No, no, no, no NO!

There are some things that irritate, there are a few things that annoy and there are some things that get the red mist in front of the eyes.

Telegraph.

Ministry of Defence staff get same Afghan medal as front line troops

Civil servants working for the Ministry of Defence in Afghanistan are entitled to receive the same Operational Service Medal as front line troops.

The medal is presented to bureaucrats who have spent time at Camp Bastion, the British headquarters, by ministers at official ceremonies.

But critics said it was "offensive" that civil servants who work only at Army bases or accompanying ministers on walkabouts should be given the same medal as the troops who face the Taliban on a daily basis.

Now I'm not saying that the civil servants lives weren't in danger and I do think that if they served in Camp Bastion that they should get some sort of award, particularly if they came under fire.
Military service medals are just that for military service, you don't award Victoria Crosses to civilians, ever! There are a whole raft of civilian awards for bravery with the George Cross being the highest. However these aren't the same as campaign medals, but you don't give campaign medals to those who are not under arms or in the armed services, something the civil servants definitely are not.
Yes they should perhaps get some sort of commendation, however I do think the danger money they receive ought to cover that, they get £8,000 a month for working in Afghanistan, nearly five times as much some soldiers on the front line.
We honour our forces, we honour the covenant and for this we award them with tokens of our gratitude and respect. What the MOD is doing here is diluting and denigrating this tradition, it should stop, it's wrong, there are other ways to reward civilians and it's being done.
Reading between the lines on this statement...

At a presentation ceremony in July, Armed Forces minister Kevan Jones said: "The welfare role these people do is vital in operations and I thought it important that they get public recognition."

This smacks of a Labour political correctness lunacy, but as in the past they've already proven just how much they value our troops which is why they went to a war under equipped and over-stretched.

Perhaps the civil servants should get a service badge for Afghanistan, but it shouldn't be a service medal, troops are different, should be treat differently, should be made to feel special and not the same as the civilian support staff however much they help.

Getting the better of the UK

Well, it's out in the open, but for those of us who watched how things developed it comes as no surprise. The French President is currently gloating over the fact that it is France who controls the key EU finance ministerial position. Note that Sarkozy maintains that it is a Frenchman Michel Barnier who has the position so not much hope of neutrality there.

From the Telegraph.

Nicolas Sarkozy has reignited the row over the appointment of European Union commissioners by branding Britain “the big losers”.

The French President said the appointment of Baroness Ashton of Upholland as the EU’s new foreign policy chief was far less important than the elevation of Michel Barnier, France’s former agriculture minister, to the key financial post of commissioner for the internal market, which puts him in charge of supervising the City of London.
In provocative remarks which are certain to inflame tensions, Mr Sarkozy told Le Monde newspaper that the negotiations which resulted in Tony Blair being jettisoned and Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian Prime Minister, being appointed the new EU president, were a “French victory”.
He is quoted by the newspaper as saying: “The agreement on the role of Michel Barnier was sealed between Barroso and I three days ago. It’s exceptional for France. And the second victory is that our friends, the Romanians, have agriculture.” Le Monde adds in reported speech, not quotes: “In brief, two jobs the Anglo-Saxons will not have.”
French sources also suggested provocatively that Baroness Ashton’s appointment was “a shot in the foot” because the British “have the difficult task of managing European diplomacy. But they will be under the surveillance of the European Council’s Secretary General, the French diplomat Pierre de Boissieu... to Mr Sarkozy’s great satisfaction.” France Soir meanwhile proclaimed: “The French have won.”

Well, there you have it, Gordon Browns legacy to the people of the UK, backed up by David Cameron's refusal to let us have a say in just who rules us, Westminster or Brussels Paris. This is very bad news for the City of London as the guy the French have put in charge is a great believer in over-regulation, which means that the crucial business sector that is the City of London could soon up and move to more conducive areas to do business, certainly not in the EU, probably Zurich or outside Europe altogether. This wont affect the French and German markets too much as they're already highly regulated and taxed anyway, so our glorious parliament of traitors has probably ruined the country financially and followed it up by losing economic control to the French and endangering the one area in which the UK shines vis the financial markets.

So, what will the next government do? Well, bugger all mainly, leaving aside cast iron promises made of sand this is an area of competence that Westminster has ceded to Brussels Paris. And if the next government thinks they can renegotiate this back or get concessions, well they're deluding themselves though probably not the EUsceptic majority of the British people.

This is another reason why we the people need to be asked, in or out, simple enough. Though those in charge may have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. They'll lose, they know they'll lose and they know we have the ammunition to destroy their claims of the EU being good for us. Sarkozy let the cat out of the bag, but you have the feeling they don't care anymore anyway, they think they have us, they may be right. Certainly our successive governments have let us down badly over the years always telling us they know best and today the Telegraph nailed that lie.
We have been betrayed by our governments, we want our country back and we will have our country back, you can't hold us off forever, we will win, we will have our say and we'll say OUT!

Showing your true colours again Dave.

Hmmmm, you're a prospective new Prime Minister, your party is well ahead in the polls, though not enough to totally buffer you if something bad should happen such as the current government changing a leader or getting competent or lucky.
There is something you could do to boost your ratings and it would remove a small if persistent thorn in your side, so what do you do?

Well, the Independent tells us what he did.

The new leader of the UK Independence party has said he attempted to broker a deal to disband his Eurosceptic party if David Cameron, the Conservative leader, agreed to a referendum on the ratified Lisbon treaty.
Lord Pearson said he made the approach with the consent of Ukip's then leader, Nigel Farage, after the party beat Labour into third place in the European elections in June.
In an interview with the Times, Pearson said that he took the offer to Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader in the House of Lords, pledging to disband the party – which wants the UK to leave the European Union – if Cameron guaranteed a referendum on the ratified treaty.
His approach was left unanswered by Tory high command, a perceived slight which Pearson said had broadened the divide between the two parties.
Farage told the Times that the offer had been to withdraw the party from the general election, rather than disband.

"La, la, la I'm not listening."

Now I doubt UKIP will win the election, I also doubt that they'll win any seats, though Bercow the Speaker could be in for a rude shock. But what UKIP can and will do is reduce the Tories chances in the marginal constituencies that they must win. Turning down or ignoring UKIP's offer might just be the act that prevents a Tory majority, if it does then "Call me Dave" will only have himself to blame, he could have offered us a referendum and guaranteed himself a majority, instead he nailed his EUphile colours to the mast in the hope that on the day it will turn out okay and he will be a PM who can continue to sell us out to Brussels.

Unless and until the people of the UK get a say on the ongoing integration of this country into the EU the protests and the anger will grow. Eventually something will break and instead of an amicable separation it will be violent and it will be bitter. The people of the UK don't see themselves as natural Europeans, we may love Europe, but we don't want to be part of its political systems, all the polls show this, it's only our politicians who continue to let us down. Sooner or later though we'll leave, but the longer it goes the less pleasant it will be.

You had your chance Mr Cameron and once again you let us down, but we're not surprised anymore, we've come to expect it of you.

Well that's 3% that we probably haven't got anyway

Prepare to tighten your belts (again) we're in the midst of a recession, probably heading into the second part of a double dip as soon as the part time Christmas employment ends. So, what good news are Labour spreading?

From the pages of the Grauniad.

