Canvassing 2#

Well the local Conservatives finally got around to saying hello which makes the current visitations at 2 to 1 in Labours favour, not that I favour Labour generally of course. I even got to meet my local MP for the first time even if her list had me wrongly named, or possibly she just assumed I had the same name as my partner. I also recognised her and her pictures in the press don't really do her justice, nice lady, well she would be, they wanted my vote after all.

Focussing on the local.

One of the things I have noticed between the two different parties is where their emphasis lies in how they want to gain votes. Labour are deliberately focussing on the Tories performance nationally and the supposed cuts that will make everyones life a misery, whist studiously avoiding any mention of why those cuts might be necessary or indeed how they'd solve the deficit problem other than being nicer than the Tories about it.
The Tories on the other hand want me to focus on what they are doing locally as opposed to nationally, in other words they'd rather I'd ignore what Cameron and his EUphilic ilk are up too with the Lib Dems and not focus so much on government cuts, hence the list of what my local candidates have done for my area.
Still no doubt a lot of people will be voting on national issues in the hope of affecting the governments thinking, certainly that's what the Tories were up too before the general election and something they hope we wont do now.
I still haven't decided who I will vote for yet, though it won't be Labour, I'm not even sure if any independents are standing in my ward, I'll have to check, though they haven't asked for my vote yet.
As for the referendum, well I'm still undecided.

Department of Pre-Crime

I quite enjoy the movie Minority Report based on a Philip K Dick short story though quite well enhanced by some good effects. It essentially involves the police using pre-cogs or precognitive telepaths who can predict murder before it even happens and so the pre criminals are arrested and locked up, at least until a flaw in the system shows how it can be fooled.
Still, even today the police were out arresting people for intentions rather than actual criminal acts.

Daily Mail.

Earlier, three protesters thought to have been planning to behead effigies of the royals were arrested in London.
Police seized a guillotine as they arrested two men - aged 68 and 45 - and a 68-year-old woman last night thought to have been plotting disruption on the day of the Royal Wedding.
It is understood one of the men arrested is Chris Knight, 68, head of the anti-royal anarchist group The Government of the Dead.
The arrests in Brockley, South-East London, come after officers warned there would be a number of pre-emptive arrests on the eve of the big day.

Ok, these people may well have carried through their attempts to disrupt the wedding, however planning something is not the same as doing, even if arrested as they were carrying a guillotine. Even then, that's a legitimate protest, granted they probably would have been lynched by the attending royalists, but, IT'S STILL NOT A CRIME! pre-emptive means by it's very nature that the police are arresting people who have committed no crime as yet and I'm fairly sure some human rights lawyer is going to have a field day over this lot once they get their teeth into it. Granted the police may have saved disruption on the day, but at what cost? I'm no royalist myself, bit of respect for the Queen, hell of a lot of respect for Prince Philip, but no respect at all for the rest of the hangers on especially the heir to the throne. To my mind though, they aren't worth a protest over, but should I have chosen to protest peacefully if noisily I might have been arrested. Even if on the day I chickened out, or was merely talking up a storm and had no intentions of doing anything. I'm not saying the people arrested weren't going to try and protest, however until they did they were guilty of nothing more than conspiracy and that isn't a crime, or rather wasn't until today. The police do however have a history of this, just ask football fans and striking miners about their coaches being turned around on mere suspicion.

Disproportionate?

Only a politician of the left could have come up with this sort of thing and I include both Labour and Lib Dems in this category. When police actually enforce the law and do the jobs we expect them too, the net result is some idiot labour politician describing it as disproportionate, and no, I'm not on about the idiocy in Bristol where it clearly was disproportionate.

BBC.

Raids on three suspected London squats ahead of the royal wedding were "disproportionate", a Labour MP says.

They seemed to be "some form of pre-emptive strike" before the ceremony, said John McDonnell, who represents Hayes and Harlington in west London.

Twenty people were arrested in Hackney, Camberwell and Sipson on Thursday.

The Metropolitan Police (Met) said it brought forward the operation because of the royal wedding, but stressed it was not directly related to the event.

This week it indicated it would take pre-emptive action to stop people coming to central London on Friday to cause trouble.

