oh no, I did. And I had to say the same thing over and over again to a variety of different medical staff who clearly didn't know what the fuck was wrong with me, whilst the whole time DK sat there and read his book.

And I still don't know what is wrong with me, although I do look like I have leprosy. Of course, if it was leprosy I wouldn't be able to feel how much my skin was on fire, which would be nice. I would still be able to see how hideous I looked, though.

At least I'm not as sick as the NHS, though. They really are in dire fucking straits. One pharmacist for the whole hospital for the weekend? An hour to see an 'urgent' case...the mad old bat in the cubicle next to me got seen to pretty quickly after she moaned and shouted a lot, but the one who sits there quietly? 40 minutes to pick up a fucking sample!

Am going to go scratch myself now until my skin falls off.

UPDATE: according to my father, I don't have leprosy but very bad German Measles. He - would know, he's in counter terrorism - they have to know a lot about rashes...?

Polly masturbates over windfarms

Nimbys can't be allowed to put a block on wind farms

Plans to meet renewable energy targets are being stymied by local councils - mostly run by the Tories and the SNP

Those would be the renewable energy targets which the EU has set out for us, yes?

This is crunch time. If Britain is to have any chance of meeting its target to generate 10% of its energy from renewable sources by 2010, then a great leap forward is needed right now.

Yes, but it's only needed because the European Commission tell us so, based on no actual fact. If anyone actually bothered to look into it then maybe we wouldn't be saddled with such arbitrary targets.

So far only 4.2% of energy is from renewables and three years is not long to more than double it. Wind power is the clean energy closest to profitability, yet many projects - on or offshore - are being held up or rejected by local authorities. Forty per cent of all applications were refused in the past two years, most by Tory councils or the SNP.

Another reason why those EU targets are as helpful as a pekanese guidedog - they're simply unachieveable on any practical level. And why are local authorities rejecting planning applications? Maybe because they are a fucking eyesore and have damaging effects on the local environment, perhaps, as well as being incredibly inefficient when it comes to actually producing energy.

It is a hard target, running up a down escalator.

It's a fucking pointless target, my little darling.

As the nation burns up an extra 1% of energy a year instead of cutting back, so every year more renewables are needed to stick to that 10% pledge.

Or how about this, Polly?

The biggest and best project caught up in the planning quicksands is the London Array - the world's largest offshore wind farm, a £2bn Shell 271-turbine project in the Thames estuary - due to deliver 1,000 megawatts, enough to power a quarter of all greater London's homes. It has government approval but the local Swale council (Tory) has blocked planning permission for a substation to be built underneath existing pylons to service it. Local Tories are using the substation as a way of objecting to the wind farm, although it will be 12 miles out to sea and beyond their jurisdiction. They have compared it to defending the Kent coast against Nazi invasion.

Shall we just say it again, Pol?

THE NASTY TORIES WON'T LET WINDFARMS BE BUILT ANYWHERE! NASTY, NASTY, NASTY TORIES! BOO!

They represent the local area, they presumably have a greater local knowledge than you, darling. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should take into consideration their point of view, rather than some one sided rhetoric from your Labour Lovers who just see another opportunity to grab more taxes?

Wind farms now trapped in planning hell by local Nimbys amount to nearly the whole extra capacity needed to meet the 2010 target. Devon is a good case: the county has set itself a target of generating 150MW but so far has only approved 7MW of wind, as small local councils keep obstructing every proposal. Wales has set itself a target of generating 800MW by 2010, but local council refusals mean only 217MW are operating. Take Perth and Kinross (Lib Dem and SNP coalition): in terms of megawatts, a third of all wind energy refused in the last two years was by this one authority. Scottish Borders (Conservative) is responsible for 18% of refused wind farms. In Scotland, the SNP has been the main block.

Again, Polly: they presumably have a reason for not approving these wind farms. Let's not forget that the effect of carbon emissions is by no means cut and dry. It's not a proven theory and the Stern report was written by someone who Gordon Brown awarded a knighthood to and whose findings justified yet another tax opportunity, unquestioned by Westminster opposition.

Wind-farm objectors are getting strong support from the pro-nuclear lobbies and from an anti-wind outfit misleadingly called the Renewable Energy Foundation, founded by Noel Edmonds. It has been interesting to observe how an apparently non-ideological issue is turning strongly partisan. Rightwing commentators are rampantly anti-wind farms, with the same fever as they are pro-hunting.