Council tax bills should not go up by more than 3%, ministers told town halls today as they set out the cash local councils will get from Whitehall next year.

Barbara Follett, the local government minister, warned that the government was prepared to impose a cap on any councils that tried to impose "excessive" council tax rises in light of a 4% boost in central funding.

Follett said the £76.3bn settlement, the final tranche of a three-year deal with authorities, had been protected from recession-fuelled cuts, and should result in the lowest council tax bills in England for at least 16 years.

Follett demanded further efficiency measures to ensure each taxpayer's pound "works as hard as possible".

So, here you are, being told that councils should up their efficiency, that they shouldn't try and nobble us with excessive council tax rises and yet are still going to hit us with a probable 3% rise. Bearing in mind that a lot of us got no pay rise this year and that the UK average was only 1.5% (though strangely enough the public sector managed at least 2%+) they really are taking the mick. Much of what we spend in council tax goes on things we just don't need, translation services, various minority group co-ordinators, newsletters, expenses, gay pride parades. The Mayor of Doncaster showed the way forward he's trying to cut the council tax by 3% not increase it.
Until politicians get a grip on value for money instead of increasing taxation year in year out then they'll never have the respect they think they deserve. Yes I know it's not always their fault, yes I know the vast majority of local council funds come direct from Westminster, but it's still not good enough in the midst of a recession to be putting even more pressure on the public who can't or wont be getting a relevant increase in their funding.
Perhaps councillors ought to be putting aside political dogma and looking at real ways to save money, the Mayor of Doncaster leads the way, others particularly Conservatives should be watching, learning and copying his actions.

Looking after the sick and elderly

One of the marks of a civilised society is how it looks after those who are less well able to take care of themselves. In many societies this is taken care of by families themselves by an extended family network. It can have its disadvantages, but generally it works and the people involved are all family and tend to have a great deal of respect for those needing the additional care.
In the UK with the breakdown to a degree of families to a singular nuclear unit the state took up some of the slack. Old peoples homes and care homes, some good, some bad, sheltered housing, care in the community etc. all pitch in to make up the difference of our less familocentric society. More people live on their own, more families find they can't or don't want elderly relatives moving in, worse the pensions raid by Labour (thanks Gordon) have left many in a position where their pensions today wont cover a decent quality of life in the future. Problem being of course that whenever the state gets involved, it usually manages to make a mess of things as the Independent points out.

The number of deaths during the coldest three months of the year were up almost 50 per cent on the previous year to 36,700, sending an extra 10,000 pensioners to early graves, new figures showed yesterday.

The rise in "excess winter mortality" for England and Wales for the three months to February was the biggest for years and the highest total in a decade, sparking fresh calls for ministers to combat high energy prices.

In its campaign against the Great Energy Rip-off, The Independent is calling for a 10 per cent cut in fuel prices and powers for the regulator to take action against suppliers who fail to pass on lower wholesale costs.

Announcing the latest figures, the Office of National Statistics pointed out that seasonal flu last winter had been "moderate" but temperatures had been the coldest since 2005. Campaigners said a 40 per cent spike in the price of gas and electricity to £1,310 had exacerbated the situation.

As fuel bills have soared over the past six years, the number of households in "fuel poverty" – defined as having to spend 10 per cent or more of their income on power and heat – has risen five-fold to 6.6 million this year.

Britain has a worse record on winter deaths than colder European states such as Sweden, Norway and Finland. Age Concern, the charity for the elderly, warned that unless heating was made more affordable, further large-scale deaths would occur this winter.

Even the cold weather payment (£250) doesn't come into effect unless 7 days of cold below 0 degrees happens, so few qualify for it. To make matters worse the Department for Energy is halving the budget for the Warm Front Scheme, which funds insulation and heating improvements, from £400m in 2008-09 to £200m in 2010-11. So there's little or no help coming from that direction either.
One of the things the government could do is drop the "green stealth taxes" on energy, it clobbers every household in the land with a £120 per annum surcharge to keep wind turbines standing still in cold weather.
The government could also drop its ridiculous stance on climate change, last years winter was the coldest for a decade, at 3.C, half a degree lower than usual, we need cheap power not expensive unworkable "green" power.
Every year more people are being pushed into fuel poverty by this government, they are often the most vulnerable amongst us. Our society doesn't look civilised from the point of view of looking after those who are less well able to take care of themselves. Politicians in general and Labour in particular are to blame social engineering has torn aside the bonds of family and the provisions put in place by the state are ramshackle and failing. We are all to blame in a sense, we allowed it to happen in our selfish way. But Labour have allowed it to spiral out of control by robbing our pension funds.

English Heroes, R.......Evolutionary England

On this day the oddly titled  "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was published, (A later edition was simply titled "The Origin of Species") Iit was a groundbreaking scientific work by English naturalist Charles Darwin.
Darwin's theory argued that organisms gradually evolve through a process he called "natural selection." In natural selection, organisms with genetic variations that suit their environment tend to propagate more descendants than organisms of the same species that lack the variation, thus influencing the overall genetic makeup of the species.

Despite the best efforts of religionists around the world, Darwin's methodology continues to be taught as an accurate guide to the evolutionary development of life on Earth. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" sold out on its first printing yet was condemned by orthodox Christians as heresy.
Yet to me Darwin was one of the greatest scientific minds in human history, he did for biology what Albert Einstein did for physics and the Bank of England honour him on the £10 note.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland £10 note with Charles Darwin upon it.

Down House where Darwin lived, studied and finally published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" is quite close to where I live, it's near Biggin Hill airdrome. And the country walks that Darwin took are all part of an English Heritage site and worth the time to wander through, particularly in the spring and summer.

Yet Darwin almost didn't publish his work, he'd had it mostly written up for 21 years before it finally got to a publisher and into print. The delays are attributed to the controversy Darwin knew he would stir up and yet he continued to work upon it, refining it to the point where criticism would be difficult from the scientific community. For when writing his book, Darwin carefully laid out the arguments against his theory. Rather than setting up a straw man he could easily knock down, he stated the opposing view with care. He then answered the arguments not with sarcasm, but with evidence. Darwin had long made a habit of paying attention to inconvenient facts, and this helped him anticipate his critics.

A great man and a great English hero.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species

By the time of Darwin's death in 1882, his theory of evolution was generally accepted. In honour of his scientific work, he was buried in Westminster Abbey beside kings, queens, and other illustrious figures from English history. Subsequent developments in genetics and molecular biology have led to modifications in accepted evolutionary theory, but Darwin's ideas remain central to the field.

Let the children play

Many, many years ago, "when I were a lad" things were different, there was a great deal less paranoia about what kids got up too and where they went. During the summer hols, my mum used to see us at breakfast and again for dinner and occasionally for lunch if we happened to be in the area at the time. The rest of the time was spent out on bikes, exploring and generally getting into trouble, though the trouble was relatively harmless and involved such activities as scrumping, chasing the rival gang off our territory (and vice versa) and doing the odd spot of cliff climbing and swimming in the sea. I suspect these days my mum would have been locked up and us put into care because of what we got up too, but in our defence, all kids were doing it. We also used to get fairly grubby (and probably smelly) as hygiene wasn't high on our list of to do's. One thing though that stood out, was that we suffered very few ailments, not much in the way of asthma or allergies, which is why this report in the BBC did not surprise me.

Children should be allowed to get dirty, according to scientists who have found being too clean can impair the skin's ability to heal.