Let's be quite clear here squatting in someone else's property or on someone else's land is illegal, no ifs or buts, if it's not yours then it's a form of theft by denial, dress it up in all the fancy words you like, it's still not yours.The one thing that bothers me is the fact that the only reason the police did this was because of the Royal Wedding rather than just closing a squat down as per the normal course of things.
Quite frankly despite the idiocy of John McDonnell who believes that the police should be nice to criminals this is exactly the sort of thing that the police should be doing week in week out, this is the area where zero tolerance should be being enforced.

This address was in Mr McDonnell's constituency and he said police had handcuffed one person before they "forcibly detained" others.

"I believe this disproportionate use of force is unacceptable, he told the Commons.

"I would urge that a minister comes to this house from the Home Office to explain what is exactly happening today, what are the grounds for that action and also to contact the Metropolitan Police commissioner to explain that many of us feel that this is disproportionate and no way to celebrate this joyous wedding."

Yes, there you have it, a Labour MP telling the world that the police should go easy on criminals because it's a Royal Wedding.
Wonder what he'd be saying if the squat was his house?
Bet it wouldn't be "many of us feel that this is disproportionate" that's for sure.

Fear of offending

Multiculturalism, the leftist idiocy pervading government and various state provisions such as health and teaching has caused untold harm, differences do not unite us, by their very definition they can’t, they divide us and allow fears and prejudices to grow like cancers in various communities. After all, how on earth can we feel united or a part of a group of people who are so different to us? Especially when we don't mix and aren't allowed to criticise aspects of those cultures that don't fit in well with our basic freedoms and liberties (though it seems it's perfectly ok for them to criticise and insult us) It just seems that even the basic building blocks of how our society works is failing and set to fail, sometimes by well intentioned people, often enough by those with a driven political agenda who hate the English with a passion (yes Jack Straw I'm looking at you). It now turns out that the fear of offending another culture (Islamism) has endangered us all.

Telegraph. 

A fear of offending Muslims allowed extremists into Britain before the 2005 London Tube and bus bombings, a former Labour minister with close links to the intelligence services has admitted.

Kim Howells blamed “political correctness” for fostering a situation in which dozens of extremists being sent to fight the West after being indoctrinated in Britain.
The Daily Telegraph has disclosed this week how terrorist recruits from across Africa and the Middle East flocked to London to claim asylum.
According to leaked detainee files from the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph, at least 35 detainees were sent to fight against the West after being indoctrinated in Britain.
Mr Howells, a former foreign office minister and chairman of the influential Commons intelligence and security committee, blamed “political correctness” which meant that the extremists and their views were not challenged.
He said: “There is a great reluctance to talk about the whole issue. 

“It was political correctness and it lasted really until the bombings of July in 2005 when everyone realised that these people simply didn't subscribe to political correctness.”  

The Daily Telegraph disclosed today that a leaked US diplomatic cable, sent five days after the July 7 bombings, said Britain ignored repeated warnings to stop granting asylum to Islamic extremists wanted in other countries for terrorism offences.

Mr Howells, who stood down as an MP at the last general election, said that even today there was a nervousness among moderate Muslims and mainstream political debate about tackling head on these inflammatory remarks.

He said: “There's still a great reluctance to take on the basic philosophy that these jihadists argue for, which is that infidels should be killed - that it’s not really a murderous and hellish thing to do to set off a bomb and murder innocent people including innocent Muslims..

“Even now there's a huge reluctance in many of these communities to actually condemn the activities of murderous individuals who spread this kind of poison.

And there you have it, a poisonous fruit was allowed to bloom in these islands and was nurtured by the various governments until it exploded killing 52 people on July the 7th. Yet even now though it's anathema to criticise the Muslim and Islamic communities, those who do are often vilified as racists, Islamophobes, fascists, etc. Derided in the press as the "extreme right" thugs and hooligans and yet they've never set off bombs to kill people, yet are at more risk from losing their jobs if identified with a "right wing" organisation or party. Yet those they criticise seem to still have some immunity from prosecution.

The religion of peace in action.