Well, of course they are. Because if we get rid of these stupid ideas that we can save the world through windmills then perhaps we can have a proper energy policy by building a new generation of nuclear power stations. The pro nuclear lobby presumably overlap massively with the anti wind farm lobby: me, for example. As for the partisan angle, well it was rather obvious that would happen. Sensible, right thinking people realise what an absolute farce this whole renewable energy crap is.

For media would-be squires who voice old Tory passions, the wind farm has entered their hate list alongside such outrages to personal freedom as the seatbelt and the smoking ban. For some reason, most also harbour an emotional support for the nuclear industry.

Because it's the best option, perhaps? Unlike the smoking ban, which is a big pile of statist crap (she says, smoking)

It leaves Tory green credentials in disarray, since it is largely its rural seats that are blocking wind farms. David Cameron famously called wind turbines "giant bird blenders" when running for the leadership, needing Tory membership support. Now he is putting one on his roof (perhaps blending pigeons is not as bad as blending grouse). But he has a real credibility problem. His party hates wind farms, and in those Tory rural seats his people are not as green as their wellies and Land Rovers. His parliamentary private secretary, reporting to him last summer, revealed the depth of the party's hatred for wind farms. Caroline Spelman, his communities and local government spokesman, speaking in Scotland, called for a moratorium on all wind farms.

Yes, but the Boy Blunder is a moron. Of course Tory Green credentials are in disarray, because it's just spin and rhetoric.

If Cameron is serious about climate change, here is one really useful thing he can do while in opposition.

He's in opposition?

He can order his party locally to stop obstructing wind farms, on pain of excommunication.

Brilliant idea! More defectors to UKIP! And yet so typical for someone as statist as Polly to come up with: Thou must obey

Indeed all parties should do likewise, to make sure their Westminster rhetoric matches what their own people do in reality.

Oh honey, I wish they'd do that about more things. Tax, EU membership, immigration on top of renewable energy. Because I suspect then we would have fewer stupid decisions being made in Westminster / Brussels.

In Scotland and Wales, devolution makes this more difficult,

Ha ha

but the same political principle applies. All parties competing to be the most localist should consider how often their own Nimbys stop developments of all kinds that are in the national interest. Wind power is only one example of how the dash for localism may be badly misguided.

But Polly, you are assuming that local activists want windfarms, just because you and your other chimps like it. Surely by definition, nimbys, i.e not in my back yard, are people who are local and who are actually being affected by it. Wind farms aren't a good thing just because you say they are, my sweet. What David Milliband and the Gobblin' King talk to you about in the throws of passion isn't generally what the man on the Clapham omnibus thinks.

The government has now promised new planning guidance and laws that will require local planning authorities to look favourably on wind farms without each one going through the pantomime of ascertaining whether there really is a need for renewable energy. (Denial of the efficacy of wind power is now in the same flat-earth category as climate-change denial.) New planning rules will weaken local residents' right to raise aesthetic objections to wind-farm applications, so long as they are not in national parks.

ah, more harmful legislation which will once again undermine local democracy for no other reason than meeting stupid EU targets. Lovely.

Labour may feel smug on reading the British Wind Energy Association's findings that show Labour councils are more likely to approve wind farms. But it turns out that the greatest blockage in the system is inside its own Department of Trade and Industry. Section 36 applications for the biggest wind farms go direct to the DTI. Here, 465MW of wind farms have been held up, some for as long as four years. The Labour-Lib Dem Scottish executive is even worse - 4,148MW of wind power is currently stuck in limbo. However, the DTI and Scottish executive say it's not their fault - they have to consult local councils, which trigger long public inquiries as a blocker.

They may feel smug, but that's because they as a group are as useful as a racehorse with callipers and can't quite grasp the importance of actual fact, nor how their legislation is harmful. Surely the issue that local councils are blocking these applications show that there is a high level of debate and contention surrounding wind farms. I'll say it again, Polly my love: inquiries and finding out the actual impact of planning on an issue which is no means cut and dry is not a bad thing.

Every year, wind energy gets closer to profitability. Every time I see those great white wings turning on the horizon, it makes my spirits soar.

As much as GK gets your heart pumping when he stands proud and upright, waiting for your juices to start running down your legs? I tell you what would get my spirits soaring: if you actually wrote something which made any kind of sense whatsoever. Because if you grasped it, then anyone can.