Normal bacteria living on the skin trigger a pathway that helps prevent inflammation when we get hurt, the US team discovered.

The bugs dampen down overactive immune responses that can cause cuts and grazes to swell, they say.

Their work is published in the online edition of Nature Medicine.

Experts said the findings provided an explanation for the "hygiene hypothesis", which holds that exposure to germs during early childhood primes the body against allergies.

Many believe our obsession with cleanliness is to blame for the recent boom in allergies in developed countries.

Researchers from the School of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, found a common bacterial species, known as Staphylococci, blocked a vital step in a cascade of events that led to inflammation.
By studying mice and human cells, they found the harmless bacteria did this by making a molecule called lipoteichoic acid or LTA, which acted on keratinocytes - the main cell types found in the outer layer of the skin.
The LTA keeps the keratinocytes in check, stopping them from mounting an aggressive inflammatory response.

 I'm not sure how or why we became so over-protective of our children, the most we would get off our mum was a don't talk to strangers and that was it, we never did, well not really except to ask for directions. Sex wasn't so high on the agenda either, we didn't live in a highly sexualised society, it just didn't figure, girls were just different, they were generally a bit cleaner, bit better behaved, but not by that much. We didn't really mix and were aware of the differences, though not enough to do anything about them.
These days though there's an obsession about protecting kids, the internet hasn't helped with constant scare stories about predators grooming kids online though I do wonder if the risks are so high, then again who'd care to take such risks with their children and there lies one of the problems.
The other one is an obsession with cleanliness, anti-bacterial sprays, super bugs (because of said sprays) kids just don't build up the tolerances necessary to fight them off and as a consequence suffer the allergies throughout their lives.

At some stage we're going to have to rethink our way of bringing up our children, let them grow, let them take risks with all the potential heartbreak that might bring and most of all let them go back to being the scruffy little buggers they naturally are.

So, not a sceptic at all then Dave?

David Cameron said to Andrew Marr on the Andrew Marr Show that...

"I don’t want an ‘in or out’ referendum because I don’t think ‘out’ is in Britain’s interests."

In other words Cameron thinks if we held a referendum on in or out the answer would be out!
He's still of the opinion that we can somehow negotiate with these people to regain sovereignty over areas of policy that we should never have given away in the first place.
Well I've got  news for you Dave, you'll get nothing without giving them something in return and trust me you don't want to go down that road. The EU takes, it does not give, it never has and it never will, it may spend (our) money on us, but it's only ever in its interest and policy, not ours and certainly not yours Mr Cameron.
The only threat you have is to take us out and that's the only threat they'll listen too, anything else will have them treating you (and the UK) as a naughty puppy who misbehaves and can safely be ignored or chastised without allowing it to have its way.
This is the UK you will be given temporary charge of Mr Cameron, one which dances to an EU tune, who takes our money, over-rules our laws and ignores or disqualifies our ancient rights and liberties, all ably assisted by and voted for by previous UK governments. The only people in the UK who have ever had a vote on Europe are all over 52 and they voted for entry into the EEC, not the EU, I'm 50 and have never had a say other than in the EU elections, I know Dan Hannan is one of my MEP's another Conservative one was sacked for not toeing the party line, he's still an MEP, though he does not represent me and mine.
So it's time we had a say, it's more than time and if we vote to leave Mr Cameron that's our choice to make, not yours. If you keep denying us a choice eventually we will take matters into our own hands, it's almost inevitable, time is on our side, not yours as we will never ever love the EU and we are coming to despise our homegrown politicians even more.

So Mr Cameron, the choice is yours, years of fruitless negotiations or give us a vote, we know what you plan though and we'll watch, but we wont forgive or forget if you don't give us a say.

The Albion Alliance is a cross-party call on MPs to declare their support for our right to a voice, starting with a referendum on Europe.


Please sign here.

Damage limitation

The climate sceptic world was abuzz yesterday over the hacked CRU emails and data and possibly rightly so. Other bloggers are better qualified to discuss this issue and can be linked too here, here and here.

What is interesting is the reaction of the MSM, they are either ignoring it (Torygraph, Independent) or focussing on the crime itself (Grauniad, BBC) as if this is somehow going to make the data disappear, though James Delingpole at the Telegraph blogs puts the boot in quite well. It does seem that the warmists are on the back foot over this as they are claiming out of context as their main defence, though it seems obvious from a quick trawl through the data unearthed so far that the chief scientists at the top were well aware of how the data was being skewed to fit their theories rather than the inconvenient truth, along with attempts to silence or remove their outspoken critics as well as subvert the FOI requests to see the data.

As for the politicians, well don't expect any change in position any time soon, gurning banana boy is still banging on about Copenhagen and having the Foreign Office on a war footing over climate change because he sees it as a source of government income.

Miliband explains what the Earth will look like if we don't give him all our cash towards the government pension/expenses fund climate change policies.

So, where are we now? Well the sceptics will be looking over this data with a fine tooth comb for months, it's a lot of files and there appears to be more to come. The Warmists are probably going to try and keep a lid on this and obfuscate, misdirect and try to appear the injured party. However the consensus has been wounded, though it may take a while before its brought to ground. In the meantime politicians will still be picking our pockets with their green carbon taxes, at least until they can think up a new scam and can throw the warmist religion to the wolves.

New Ice age anyone? It'll cost you.

How to get ahead in politics

Well if you're Catherine Margaret Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland the answers simple, never put yourself in a position where you might possibly face an election. That's right, the first High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in the EU has never faced an election by the voting public* in her life.

As the Times puts it,

Lady Ashton, 52, a former leader of the Lords, took over as British Commissioner in Brussels when Lord Mandelson was brought back to the UK Cabinet by Mr Brown. News of her promotion will astound British diplomats, who would not have regarded her senior enough for the job. The two new posts are meant to bolster the EU’s influence overseas.

Speaking after the appointment was disclosed, Mr Brown said it would reaffirm Britain’s influence in Europe. “It shows that Britain is at the heart of Europe and it shows that we are leading the way in extending women’s representation in the way we have done,” he said.

The Prime Minister said he still felt that Mr Blair would have been “excellent”. But he added: “As the week went by it became clear that the EPP (the centre-right grouping in the European Parliament) wanted to have one of their own members as president of the council.”

So, Brown is suggesting that she got the job because she's a woman? Just saying that because UK diplomats don't think she's that well qualified otherwise.

“We feel that it is in Britain’s interests to play a major role in the new EU and don’t forget this is a very important job – not just for its political role but also for its defence role.

Defence roll? Dear God the woman's used to be the treasurer and then vice chairman of CND!  This is the last person you want near a defence roll I bet the Russians are laughing themselves silly over that one. No doubt one of her first jobs will be to tell the French and British to give up their nuclear weapons as the EU says so. The UK will no doubt comply which ever government is in power (unless it breaches the Tory cast iron line in the sand) and the French will tell her to va te faire foutre.

This is a woman in politics who has never faced the electorate in any roll she's played in politics, she's now the number 2 in the EU, reminds me of Sir Joseph Porters song vis HMS Pinafore.