It does seem at times that the socialists who want to bring down western civilisation may have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, though few seem to have learned from the example of the Iranian socialists massacred after helping in the return of Khomeini. The fanatics we've nurtured under our generous benefits system (we pay them to do nothing other than be fanatics) have even threatened the Royal wedding as a legitimate target for jihad. Yet the Muslim community remains quiet over the whole issue, because no-one is allowed to openly criticise them anymore for fear of offending and those that do offend them such as burning their silly holy book end up with 70 day prison sentences.
Something has to be done soon to remove the cancer of multiculturalism from our shores, something needs to be done to remove the fanatics the system has nurtured in our midst. Yet governments are now paralysed by the human rights act and even end up paying compensation to terrorists, whilst other leftist groups insist there isn't a problem despite the fact that there very obviously is. No, I don't any longer believe that the problem in Islam is just a minority, I believe the problem "is" Islam and is endemic in the Muslim communities who don't deal with their fanatics, because their fanatics control them. Sooner or later though they'll push just too far, they can't seem to help themselves and they'll do something really stupid and we'll deal with them once and for all.
We might regret it or be sorry afterwards (about 50 years afterwards seems to be the average) but we'll still do it.

Making yourself look like idiots.

I ran across this article a yesterday and although it is clearly Daily Mailesque in its tone it did rather make me smile at the sheer idiocy of the claim.

Emirates 24.

The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks warned that Al-Qaeda has hidden a nuclear bomb in Europe that will unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" if Osama bin Laden is captured, leaked files revealed on Monday.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told Guantanamo Bay interrogators the terror group would detonate the device if the Al-Qaeda chief was captured or killed, acording to the classified files released by the WikiLeaks website.
Sheikh Mohammed, the self-professed mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, has been held at Guantanamo since 2006 and is to be tried in a military court at the US naval base on Cuba over the attacks.
His nuclear threat was revealed in Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper, one of several media outlets which have published the classified assessments of detainees at Guantanamo.
Sheikh Mohammed, captured in 2003 in Pakistan, also claims to have personally beheaded US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 with his "blessed right hand" and to have helped in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people.

 

First off setting off a nuclear bomb is not at all straight forward, as an engineer I can assure you that those things need constant expert maintenance, the timing circuit alone for the various plates to come together in just the right sequence is set to the millisecond otherwise the thing just fizzles and this thing has apparently been just sitting there since 2003?
Now given that most Islamic fanatics are like kids with a new toy when it comes to letting off weapons and committing atrocities in the name of their deity can anyone imagine them not setting it off as and when they got it into the West? So it boils down to 2 choices, they haven't got one (quite likely) or they can't set it off (possible, though there are some smart Muslim engineers out there). There's also the problem of the reaction of Europe should they do something as barbaric and I doubt it would be pleasant nor I suspect would the cries of it's only a "tiny minority" rhetoric that would be wheeled out, along with reassurances that Islam is actually all about peace and is no way connected with this heinous act. Move along now, nothing to see here, be much of a shield for them. A government that failed to act to remove Islam from its borders would be an ex government in days. If those who think that Islamophobia is a problem now, just wait till they do something truly stupid. Even a simple option for them such as a dirty bomb is likely to provoke an extreme reaction and I suspect those at the top of the terrorist tree know this. So all in all this is a massive bluff by Al Quaeda, I know it, and I suspect anyone reading it would know it, particularly in the West, it's not even particularly good propaganda as their own side will be wondering why they haven't set it off.
Oh sure I believe our security forces will take it seriously enough to at least look, but I doubt they'll find one, smart money says they haven't got one otherwise they'd have set it off already.

Living high on the hog

They still don't get it and it's looking increasingly unlikely this side of the revolution that they ever will, because there are no consequences really to their actions. I'm talking about various public bodies spending taxpayers cash like it's an inexhaustible fountain, which I suppose to them it really is as no government in recent memory has actually tackled the bastards and made them accountable to both the government and the public. Take the Audit Commission (please) in any ordinary set of circumstances you'd expect the people there to have a tight rein on what they are spending our cash on, after all it's supposed to be their job to keep an eye on what every other government department is spending our cash on.

Telegraph.

Senior figures at the Audit Commission, which polices spending at local authorities, NHS trusts and other government bodies, spent almost £20,000 of public money over the past two years on luxury goods and services.

The body is thought to be the first government organisation to release details of spending on taxpayer-funded credit cards. Thousands of other civil servants also have the cards, which have been used for spending of about £1  billion, leading to warnings of a public funds scandal.