How do these country folk tolerate monstrous pylons needlessly bestriding their best valleys whose cables could easily be buried, yet object to these breath-taking beauties? Those who object to wind farms should remember how easy they will be to dismantle as other technologies succeed, their scrap value more than paying to grass over where they stood. In the meantime, no party should tolerate its own local authority Nimbys stopping the most cost-effective clean energy currently available.

Way to go, Pol. End with yet another utterly pointless argument. Yes, let's all put up fucking windfarms, because when it is finally realised that they are inefficient, unnecessary and a fucking eyesore then we can take them down fairly easily!

Wonderful.

Please, chop of your hands and never write again.

cunning Tory plan?

Colleague to Trixy: "Has Michael Howard been knighted or something like that?"

Trixy: "No, I shouldn't have thought so. Why?"

Colleague: "just wondered."

Trixy: "I think it only happens to former Prime Ministers, not failed opposition leaders. Can you imagine? The entire House of Lords would be stuffed full of old Tory politicians."

Climb back in your tomb....

My little eyes glanced across this piece of writing yesterday, to which I feel duty bound as a women to comment on. It did take me a little bit of time to calm down, hence the delay. I am also not supposed to smoke in my office anymore, but I feel I may have to light a cigarette for the calming properties as I type....

So, anyway, Dr Infinite throws the London Paper down on the pub table, and the story says the killer may be "losing control". "Oh, d'you think? He's killed five people, for fuck's sake!" Yep, he's about to lose the shackles of civilisation and do something crazy. The misogynistic, prurient bile is not as salient as it once was, but it persists: prostitutes being described seriously as "vice girls" is one instance. And I don't want to be sanctimonious, but some of the contrived 'sick humour' going around (which I'm not about to republish), is another. And this insight into the psychology the killer brings you the expertise of Dr Ian Stephen who says:


"My worry is that his perception of women will change and he will see any woman who's out on the street at night on their own as a prostitute."


Oh, you mean he might start killing real people, then?

No, I don't think that's what he said, sugarlips. The point he may have been making, and which I certainly took from it, was that the killer has been killing prostitutes which I think you'll agree, reflects a certain pattern. Hence a woman walking on her own at night might be in more danger if she is considered to be a prostitute, than if not. Nothing to do with being 'real people'. Did Santa not bring you a plane to even out that chip on your shoulder?

For fuck's sake. Aside from the sinister implications of that offhand statement, there is the pointmissingness of it. Without getting into the crimmo psychology, the attack on these women isn't just an attack on prostitutes but is an act of violence against women as such.

erm, no. It's an attack on prostitutes pretty much.

Based on a bit of common sense and what the experts say, it looks as if the decision to target prostitutes reflects a) the choice of an 'acceptable' target for male rage

I think I would subsitute 'acceptable' for 'easier'. These are women who are out on their own late at night and who regularly get into cars with strangers, and consequently people don't always know where they are, who they are with or when they are due back.

and b) the attempt to discipline femininity, as in Thou Shalt Not.

So prostitutes in trousers would be okay? Glib, sorry. There may be an element of 'cleansing' I'll agree, especially since two of the victims were found in water. However, that could have been a clever way of removing evidence. I still think the easier target is the crucial part in all this.

Salma Yaqoob pointed out a while back on Question Time that the issue of prostitution is fundamentally one about the commodification of women, and the already implicit violence in that process (which is an extension of the logic of the commodification of labour, which is underwritten by the implicit violence of the state).

There is a certain 'buying and selling' aspect of prostitution, yes. But it's more of a 'hire' than 'own' aspect. I'm afraid you've lost me on the last bit, though. The implicit violence of the state? I guess the left ideal of the state is a body which forces people to do what they don't want to do, but if you don't like that idea, maybe you should embrace libertarianism?

It is a form of sexual slavery,

The Oxford English Dictionary says that a slave is:

One who is the property of, and entirely subject to, another person, whether by capture, purchase, or birth; a servant completely divested of freedom and personal rights.

So, not like prostitution, then, where people actually decide if, when and what they want to do. And get paid for it.

and not only because the vast preponderance of those who get involved start as children,

For fucks sake, do you have any evidence to prove that, or are you just writing any old bollocks? I think the majority of men who use prostitutes would rather not have a child, but a female who is a willing bedfellow and who knows what she is doing.

and are usually addicts to boot.