When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy to an Attorney's firm.
I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
And I polished up the handle of the big front door.
I polished up that handle so carefullee
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — He polished up that handle so carefullee
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Sir Joseph. As office boy I made such a mark
That they gave me the post of a junior clerk.
I served the writs with a smile so bland,
And I copied all the letters in a big round hand —
I copied all the letters in a hand so free,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — He copied all the letters in a hand so free,
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Sir Joseph.In serving writs I made such a name
That an articled clerk I soon became;
I wore clean collars and a brand-new suit
For the pass examination at the Institute,
And that pass examination did so well for me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — And that pass examination did so well for he,
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Sir Joseph. Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween,
Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
But that kind of ship so suited me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — But that kind of ship so suited he,
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Sir Joseph. I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — He thought so little, they rewarded he
By making him the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Sir Joseph. Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule —
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — Stick close close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!

So, now you know, never ever face the public and you can go all the way to the top of the EU. And they wonder why we oppose the whole corrupt organisation, at its most simple it's because they don't listen and they don't ask.

*It should be noted (in the interests of fairness), that the Baroness was voted politician of the year in 2006 by the homosexual lobby group Stonewall – which is about as near as she has come to being elected for any public office. She should do well in the EU.

Changing the rules mid game.

It's often true enough particularly recently that any political party on the verge of losing their majority and hence their ability to govern look to change the way we vote in order to shore up their political careers.

Labourlist have a letter from 34 Labour PPCs asking Gordon Brown to have a referendum on the current political polling system. I don't know who any of these people are, but I'll hazard a guess that they are all in seats likely to fall to other parties (probably Conservative) in the next general election. The real bit of political chicanery is in this paragraph...

A referendum on polling day on a system that delivers real voter choice would see hundreds of Liberal Democrats switching to Labour, hundreds more stay-at-home Labour supporters coming out to vote for the government and every Tory opponent on the back foot trying to explain why the failed old system is worth keeping and why Cameron wouldn’t give the people a say. So we just need to switch the date and fulfill our 1997 manifesto pledge.

It's all just a vote grabbing effort, a means to steal Lib Dem votes in marginal constituencies in order to secure their political careers. This is truly an act of desperation and one I have no doubt that Gordon Brown will consider doing. It takes scorched earth policies to new heights all simply to spite their political opponents and keep power and privilege in Labours grubby little hands.
Why didn't they honour their manifesto pledge back in 1997? Simple really, the current system got them re-elcted, why do they want to honour their pledge now? Simple, they are going to lose their seats.
Now don't get me wrong here, I believe political reform is a necessary and ongoing thing, but, it should only be attempted at the beginning of a governments assumption of power, not as a last gasp attempt to change the system to ensure that a political party in trouble will benefit.

This is corruption in a higher form, a truly disgusting attempt at keeping power despite the unpopularity of Labour in general, I don't know if Lib Dems would be any too happy with it either even if it means reform, they'd be seen to be siding with an out of touch corrupt government desperate to try anything to win votes.

If Labour adopt this, they should be ashamed of themselves, that they wont be ashamed, is a given, because all they care about is holding onto power and not the best interests of the country. They have spent the last 13 years driving this country into the ground, spending taxpayers money like it will never run out and when the chickens come home to roost, they propose altering the rules to keep themselves in power.

How terribly New Labour, they make me sick!

When will the majority get what they want?

A new Poll out in the Daily Express says that 86% of the people polled want out of the EU. Now as far as I can tell, the poll was an online one and only those who have strong feelings over the matter are likely to have voted. Yet it's becoming ever more obvious that the people of the UK want out, want no more to do with the petty interferences, the laws that don't suit or fit out lifestyles and traditions and the trade restrictions that keep the price of goods high and prevent competition from suppliers outside of the EU.

An EXCLUSIVE online poll for Express.co.uk found that a massive 86 per cent of voters think Britain should quit the European Union - now.

Thousands of visitors to the site have placed their vote in the past month and we can now reveal that only 13 per cent who took part believe it's worth remaining an EU member.  A mere one per cent don't care either way. 

The overwhelming result came as it emerged today that the Union Jack and national anthem are at risk of being scrapped.

Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy - favourite to become President of the EU - wants to replace national emblems with "European symbols".

Britain was only this month frogmarched into a miserable new era of meddling Brussels rule after the final remaining resistance to the hated Lisbon Treaty collapsed.

Yes, they do so love to meddle, and it's not a trickle of legislation, it's a flood, 72% of the cost of regulation in the UK is EU-derived. This hurts our (remaining) industry and manufacturing and makes us uncompetitive. The EUphiles keep harping on about how we'll lose trade if we leave (we wont) lose influence over EU decisions (who cares) and will be worse off out, yet the evidence continues to grow that a UK out of the EU will thrive without the masses of petty regulations that are necessary for the EU but not necessary for the UK's internal trade.

The pressure will continue to grow, Labour blew it by ratifying Lisbon without a referendum and the Conservatives are playing with fire if they think they can renegotiate our position, it wont be enough, the people are saying let us have a vote, in or out and it's looking likely that given the vote, we'll come out.

Irony alert

Barnado's have announced that hundreds of British kids could be getting groomed for trafficking.

From the Grauniad.

Sophisticated networks of older men may be grooming hundreds of British children to be trafficked within the UK for sexual exploitation, the charity Barnardo's believes.

Organised criminals are gaining the trust of vulnerable young girls by showering them with gifts and affection, before plying them with alcohol and drugs, according to a report out today. They are then moved from city to city, where they are forced to have sex with numerous other men.

Barnardo's estimates that thousands of British children could be being sold for sex around the country, yet only 20% of local authorities have any specialist services to help them. Many children believe what has happened is their own fault, and are so ashamed that they never speak out about the abuse they suffer, campaigners say.

At the time of a snapshot survey last month by the charity, 21 projects were working with 609 sexually exploited children, around half of whom go missing on a regular basis. Ninety of them – spread over 15 projects – appeared to have been "internally trafficked".

 Well they should know, after all they are experts themselves in trafficking. They did it so well alongside the UK government with the Child Migrants Programme.

Particularly guilty were the homes of the Christian Brothers in Australia where several thousand children were accommodated over the years and where physical and sexual abuse and under-nourishment seems to have been rife.

A number of other British agencies such as Barnardos, the Fairbridge Society, The National Children's Homes co-operated in maintaining the policy for so long and despite warnings from governments and independent inspectors, it was pursued for almost 6 decades.

Now I know the warning is serious and they mean well, but really Barnado's reputation was severely tarnished over the years. Their hands are not exactly clean of child abuse themselves.

Two former Barnardo's workers were found guilty yesterday of 70 offences of sexually abusing eight children in their care.
There were tears and shouts of "Yes" from her victims as Margaret Hewitt, 69, was found guilty of 53 charges including indecent assault and inciting children to gross indecency.
Her co-accused Robert Anderson, 46, was convicted of 17 assaults against five children that included two rapes of a teenage girls, following the eight-week trial at Belfast Crown Court. They were cleared of 28 other charges.
The depth of "cruel and spiteful" acts by Hewitt and Anderson included forcing a brother and sister into sexual acts, said Gerald Simpson, QC.

Now I don't have a particular axe to grind against Barnado's, but the sheer irony of them reporting potential child abuse was too open a goal. I know they mean well, I know they do good work, but really pot, kettle, black.