The credit card receipts disclose that Audit Commission executives enjoyed meals costing more than £600 at L’Escargot and Coq d’Argent in London. Hundreds of pounds were also spent at a brasserie owned by Raymond Blanc, the French chef. In total, £11,390 was spent on fine dining in two years.

Executives also made 30 purchases at florists, costing more than £1,300, and also bought goods from HMV and Thorntons, cinema tickets and doughnuts.

The details were released to Eric Ollerenshaw, a Conservative MP, and will be officially disclosed to the House of Commons this week. 

A government insider said that another “MPs’ expenses-style scandal” could emerge if details of credit card expenditure across government were published. Senior mandarins are understood to be privately seeking to block such a release.

The government procurement cards are Visa cards issued by several banks for small office expenditure, including travel. Some Whitehall departments insist that the cards are used for all spending of less than £5,000, which is automatically paid off from public funds.

It really beggars belief at times the profligacy and corruption of taxpayers cash at the top of the public services, if anyone tried that in my company their feet wouldn't even touch the floor as they were kicked out and means set in motion to recoup the money through either civil or criminal courts. Though most expenses wouldn't even be allowed to reach the stage that these troughing pigs have managed, they'd just look at the receipts and say we're not paying that. But in the weird world of the public services such basic safeguards don't seem to have a place in the culture of waste and mismanagement at the top of the tree, though I suspect the junior ranks might just struggle to get a replacement paperclip from the stationary store such would be the paperwork involved.
It will be interesting to see if senior mandarins in the civil service do manage to block the release of credit card expenditure on their Visa government procurement cards after all, they can spend up to £5,000 on them and it's paid off automatically no questions asked, well at least until now, people like Eric Ollerenshaw MP are asking and seem to be trying to get to the bottom of the foetid stink of corruption that emanates from senior civil servants.
Will he succeed? We can hope so. Will heads roll? We can hope so too. What we can be sure of is that the senior mandarins will fight like trapped rats to prevent even a hint of their largesse ever coming to the attention of the public or even MP's if they can help it. It's one of the reasons they have to go, or be strung from the lampposts as and when we get around to them after hanging the MP's and lawyers etc.
It's a long list and it just keeps getting longer and possibly always will at least until they show a lot more respect to the long suffering taxpayer and really start giving value for money.

Parish Notice

I have been cordially invited to post occasionally on a new blog the Orphans of Liberty and I'm in some very good company.

Longrider, James Higham,  The Spine,  Mark Wadsworth,  Sackerson,  Captain Ranty,  Harry Hook,  Luikkerland,  Chuckles,  Trooper Thompson,  Swbk2345,  Autonomous Mind,  Leg-iron,  Pavlovs Cat,  Witterings from Witney,  JuliaM  and Prodicus have all agreed to post their thoughts on liberty as well as their take on life as we know it both here and abroad. The official opening date will be noon on the 25th of April, though it is open now for you to take a look.

Please enjoy (I hope) and add your comments there too.

QM

Condoning breaking the law

Some groups are more equal than others, this is one of the sad facts of life in this land in which we live. Some groups get away with a blind eye being turned because a full investigation would be "racist" at least until someone finally got the nerve to complain, well someone other than the BNP of course. And there are some groups who get away with vandalism and squatting because their beliefs fall in line with government policies, groups like the environumpties currently squatting in a school near Brighton.

BBC.

The grounds of a disused school in East Sussex have been occupied by a group of climate activists.

About 40 protesters from Brighton Climate Action entered the grounds of the former St Anne's school in Lewes on Friday, declaring squatters' rights.

They have pledged to undertake a week of training and "direct action" against companies accused of environmental damage.

Sussex Police said the camp was peaceful and no arrests had been made.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, said he was "sympathetic" to the protesters' action as "climate change is one of the most serious issues we face".

He said they were right to draw attention to it, but he was doubtful about the method chosen, saying that any protest must be "peaceful and within the law".

Mr Baker added that he did not condemn their use of the school building and grounds as it had been "empty for years".