Very possibly. Also possibly a reason why they are in prostitution.

Even where the motive is pecuniary, you cannot seriously claim that people working in that trade are free.

you'd be right: From what I hear they are very expensive! I think I may rather need to emphasise again that many prositutes are not forced into it through violence.

That would be to take the bourgeois ideology of 'free labour' to an absurd conclusion - reductio ad absurdum, in fact.

fuck me hard. what?

The fact that the demand for prostitution is increasing tells us something about the parlous condition of gender relations in this country. The growing number of clubs like Spearmint Rhino opening up across the UK, the 1990s spurt in 'lads mags', the sexualisation of especially young girls in popular culture - all are an expression, through market transactions, of the oppression of women, of the massive, fundamental and daily material disadvantages that women face in this society.

Am, personally not a huge fan of titty joints, but I can understand why some men wish to pay money to, erm, see the money shot? And the pay is another reason why I understand that many women do it. Dance around a poll for a bit, exploiting the basic characteristics and desires of men? Whatever floats your boat, m'dear. I don't really see why this is the oppression of women, though, as they seem to walk away with the money. If they can still feel dignified and content doing what they do, then who are you to pass such harsh judgement and treat them as though they are victims? I suspect these dancers would probably laugh at you if you said that to them.

It isn't only the 30% pay cut you take for being a woman;

It's not even that, considering that that statement is a complete pile of shite. Payroll departments don't sit there going through who gets paid what and automatically deduct 30% for any female employees. If women get paid less (and I think you will find that the pay gap starts to show in later years) it's because women take a career break to have children, and thus if they aren't in work for the same length of time as male colleagues, and have less experience, then it's understandable they get paid less.

it isn't only the specific way in which 'labour flexibility' (the massive growth in part time, low paid, temporary work) and cuts to benefits affect women in particular;

normally taken up by women because they want to fit work in around their other commitments, such as their families.

it isn't only the huge burden of domestic labour.

I hope you are typing this with one hand, whilst at the same time doing the ironing...

These do explain in part why women are driven into sexual slavery,

No, they just show your complete lack of understanding and inability to grasp different points of view to your own

and into being objects of fantasy for young male consumers,

Sorry - are you saying that it's a bad thing for a woman to be considered attractive by men? Would rather halt the continuation of the human race if men and women didn't fancy each other, no?

but they are also expressions of something more fundamental. The social relations between men and women, rooted in a traditional family structure that is under real stress, condition every other relationship between them (between us, not to leave myself out of the picture). The family unit has been the chief way in which the reproduction of labour has been guaranteed under industrial capitalism.

Am I imagining it, or are you talking crap again?

The woman's subordinate role in the household and in society has ensured that the exploited male worker can go home from an exhausting, brain-numbing day, and have time to recuperate in a small, controlled environment in which he can consider himself the boss.

Speak for yourself, chappie! Just shown that to my mother who laughed her hollow laugh, as she told my father he was cooking the dinner tonight. The boss? I don't think so! In most marriages, a husband and wife consider themselves a 'partnership'. The work of both, whether the wife or husband stays at home, are very important. Being a housewife is not degrading in any way! Why should people not be able to choose what they do with their time, so long as they can afford to do so and do not harm others in the process?

By the way, have you ever been in a relationship before?

However, the breakdown of that structure, partially a result of real advances made by women, and partially the result of social atomisation and a disinclination of populations in late capitalist society to sustain these forms of comity, has not come about in a way that frees women. On the contrary, the entry of women into the labour market has, as noted, seen the reproduction of traditional structures of oppression through the market.

No. You're wrong. The entry of women into the labour market has seen an emancipation of women which is embraced by the majority of society. If women felt that they were not as well paid, respected or important as men in their jobs, then they wouldn't stay there. The advantage of market forces, you see. I love working. I am not treated any differently because I am a woman, except when my colleagues bring me in dairy milk once a month. I am not paid less for doing the same work. I am not treated like a skivvy.

This is global. It is emphatically not simply a matter of crazy fundamentalists, although conservative religious doctrine is an enabling factor. Only a short while ago, we had the spectacle of a man shooting up Amish schoolgirls, nominally because of a 20-year-old grudge. It wasn't so long ago that a man in Staten Island engaged in a custody dispute decided not only to kill the spouse with whom he was battling in the courts, but also another women with whom he had fathered a child. Just because.