Rumpy Pumpy and the EU national anthem

Mr Van Rompuy the Belgian Prime Minister and possible Reichsfuhrer of the EUSSR wants us to have an EU national anthem and also to get rid of various nationalistic symbols. Well he would, wouldn't he, after all what do the opinions of those of us who oppose the corrupt, decadent and authoritarian superstate matter, we're just expected to roll over and be good little proles whilst the politicos get on with aggrandising their little empire with all the delusional grandeur of a totalitarian state.

From the telegraph.

The national symbols to be replaced include licence plates, identity cards with more EU symbols such as flags according to the manifesto advocated by Mr Van Rompuy the Belgian Prime Minister.

 I wonder how many polite Europeans will go along with this, almost certainly it's doomed in England other than in the political classes of course, I doubt the Poles will go along with it either. But this is typical of the mindset of politicians who are in the EU camp, the great project must be made to be loved, to be adorned with symbols representing its greatness, we'll soon have the torchlight parades and the book burning............along with the secret police and the endless bureaucracy.

The one thing that people forget about totalitarian regimes complete with all the trappings and parades is that they were usually crap places to live and they all fall in the end, ruined from within by the grasping indifferent politicians, little men with grand ideas, but no idea how we at the bottom of the pile really think.
Our national symbols are precious to us, flags, traditions, even the way we view the world. If you try to take them away from us, you will just hasten your own downfall.

Sooner we're out the better, don't vote for the big 3, they'll only keep us in, vote independent, but above all vote and let them know how you feel.

Airbrushing the wanted posters

This is a photofit of the Nightstalker, he was was responsible for a string of burglaries and sex offences dating back to 1990.
The attacks have taken place in areas including Dulwich, Orpington, Norwood, Downham, Lee, West Wickham and Bickley.
Detectives described the arrest of the man early on Sunday as "significant".

The Metropolitan Police have had a DNA sample of the nightstalker for 12 years, but have never found a match on the database. Forensic investigations have shown he originates from the Windward Islands in the Caribbean. But despite a huge manhunt and the lure of a £40,000 reward, he has never been caught.

Am I missing something here or does this guy in the photofit look amazingly white, anglo saxonish and definitely not Afro Caribbean?

Politically correct wanted posters, whatever next, they really do think we're thick don't they?

Apologising for the past

There was a British State policy that ran from 1920 and did not stop until 1967, it involved the enforced immigation of children. It was known as the Child Migrants Programme and ended just 40 years ago - poor children were sent to a "better life" in Australia, Canada and elsewhere.
But many were abused and ended up in institutions or as labourers on farms.

As the Telegraph puts it .

In what Ed Balls, the children secretary, described as "stain on our society" the child migrant programmes saw poor, orphaned and illegitimate children sent to Australia, Canada and other former colonies until as recently as the late 1960s, often without the knowledge of their families.

Many ended up in institutions, many suffered abuse and neglect and many others were used as "slave labour" on farms.

Now after years of campaigning from pressure groups, Gordon Brown has agreed to meet with representatives of the surviving children before making a formal apology next year.

Mr Balls said the apology would be "symbolically very important".

"I think it is important that we say to the children who are now adults and older people and to their offspring that this is something that we look back on in shame," he said.

"It would never happen today. But I think it is right that as a society when we look back and see things which we now know were morally wrong, that we are willing to say we're sorry."

The government has estimated that a total of 150,000 British children may have been shipped abroad under a variety of programs that operated between the early 19th century and 1967.

Normally I'm not one for apologising about the past, I see no reason to apologise for slavery that was abolished in Britain by the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807. Though not entirely dealt with until the The Slavery Abolition Act 1833. But this is because all those involved are dead and apologising to their descendents for all it might make some sort of fuzzy feelgood sensation to the politically correct crowd is a complete waste of time as the descendents were never enslaved in the first place.

However, some of the children involved in this criminal act of government policy are very much still alive and I believe deserve an apology, for what was done to them as well as what happened after.

What really does rankle of course is the fact that it was the Australians who apologised first and so forced the UK governments hand.

Harold Haig, the secretary of the International Child Migrants Association, said he was appalled that the Australian apology has come before any British apology.

"Gordon Brown should hang his head in shame," he said.

"He is allowing the country that we were deported to to apologise before the country where we were born. It is an absolute disgrace. He should hang his head in shame."

Not just Gordon Brown of course, in this he's just on the spot because he's the current PM, but this policy was carried out under the governments of...

• David Lloyds George   1916 – 1922 Liberal Party
• Andrew Bonar Law   1922 – 1923 Tory Party
• Stanley Baldwin    1923 – 1924 Tory Party
• Ramsey MacDonald   1924 – 1924 Labour Party
  
• Stanley Baldwin    1924 – 1929 Tory Party
• Ramsey MacDonald   1929 – 1931 Labour Party
• Ramsey MacDonald   1931 – 1935 National Labour Party
• Stanley Baldwin    1935 – 1937 Tory Party
• Neville Chamberlain   1937 – 1940 Tory Party
• Winston Churchill   1940 – 1945 Tory Party
• Clement Attlee    1945 – 1951 Labour Party
• Winston Churchill   1951 – 1955 Tory Party
• Sir Anthony Eden   1955 – 1957 Tory Party
• Harold Macmillan   1957 – 1963 Tory Party
• Alec Douglas-Home   1963 – 1964 Tory Party
• Harold Wilson    1964 – 1970 Labour Party

None are left alive to apologise for this shameful policy, however the governments after, all had the opportunity to apologise.

• Edward Heath    1970 – 1974 Tory Party
• Harold Wilson    1974 – 1976 Labour Party
• James Callaghan    1976 – 1979 Labour Party
• Margaret Thatcher   1979 – 1990 Tory Party
• John Major     1990 – 1997 Tory Party
• Tony Blair     1997 – 2007 Labour Party

 But no, it's been left to Jonah Brown to apologise for something that should have been done decades ago, brushed under the carpet and forgotten, these people deserve an apology for what was done to them and the effects that they still so painfully feel today in some cases.
Sometimes governments do shameful things as official policy, I'm pretty sure when this was first proposed though it was looked upon as a good idea, a new start for these kids, however the checks and balances were not put in place, they were essentially dumped and forgotten, that's what the crime was and for that the government should apologise, should have apologised years ago.

Murderess on the loose.

People occasionally ask me why I blog (not normally other bloggers thank God) and there are a wide raft of reasons. Most in common with other political bloggers such as feeling the need to say or do something/anything. Needing to let off steam in an ever state intrusive environment, sheer pleasure at seeing your thoughts writ large. Even knowing that some people agree with what you think as well as those who don't agree, but who are prepared at least to put you right on matters.
However occasionally I can point to stuff like this, where something really needs to be said.

Woman killer flees on shop visit

A woman convicted of murder has gone on the run during an escorted visit to the shops in south London.
Patricia Gillette, 41, from Streatham, south London, was detained indefinitely in 2007 for killing Mark Murphy, 38, at his home in Streatham in August 2006.
Gillette, who was being held at Bethlem Royal Hospital, was on a visit to shops in West Wickham High Street, Bromley, when she escaped on Friday afternoon.
Police described her as "dangerous" and warned people not to approach her.
Det Supt Gary Gornell said: "This individual is dangerous and we need to apprehend her as soon as possible. If anyone sees her, please don't approach her, but call police immediately."
Gillette is of large build, has moles under both eyes, a scar on the left side of her neck and another scar on her left ear, police said.
She was last seen wearing a red hooded coat, a blue jeans shirt, black jogging bottoms and black shoes.