I wonder whether Mr Baker would have been quite so forgiving if say they'd occupied his house, the Lib Dem party HQ or say the group had been someone like the EDL? I somehow think the response from him or indeed the police might have been somewhat different. After all the followers of the great green goddess have protected status in this land and they can seemingly get away with causing criminal damage in the name of their religion, well so long as they are doing it to someone other than the powers that be of course.
Squatting is illegal, these people don't even have the excuse that they are homeless and have nowhere else to go and I have a sneaking suspicion that any damage done to the site wont come out of their pockets either. Of course they might be perfectly well behaved (hah!) and leave in a weeks time after doing their thing.

The group also said an exploratory oil drilling site in an area of ancient woodland on the South Downs would be targeted for sabotage.

Or perhaps not, seems you can be a criminal in this land provided you're doing it for the right (green) reasons just don't try smoking indoors, driving marginally over the speed limit or drinking too much, apparently they're the wrong kind of law breaking.

Cry God! For Harry, England and St George!

The bluebells of High Elms

I took Lady QM and the hairy hound off for one of our favourite walks today, it's not particularly long but at this time of year it has certain advantages. We go to High Elms country park (near Bromley) and walk a circular route up to the village of Downe and back to High Elms through Cuckoo Woods.
The walk at this time is notable for the apple blossoms in the orchards en route,

Wild apple tree

And up to one of my favourite pubs the "George and Dragon" in Downe for a pub lunch and a superb couple of pints of real ale.

The pub

Afterwards though we walk down to Cuckoo Woods and wander through shady woods looking at the ground as it's covered in bluebells.

Simply wonderful

Here, there and everywhere.

But it's not just the bluebells, there is spring everywhere and an abundance of colour in the leaves both green and the red of the copper beech.

Sheer vibrancy

Copper Beech

It's not a particularly long walk, but at this time of year it cannot be beaten, the dog even got to chase squirrels.

Contra mundum

Obscure Latin legal term that normally nobody ever would have heard about save only that these days it's coming somewhat into vogue because of gagging orders. It literally means "against the world" and it does seem that many of these gagging orders are being used specifically to deal with instances of preventing the public knowing about instances of companies as well as the rich and famous getting caught and their affairs published worldwide by the press or even bloggers I guess as the term is a catch all.

BBC.

Prime Minister David Cameron has said he feels "uneasy" about judges granting injunctions to protect the privacy of powerful individuals.

He argued that Parliament, not judges, should decide on the balance between press freedom and privacy.

The courts are using human rights legislation "to deliver a sort of privacy law", he warned.

His comments follow a number of recent injunctions which have banned the identification of celebrities.

Mr Cameron was challenged about the use of injunctions during a question-and-answer session at the General Motors factory in Luton.

He said: "I think there is a question here about privacy and about the way our system works."

"I think we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right?

"What ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy, is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection we want for individuals and [on] freedom of the press and the rest of it."

But Mr Cameron admitted he did not have all the answers and that he needed to think some more about the issues.

Of course parliamentary privilege means that an MP can get up and say what we aren't allowed to, though the Carter Ruck's of this world have recently tried to gag parliament itself, fortunately without success.
Thing is though if a company or guy gets caught with their figurative hand in the cookie jar why should they get legal protection via a gagging order? Ok I don't really give a damn about which premiership footballers are shagging other women outside their marriage, but if they are caught with their pants down then no, they don't get to gag the press. Same with Trafigura and Ivory Coast toxic waste.

Even today a judge set a new benchmark for secrecy laws yesterday by granting a TV star a permanent gagging order until now reserved for killer children.

The ‘family’ man, a household name, won the High Court injunction to suppress for ever ‘intimate’ photographs of him with a woman.

It is the latest in a series of increasingly draconian secrecy rulings and came just one day after appeal judges decreed that another celebrity who had an affair with a  colleague should remain anonymous to protect his children.

Perhaps he should have thought about protecting his children by not doing what he was doing? But for life? I can't imagine what the judge thought he was doing.
We really ought to be getting back to a situation where if you're caught doing something you shouldn't be then you pay the consequences. If that means having your name dragged through the mud by the press then so be it, gagging the press to prevent publication of your peccadillo's is not healthy for society as a whole, be it business or private individuals. If you don't want your kids to know what a scoundrel you are, then either be more careful or don't be a scoundrel in the first place, you shouldn't have recourse to the law to cover up your sins.