Are you saying this man encapsulates all men? I agree that there are elements in religion which repress women - indeed it is a major reason why I am an athiest, but surely you can see that even in these religions nowadays, those stigmas are dying away because of globalisation and greater awareness?

The response of the father of one victim was to decry on national television the encroachment of liberals, the breakdown of Christianity, the anti-family agenda, and all the rest of it. This conservative reaction to murderous women-hatred was to insist that a return to traditional, 'organic' modes of oppression would protect women, which is structurally homologous to how religious conservatives in Afghanistan react when confronted with the rape of women there.

That is one man's view. And he could very well have a point that the breakdown of certain elements encouraged in religion such as 'thou shalt not kill' or 'love thy neighbour' may be a reason why people do have less respect towards each other. However, I don't think you can really link up a religion such as Christianity encouraging a family unit, where children are brought up by two parents in a loving environment, to a completely outrageous and unacceptable rule of law by another element of another religion.

And of course imperialism brings no liberation, at the very least because practically every imperialist adventure involves a massive escalation of sexual slavety,(sic) often child sex rings, whether in Bosnia or Kosovo or Haiti or elsewhere.

I suspect that these things are normally exploited by the nationals of that country / region and where is your evidence that this only happens under 'imperialism'? And where was the imperialism in Bosnia? Or Kosovo? Or Haiti?

The American military is sustained wherever it goes by the deliberate enslavement of women.

What completely incorrect and offensive shite. How do you manage it? I suppose it must be a talent of some form, but I can't quite find a use for it. What absolute fucking nonsense you are writing. Do you walk round in circles, since that chip on your shoulder is so pronounced it must affect your balance somehow. Some of us, it seems, are still fighting the cold war! Down with America! Why? erm...because! Because their style of government and commerce is more successful than nutty old communism? Green doesn't suit you, my dear.

More fundamentally, it is because US imperialism wants to reproduce and intensify the structures which sustain the oppression of women.

like freeing up women from the Taliban? Where is the oppression of women in America? Look at the Republican party - one of the most popular figures there is a black woman. And the Democrats - I think there is large support for Hillary Clinton, another woman!

The oppression of women, as I've tried to indicate, illuminates and intersects with every other axis of oppression and exploitation in society. And since prostitution, as an aspect of that oppression, is itself a type of commodified labour, the response should at least in part be to show solidarity with a vulnerable group of workers, to demand that they be protected by the law, not criminalised. It is outrageous that the police are begging for information but have not as yet offered any form of immunity from prosecution to sex workers who come forward.

They have, actually

The English Collective of Prostitutes is demanding an amnesty, and we as socialists should support that as a minimum. If you want to catch this bastard, stop criminalising his victims.

I, as a libertarian, am calling for that.

And more generally, legalise prostitution, recognise fully the unions formed by sex workers, and outlaw Page 3.

So women can get paid to have sex, but they can't get paid to show their breasts in a newspaper? hmmm, having trouble seeing how you reached that conclusion. I agree to a certain extent, the second I don't so much but that is because I am not a fan of unions, but why would you outlaw Page 3? Do you find breasts offensive?

I find you quite offensive, but I am not trying to outlaw you.

I hope that's not too obtuse.

Obtuse? I'm afraid so.

Ding dong the murdering arsehole is dead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dosh for Dining-Rooms

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

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

Not quite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death of a legend

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

Papa's got a brand new body bag:

Sorry.

Merry Christmas

I am fucked off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cunts, the lot of you.

Don't you know who he is?

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

Dear All,

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

Thank you very much and happy christmas to everyone!

Tory MEP

Comment from friend in the Parliament:

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

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

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

Again, why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about that, eh?

But why should I?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polly should stick to putting the kettle on

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

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

Ooooh, are all the MPs going to get sacked?

This social contract (hand up, not hand out) has mostly been kept by both sides under Labour. Tax credits and benefits for children have doubled and, for the first time

And unemployment has risen, along with the tax burden, the number of homes being repossessed and personal debt rocketing. Nice.

there are now virtually no young long-term claimants, thanks to the New Deal.

How can you be 'young' and have a long career history? Surely a dubious comment, Polly? Or perhaps you weren't actually thinking what you were writing. Did it all just pour forth like bile onto the keyboard?