 Oh, where to start.

1. If she's so dangerous, why was she out shopping, even escorted?
2. She was being held in a hospital (mental) so why was she out shopping, even escorted?
3. If they need to apprehend her quickly, why was she out shopping, even escorted?
4. She's clearly a violently inclined utter loon, so why was she out shopping, even escorted? 
   

Ok you can see where this is going, however the question that has to be asked is.....

Why was she out shopping, even escorted?

The whole point of dealing with those who may be a danger to the public is that you don't let them anywhere near the public, I can see that, my good Lady can see that, I expect the guys I work alongside will be able to see that, so why can't those responsible for our safety see it?  Where's the "Tough On Crime, tough on the causes of crime" ethos here? She'd only been inside for 3 years, she was detained indefinitely  (hint she's really dangerous) so they let her out amongst the public to go shopping! Even escorted that's simply not good enough, whatever happened to locking them up and throwing the key away? And how will it look if she re-offends and injures/kills some other poor sod who happens to get in her way?

When are we going to apply common sense to cases like this, indeed to all aspects of justice or even life in general where it runs up against the state and their decrees?

And I needed to say that, because if I hadn't my blood pressure would have gone through the roof.

Airbrushing the news

Well the bye election has been and gone, Labour must be heaving a sigh of relief in-between making sure the voter register goes missing etc. The BBC are trumpeting the result as an SNP fail, though truth be told they'd struggle ever to win there unless the voters suddenly woke up to exactly why they were poor and abandoned.
Yet strangely enough, there was one result the BBC were being very coy about and that was who came fourth. Yes they were mentioned in the results at the top of the page, but apart from that.......

Speaking from the count at Glasgow's Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, Mr Bain described the result as, "a great day for Labour", adding: "This is a resounding victory for Gordon Brown and Labour.

"This by-election has been about many things, but, most of all, it has been about jobs and the economy.

"People have had their say. They have backed Gordon Brown in his efforts to secure our economic recovery, they have sent a resounding 'No' to Alex Salmond and his treatment of our great city and a resounding 'No' to David Cameron."

The constituency, where Labour has been the main political force for the last 74 years, neighbours the Glasgow East seat - which the SNP snatched from Labour last year in a stunning by-election victory.

But the SNP conceded shortly after the polls closed it had not managed to repeat the result.

The party's candidate, David Kerr, told supporters: "Our message through the campaign was simple.

"For all the problems this constituency and this country face, our potential is far greater still.

"But it is a potential that will only be achieved through freedom."

SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond expressed disappointment, but said the party had achieved its best share of the vote in the constituency for 35 years.

Conservative candidate Ruth Davidson said the party had run an "energetic and positive" campaign, while pointing out the Tories had not contested the seat since it had been held by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

She told the BBC: "If you look at our recent European election results, we more than doubled the vote and we increased the share, so I think you can say this was absolutely a building process for us - we were starting from zero and we've come all the way up to third, so I don't think we should be too disheartened."

Liberal Democrat candidate Eileen Baxendale, who received 474 votes, was beaten by the left-wing party Solidarity and its candidate, former MSP Tommy Sheridan, who came fifth, after winning 794 votes.

Ms Baxendale said: "I congratulate Willie Bain, but look forward to holding him to account at the General Election on all the promises he has made."

Green candidate David Doherty secured 332 votes to come in seventh, followed Glasgow Airport attack hero John Smeaton, who got 258 votes.

The Scottish Socialist Party's Kevin McVey was ninth, with 152 votes, followed by former Big Brother contestant Mikey Hughes, with 54 votes.

Louise McDaid, of the Socialist Labour Party, received 47 votes and was followed, in twelfth place, by independent candidate Mev Brown.

Colin Campbell, of the Individuals Labour and Tory, came last with 13 votes.

Voting fraud

Mr Martin - now Lord Martin - held Glasgow North East in the 2005 General Election with a 10,134 vote majority.

It has emerged that police are investigating two alleged incidents of voting fraud in the contest.

Council chiefs said the investigation involved three ballot papers - two cast at a ballot box at one polling station in the Dennistoun area and another cast at another polling station in the same area.

A council spokesman said: "We had two incidents at polling stations where voters turned up and when they identified themselves they were told their names had already been scored off the list - somebody had been given a vote in their name."

He continued: "We checked our processes to ensure it wasn't a mistake, it wasn't as far as we can see, so we called in the police."

He said officers were investigating "alleged personation".

 Well, you'd never know would you? first, second, third, fifth and sixth. Seems the BBC are still a little coy about mentioning certain distasteful, yet perfectly legal parties. This despite the Question Time ambush, or perhaps because, you never can tell really which way the BBC is actually thinking, it depends which minister is bending their ear at the time I suppose. Strangely enough the BBC do mention Tommy Sheridan whose trial for perjury has been delayed (again) showing that a whiff of corruption doesn't matter to their sensibilities, still innocent until proven guilty I suppose.

As for those who voted for Willie Bain, well that's their choice, Glasgow East is one of the poorest and most deprived areas in the country, has been for decades and they voted for more of the same, Labour still take them for granted as voting fodder, well, mostly because they are.
Still at least they didn't vote for whoever came fourth, that would have branded them as something else again, though even that term has been diluted by Labour screaming it at anyone who questions their policies on immigration and multiculturalism.
That's probably why the BBC decided to ignore the party in fourth place.

When humour becomes a crime.

What is it with this government? They get legislation knocked back by either the House of Lords or the European Court of Human Rights and they reintroduce it or ignore legal judgements. You'd think by now they'd have learned a lesson on legal safeguards and freedom of speech, but no, they have to keep trying until they get their way and to hell with any consequences en-route.
The latest piece of freedom snatching legislation comes back at us today.

Last-ditch bid for 'gay hate' law 

The government is bidding to overturn a defeat in the House of Lords over new laws criminalising "homophobic hatred".

The law, intended to protect gay people from threatening behaviour, was backed by MPs, amid fears attacks are rising.
But peers voted on Wednesday to amend the Coroners and Justice Bill to allow criticism of "sexual conduct and practice", to protect "free speech".
The government will again try to pass the law before the parliamentary session ends on Thursday.
It faces deadlock with the Lords over the wide-ranging Coroners and Justice Bill, which aims to remove the defence inserted into a previous act by the Conservative Lord Waddington.
He told fellow peers they had to maintain consistency with laws against stirring up religious hatred.
"If we are to finish up with a free speech clause in the religious hatred offence but no free speech clause here, we're simply asking for trouble," he said.

First off, we don't need this law, a crime is a crime, is a crime and hating something isn't a crime. When such hatred is used to cause harm to individuals or groups then that's covered by ordinary legislation, what this legislation seeks to do is give certain minorities "special" status and this is very wrong. It would mean that even jokes about this minority would become a crime should anyone take offence, freedom of speech also includes the freedom to offend, something that religious and sexual minorities often fail to take into account. To me homophobic crime is simply a crime, the motive behind it is irrelevant, it should be dealt with the in same impartiality in the justice system that any other crime is dealt with.

That however is not good enough for the current government, they want their deserving appreciative "victim groups" such as immigrants, gays and feminists to be voting for them so have to come up with specific laws to give them special status over and above the ordinary person in the street. That this is wrong makes next to no difference to the government so long as their pets continue to vote for them and this legislation is one of the prices of their support.