Oh Joy

It's nice when the lunacy of the EU and it's various environmental policies fully supported by our home grown enviroloons comes crashing upon the rocks of reality. I have a cupboard full of environmentally friendly green fluorescent miniature lightbulbs, they might be energy efficient, but if I had to buy one instead of getting them free via my power utilities company they would cost more than a standard old fashioned bulb and are despite claims not as bright, at least at first when switched on.
Still it's novel to discover today that not only do they contain mercury (something I did know) but also they are a proper little chemical warfare timebomb even when just switched on and not should they explode near someone.

Express.

HEALTH fears were raised last night over the use of energy saving lightbulbs after a report claimed they contain cancer causing chemicals.

Scientists warn that prolonged contact with the European Union-imposed bulbs could put people at risk after discovering that they “pulse out” poisonous materials when switched on.

The bulbs are already widely used in Britain after the EU ordered all traditional incandescent lightbulbs to be phased out by the end of this year.

While it was known that harmful amounts of mercury are released if one of the new “green” bulbs breaks, experts have now discovered they also emit several carcinogenic chemicals.

These include phenol – a poison used by the Nazis to kill concentration camp victims – and the toxins naphthalene and styrene, which are released as a form of steam when the bulb is switched on.
The German scientists behind the report advise that the bulbs should not be left on for extended periods, especially near a person’s head.

Researcher Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the independent Berlin Alab Laboratory, said: “For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment.”

He said the bulbs could be especially harmful if left on near a child’s head all night or used to read by for long periods near an adult.

Andreas Kirchner of the Federation of German Engineers, said: “Electrical smog develops around these lamps. I, therefore, use them only very economically. They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.”

Isn't it just wonderful how the enviroloons have made us trade in something safe if less energy efficient (though they do help heat a room) for a chemical timebomb, because sooner or later these bulbs like anything else heating up and cooling down will break, sometimes catastrophically. Even worse, whilst they are on they pulse out carcinogens. These righteous have it seems not thought out the full effect of their campaigns to reduce our energy emissions and have instead put ourselves and our kids at risk in the name of their green god. There is of course a bonus for some though...

Experts in Britain insisted the risks were relatively small and urged people not to panic but admitted more research was needed

Someone has clearly seen another way to pick our pockets via a government grant.

Cameron does something I agree with shocker

Dave and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, I think he's doing a crap job of running the country, that he's an EUphile and that he can't be trusted to reduce the government size and spending. Plus he's just as authoritarian as the last lot to be in power. Still people were foolish enough to vote him marginally into power so we have to put up with his crap for the next few years until we get to choose again.
Today though he did something I agreed with and for pretty much the reasons I would do it too.

Telegraph.

David Cameron blocks Gordon Brown as head of IMF

In a direct attack on the former Prime Minister, Mr Cameron said his predecessor was not the "most appropriate person" to lead the IMF because he would not admit the UK had a "debt problem".

Mr Brown is reportedly hoping to take on the £270,000-a-year role but he must first be nominated by the Government.

“If you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem (running the IMF) they may not be the best person to decide whether other countries have that problem," he said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He added that the role needed to be filled by “someone who understands the dangers of excessive spending.”

Or to put it simply, you don't give a lunatic the keys to the asylum.

Brown's naivety and ignorance of economics stems from his socialist roots where the belief that you can spend other peoples money indefinitely seems to have deep roots. This coupled to a lax regulation of financial services lead to the banks loaning and taking up toxic debt from all over the world as they looked for high interest returns on investments without adequate checks to see if the loans could actually be paid back. Nor can quantitative easing (printing money) ever be a real solution to a debt crisis, look at Zimbabwe if you want a prime example of the end result of that type of solution.
So in this case yes Cameron has got it right, I'll allow him his day in the sunshine and probably return to normal service tomorrow.

One law for some...

The moron who burned the poppies at the Remembrance Day service gets a £50 fine and outraged a nation.

Emdadur Choudhury Islamic scumbag

London Evening Standard

The Prime Minister told the Commons that a "stronger statement" should have been made to show public disgust at the man's action.

"I think to many of us, you look at something like that and feel that we should be making a stronger statement that the sort of behaviour is out of order and has no place in a tolerant country," he said.