Is it that simple? There is a very grey line between the plain idle and those who are illiterate, mentally unfit, psychologically odd, ex-prisoners, unattractive to employers, non-English speakers (Labour has stopped free English courses), drug addicts, alcoholics and other bad prospects. In Glasgow, for example, what are these vacancies? Mostly part-time hotel and catering, bar work and waitering with unsocial hours.

I've had to work anti-social hours. I still do, in fact. So do most people I know. Not everyone can just swan into the office, Polly, write a couple of paragraphs of complete bollocks and then fuck off home, or to number 11, for a quick drink and a fuck on the hearthrug. And as for psychologically odd, well I think you have proved to us that £140,000 a year is a potential salary for someone suffering from that particular mental disorder.

the jobseeker's allowance is a pathetic £57.45 a week, not enough to survive on. I tried, and fell into unavoidable debt within weeks. Those in debt fear taking a job as loans sharks chase them once they start earning.

Champagne is expensive...

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

But they're not actually working, are they honey. Why should they get the same wage as someone who has to get up in the morning, travel into work and actually do something all day? Why should I be funding someone to survive through the money I make by spending most of my life working? Where is the incentive there, sweetheart?

Rents are sent sky high, making it impossible for the unemployed to lose housing benefit by taking a job. They will never own a shed in the capital as the gap yawns ever wider between the 70% homeowners counting untaxed winnings every month, while the rest and their children are consigned to social housing forever.

How do you get these housing benefits? I'm still enjoying living with my parents as I coundn't afford to rent immediately when I travelled back from London. But soon, I will be renting and paying those sky high rents. Yes, It'll take me longer to pay back debts, I won't be able to go out very much, or to have so many lovely things. But it's my choice. It's what I have chosen to spend my wages on. And clearly, if rents are that high, then other people have also chosen to spend their wages on it, too.

Why is the language of rights and responsibilities, of the duty to contribute as well as to draw out, never applied to those who dance on the ceiling as they spray jeroboams of Cristal over those living on the floor?

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

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

But before you despair of Labour,

Too late

wait for next July's comprehensive spending review.

Before I emigrate?

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

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

A Christmas message from St Thickchilds

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

A Christmas message from St Thickchilds

Dear Parent/Guardian/Window licking Inbred,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yours Faithfully
Mr Morris
Headteacher

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

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

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

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

But honey, it is illegal already....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please sir, can I have some more, sir?

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

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

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

In fact, this figure of £150 million a year to the post offices was allowed to be made after the EC decided that this was the maximum figure they would allow. Never mind that the actual cost of these post offices are £4 million a week, which leaves a £58 million a year black hole...oops! Still, at least they've extended the time this can be paid from 2008 to 2011. How lucky we are to have such a generous Commission to let us do these things!

The closures are likely to begin next summer and will continue for 18 months, reducing the size of the network to about 11,760.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Winter Treat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or am I missing the point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*cue yet more chuckling....*

European Affairs debate a complete joke

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn to Love the EU

From the Mail on Sunday:

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

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

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

I suspect it's because no matter how much they love the EU, people can see beyond their lies, their deceit and their selfish disdain for the feelings of others. The fact that they have to hide the truth from people means that even they must know, ignorant and spasticated as they are, that the CAP, the Euro, the Constitution, the 'aid' deals with the developing world, the biometric passports, the Euro Army with Germany, France, Italy and Spain (because they have such a good military record) are not wanted and not needed by the general public, and people can see how much damage they do.

The operation is to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften voters up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting

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

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

Smoking: funding the NHS for nearly 60 years

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

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

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

More annoying than that was this comment from the Express:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice and Home Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For pretty pictures and the such, visit : www.Eurgendfor.org

A few home truths

Am back! And so happy to be so.

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

Firstly - immigration.

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

Our embarkation controls were removed in 1994 by the Conservative Party - which had David Davis in it at the time. In fact, he was the Minister for Europe. So why, then, are the Conservative party saying that the government has failed on immigration when their MEPs voted for enlargement, the Major administration allowed the free movement of people from the EEA and they don't want to withdraw from the EU which is where the Directive saying who can come in and out of the country comes from? Don't believe me? have a look at
EU DIRECTIVE 2004/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004

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

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

He's not.

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

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

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

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

Funding of Hamas

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

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


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

UKIPwatch give away their fears

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

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

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

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

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

'Subject: concerning freedom of thought : no comment


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

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

Wait for the next one, though:

Dear Chris, dear all

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

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


Best Regards

Margrete Auken

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

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