In any society , freedom of speech is one of the characteristics that defines the free from the authoritarian and this government have done more to limit freedom of speech than any previous in modern times. terms such as racist, homophobe and fascist have been used to shout down any and all criticism of special interest groups, apparently we (the majority) simply don't understand the issues involved and these groups need special protection.

Well, no they don't, nor do they deserve any taxpayers money thrown at them for being "special" either. Homophobic crime, racist crime and religious crimes, are just that, crimes, they don't need special treatment, nor do their followers require special protection, especially from criticism and/or humour, they need to live in the real world and get over their victimhood, stopping people from saying something does not stop them thinking it and claiming or appear to be claiming special status under the law only gets people thinking all the more.

A crime is just that, a crime, your chosen lifestyle should not make any difference whatsoever.

Update, seems like common sense has prevailed (until the next time)

Ministers have admitted defeat in their efforts to remove a "free speech" defence from new laws against inciting homophobic hatred.

MPs have voted four times to scrap it but it has been repeatedly overturned in the Lords, who again last night voted by 179 to 135 to keep it.

 

The guilt of the innocent.

Well they must be guilty of something, after all why would the state be so hell bent on keeping the DNA of innocent people on record? 

Six-year limit on DNA of innocent 

The DNA of most innocent people arrested in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not be kept for more than six years, the Home Office has said.

But police may be allowed to keep DNA from terrorism suspects, even if they are later freed or found not guilty.

The move comes after the European Court of Human Rights ruled last year that the National DNA Database was illegal.

Ministers say the package of proposed reforms will protect privacy but also allow police to use DNA to solve crime.

Public concern

The European Court of Human Rights said the database in England and Wales was illegal because it allowed police to indefinitely retain the profiles of people who had been arrested - but never actually charged or found guilty of a crime.

 First off, what they are doing is still illegal the ECHR say so, you should not have innocent people on a DNA register of criminals, you'd think that would be common sense anyway. Then again we're dealing with government here so common sense does not necessarily apply. 
Secondly, the excuse that they "might" commit a future crime is totally against the foundations of English (hence most British) law. You are innocent until proven guilty, suspicion is not enough, there has to be evidence of a crime committed.

The minute (or the shortest possible instant thereof) that you are found innocent of a crime your DNA should be off the database, forever and should only be re-added if you commit and are convicted of a criminal offence at a later date. What is so hard about this basic principle to understand?
They want to keep them 6 years and are making it out as some sort of massive concession, well sorry, no, it's no concession, you shouldn't have them, full stop!
Suspicion alone is not enough to keep adding 400,000 profiles a year to the database, this has to stop and no excuse is good enough to keep the innocent persons DNA in a database, just in case.

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, should (but wont) be ashamed of himself for even thinking that he ought to do this. He's bending to pressure from ACPO a private company of Police Chiefs, because they see it as a good idea. He should instead be listening to the people who elect him and the judges of the ECHR, but he wont, because Labour don't listen anymore.
I doubt the Tories will either, but time will tell there as well.

 

Hiding the truth

So Jack Straw has finally got his way and forced legislation through Parliament allowing for secret inquests when the subject might be contentious. Contentious meaning of course embarrassing for the government and liable to outrage the public.

Labour forces secret inquests Bill through the Commons

Secret inquests which will bar bereaved families and the public from attending hearings into controversial deaths were forced through Parliament last night.

The Government narrowly defeated opposition to the new powers by a majority of eight MPs in a highly charged vote in the House of Commons. Under the measures ministers will be able to order that an inquest is replaced with a secret inquiry whenever they deem it necessary.

But last night MPs and civil rights groups accused the Government of eroding the ancient right to a public inquest. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, which had strongly opposed the powers, said: "The British public has no taste for secret justice, particularly when the rights of grieving families are at stake. We will continue to fight for open jury inquests until the Government thinks again."

This has been on the cards for a while, ever since coroners started taking the government to task over deaths related to shoddy equipment whilst they fought (and died unnecessarily) in the war in Afghanistan.
That this is a direct erosion of democracy and liberty wont have even crossed their minds, to them keeping an embarrassing truth from coming into the public domain is the important thing. They simply do not understand that the relatives of those who die on the government's watch - whether in Stockwell or Helmand - are entitled to know why, even if it is supremely embarrassing for the Minister or the Government.

That they should be ashamed of themselves for doing this is obvious, that they are not is apparent, truly this is a despicable act by a shameless government who deserve to be annihilated in the next general election.

 

Politics of envy, politics of spite.

Labour must have finally twigged that they are in line for a good hiding in the polls and are starting to look at measures to shore up their core vote. Recent announcements on spending more in white working class areas are now to be coupled with a proposed radical reform of the tax system to root out entrenched wealth inequality.

As the Grauniad reports.

A fierce debate within the government on how to tackle entrenched wealth inequality – possibly through a high pay commission or a tax on assets – is to be ignited by a report ordered by Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader and the minister responsible for equalities.
The report is due to be published in January. Early drafts seen by ministers say wealth inequality has deepened, with the rungs on the ladder having grown further apart, reducing social mobility. It is also expected to underline the degree to which access to pensions and housing play a crucial role in entrenching inequalities in wealth and income.
Harman sees the report, which has been commissioned from a team of academics chaired by Professor John Hills, as a political opportunity for Labour to frame a progressive debate on inequality before the election.
Downing Street and the Treasury would be opposed to a new wealth tax, but there may be pressure for a tougher capital gains tax on main homes, or widening council tax bands. It is also likely to lead to calls for wider employee share ownership and home ownership.

Now I'm no expert in economics, but even I know the story of the goose that lays the golden eggs and this is what Labour are proposing for anyone they see as wealthy. Of course the one thing that Labour can't allow themselves to see is that the wealthy also create wealth too by investment in business and employing people to do the things they want. There's usually a domino effect when you start to squeeze those that have which eventually hurts those who have not. Hit a rich guy in the pocket and he'll no longer hire plumbers and electricians to do work around his house or business, he'll sack those deemed excess to requirements from his places of work, these then have to be supported by the governments as they go broke or claim benefits which hits everyone else.

It seems to me that we should be encouraging people to become wealthy or at least have the wealthy investing in the country and not squirrelling it abroad. Low taxes for businesses so they can make bigger profits for investors will soon bring in more wealth to create more jobs and industry.

Taxing the rich will only make them leave or pull in their horns and not spend their money where it's needed, which is right here, right now to get us out of recession.

But you can't tell Labour that, it doesn't fit their ideology based on envy and bringing everyone down to the same level, and yes it's bringing them down, not raising them up. Labour needs poor people to vote for them, they need ill educated people who will not question their policies to vote for them. They need immigrants to come here who will vote for them because of the benefits.

Labour need envy and failure, because it's the only way they'll ever get elected.

We're going to do something about this................no honest.

I always thought William Hague to be a EUsceptic, now I'm not so sure, he's certainly not acting like one, perhaps he's getting on a bit and sees the lure of a huge wage coupled with an easy life on the EU gravy train? Who knows, but he's definitely not the man I remember, though to be honest I never really knew him at all.

William Hague: Tories would not take on Europe for some years

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

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

Until then, he agreed that it would effectively be “business as usual” for Britain within Europe under the Tories.

Mr Hague’s admission came as Euro-sceptics in his party warned that David Cameron, the Conservative leader, had just 18 months to make “real progress” on his promise to forge a more arms-length relationship with the EU.

One Tory backbencher told the Independent on Sunday: "We have agreed to keep quiet on this before the election, but if things do not start happening in the first year or so, there will be all-out war for a referendum."

 Seems Hague and call me Dave are spoiling for a fight, though oddly enough it's with their own party and not with the EU, or perhaps given Cameron's gutless wimping out over any sort of referendum it's not so surprising. 18 months say the EUsceptics, enough time to get elected and start sorting out the economy and then time to sort out our issues with the EU.
So why come out with further delay? I mean they must know the issue isn't going to die, if anything it's likely to come back and bite them sooner rather than later knowing the way the EU likes to grab power and run with it.
The longer they delay the worse it will get too for defections to the likes of UKIP, who are a serious threat to Tory interests in the way that the BNP are to Labour. They'll sooner or later alienate the electorate too, the English don't see themselves as European nor are our traditions those of the continents and the code Napoleon runs contrary to all our legal rights and traditions too.
The worst thing that Cameron and Hague can do is to do nothing, the pressure is building now, before they're in power and statements that they wont do anything for years (if ever?) are not going down too well with the EUsceptics.

Then again, perhaps Hague wants Cameron out and is just setting him up for a major fall with a true EUsceptic leader taking charge.

Just a thought is all.

We will remember them

For The Fallen

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

A good day to be an Englishman #5

David Deron Haye (born 13 October 1980 Bermondsey, London) is an English professional boxer and currently the WBA Heavyweight Champion of the World!

Haye took the majority decision, the first judge scored it 114-114, with the other two scoring it 116-112.

There were wild scenes in Germany, the Nuremberg Arena went mental. Haye was overcome with emotion as he was embraced by his trainer Adam Booth.

Well done David Haye, an Englishman to be proud of!

Crying racism

Emma Thompson, Academy Award-winning British actress, comedian, and screenwriter. She is also a patron of the Refugee Council (fake charity). She's also an idiot, probably a well meaning idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.

BNP would love it here, Emma Thompson tells Exeter students

The actor Emma Thompson has urged a university to work to stamp out racism after her adopted son endured "unpleasant" experiences while studying there. Thompson says Rwandan-born Tindyebwa Agaba suffered because of the colour of his skin during his first year studying politics at Exeter University.

Speaking at a diversity event at the university, Thompson claimed the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, would "love" the area because of its relative lack of racial diversity. She urged staff and students to carry on trying to drive out prejudice.

 Her evidence is that...

We have a zero tolerance policy towards racism on campus. There are very few incidents: out of more than 18,000 staff and students last year there were five reported incidents of this nature on campus."

The university says about 12% of its student population consisted of black and minority ethnic students, compared with 3.2% in the Exeter region.

5 incidents amongst 18,000 and Emma Thompson thinks the BNP would love Exeter, it's certainly a hotbed of racism (not) the evidence certainly points towards a worrying undertone of non-racist activity amongst the students there.

Perhaps Emma thinks the BNP should get involved because of the lack of racism?

Or perhaps she should really think before opening her mouth? You know, get your facts straight before launching into one in a national newspaper. Ok so her adopted son Tindy suffered what may have been racial abuse (twice) in his first year at Exeter, but non thereafter, but it still does not mean that Exeter is a hotbed of possible BNP support. Nor was a slur (and that's exactly what it was) called for upon the City or its university.

Proof if ever it were needed that fame does not equal intelligence.

And so it begins

Didn't take them long, soon after Lisbon was signed they're up and running to take away British representation on the IMF.

'Lisbon Treaty should mean single EU seat on IMF board'

Simon Johnson, a former IMF chief economist, said that the passing of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, should accelerate moves towards a common European position in international economic institutions.

The Lisbon Treaty will take force next month, taking the EU another step closer towards acting as a single entity in international affairs. The treaty creates a European president and a new European “foreign minister”, who will be able to speak for all EU nations at some meetings of the United Nations.

One of the contenders for the new European presidency, Jean Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, has also backed a single European seat on the IMF board.

The Washington-based IMF works to ensure the stability of the world economy and acts as lender of last resort to governments that run out of money.

It is funded by rich countries and largely run by the US and Europe. But as emerging economies like China pay more into the fund, there is growing pressure to reform the way IMF is governed.

The UK is one of eight nations with a full seat on the board of the IMF. The others are the US, Japan, France, Germany, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Wonder how the Government will spin this one to the public? Probably brushed under the carpet at least until the economy is sorted out and then an "oops! Too late to do anything about it now." Can't see "Call me Dave's" mob sorting it out either, unless it's one of these never again moments that he's threatened, the EU will probably ignore him though, or call him autistic to his face again.
Should be interesting to see how the EUphiles spin it too, then again perhaps they wont, just call us right wing trolls for even having the temerity to mention it no doubt.

Will someone please tell me when we can leave?

A good day to be an Englishman #4

Especially when the Current Miss England is Lance Corporal Katrina Hodge.

L/Cpl Hodge has been given leave from her duties as a soldier in the British Army and will represent England in the Miss World Final in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Saturday December 12.
She was previously given an award by her unit in the Royal Anglian Regiment for her actions during a posting in Basra and has earned the nickname ''Combat Barbie''.
She has also previously worked with lingerie chain La Senza on its Face of the Armed Forces campaign.
Lisa Bond, marketing director of La Senza said: ''Not only is she absolutely gorgeous but she is also an intelligent, inspiring young woman who does such an amazing job for her country.''

I'm really pleased for L/Cpl Hodge and was disappointed that she missed out in the original competition. Hopefully she'll act as a brilliant role model for the young ladies of England.

Glad to see the back of EU?

Lots of ways really, but lets stick to the legal non violent ones for now.

1) Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. Quite simple really though definitely in the hands of politicians and we already know we can't trust politicians. Still it would re-assert the sovereignty of Westminster over the EU and take us out of the EU in one stroke.

2) Use the (now) existing clauses in Lisbon to take us out, problem being that it would still leave us with a 2 year cooling off period where they'd either milk us dry or bribe our politicos to renege on the details.

3) The UK government could authorise an in or out referendum, if voted for out, go from there. James Higham is currently trying to get an alliance coalition going to do this very thing.

4) Split up the UK. (and as an Englishman this one does appeal to me) We allow the Scots (and the Welsh) their independence referendum and encourage them to take it. This would leave both England Scotland and Wales having to re-apply for EU membership, which an English Parliament does not apply for. No UK no EU for us.

For those who wonder if leaving the EU would leave us isolated and alone facing a trade crisis, I'd point out that most UK trade is internal and the EU needs to trade with us far more than we need to trade with them. The UK is an international trader as opposed to the EU which mostly trades internally and is the reason they have trade tariffs to protect their markets. So, England probably could join EFTA and trade with the EU that way, but also use the money we save from not having to apply EU regulations to our products and services to gaining new markets elsewhere (EU regulations cost the taxpayer £66 billion) In that we'd only need to apply EU regulations to trade with them, and not for anyone else.

So in order to leave the EU there are several options, all having advantages yet all very unlikely unless there's a political will to do so, currently there isn't, but I'm convinced that sooner or later it will and we'll leave.