Now a guy who burns a Koran in protest gets a 70 day prison sentence.

Cumberland News.

A man who burned a copy of the Koran in Carlisle city centre was today jailed for 70 days.

Andrew Ryan, 32, of Summerhill, off London Road, was accompanied to Carlisle Magistrates' Court by supporters carrying a St George's Cross flag who were chanting "We love you England".

Ryan had pleaded guilty to racially aggravated harrassment and theft of the Koran holy book from Carlisle Library at an earlier hearing.

Ok it wasn't his Koran, he stole/borrowed it from the library, however that normally involves just a fine not a custodial sentence, but 70 days for outraging Muslims whilst the moron who burned a poppy and outraged the nation gets only a £50 fine?
The word disproportionate seems to apply here. After all if some idiot artist can put on display a bible to be defaced and has nothing done to them. this guy should surely have expected the same, save I suppose that he didn't call it art.
I suspect Andrew Ryan  will end up a hero in some quarters, despite the theft, I have to admit I don't like the idea of burning books, but I have never felt so close to burning a Koran as I've done this afternoon, sadly though I now know the cost of freedom of expression and that's 70 days in jail.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS 

George Orwell, Animal Farm Chapter 10.

Well there's a surprise....not.

Seems all is not as it seems in the local government budgets of some local councils, most notably the Labour ones if you believe what's currently coming out in reports. I'm minded to take them with a pinch of salt though as it's election time, though it wouldn't surprise me one bit if true.

Express.

CASH-RICH Labour-controlled councils are cutting local services while sitting on reserves of billions of pounds, it was claimed last night.
They are stockpiling unused reserves yet continue to slash budgets for facilities such as nurseries, libraries and street cleaning.
New research by the Conservative Party highlighted those most reluctant to dip into their “rainy day funds”.
They include Manchester Council, said to have reserves of £95.2million while cutting libraries and street cleaning, and Southwark Council in London, said to be sitting on £86.8million.
The Conservatives said Liverpool Council was cutting nurseries, libraries and leisure centres while increasing reserves to £121.7million and Nottingham Council was reducing highway maintenance while sitting on funds allegedly worth £50.7million.
Also mentioned was Camden Council in London, which the Tories claim has reserves of £84.3million.
Local Government Minister Grant Shapps said: “It is totally unacceptable for Labour councils to make political cuts while sitting on cash reserves of billions of pounds. Sensible financial planning is about putting cash away when the sun is shining so you have some cover during the rainy days.

“These reserves exist to ensure councils can react to unforeseen situations like clearing up the economic mess left by Labour."

And he's right if these figures are true, though most of us in the real world would wonder at why any frontline (read useful) services are being cut unless of course it is a political gesture of spite designed to make the government look bad. After all why close nurseries, libraries, street cleaning, leisure centres and highway maintenance whilst leaving other less useful services (diversity and racial co-ordinators, middle management, administrators etc.) alone?
The whole thing has an air of tit for tat here, government says make cuts to your budgets, local councils deliberately go for services that get headlines so they can portray the government as total bastards, government retaliates saying the councils are sitting on and increasing their contingency funds so aren't short of money for essentials and so on. The whole thing is a game to them and the only ones suffering are us the common people who lose the services and jobs because of this pathetic political point scoring.
I keep thinking it's time someone stepped in and set limitations on exactly what it is local government can and can't do, but to do that we'd have to leave the EU first so much of their regulations are responsible for the mess at local and national level.
Then I look at the the three main parties and know at the moment that's just a pipe dream...

So an icon of a mass murderer is ok?

There's something rotten going on at the top end (for a given value of top end) of our society it's becoming more and more prevalent over the years and involves the persecution of Christians. Now I'm not a Christian myself, well certainly not a practising one, though I was brought up with a Christian ethos and attended Sunday School and church and Christianity has shaped my life to a certain extent with my holding to certain values and code of ethics in what I hold to be right and wrong. So I follow what's going on in the news with Christians being suspended over wearing a cross, Suspended and sacked over offering to pray for people. And now threatened with the sack for having a cross in their works van in case anyone who sees it thinks the company is a Christian charity.

Telegraph.

An electrician and former soldier faces the sack for displaying a small palm cross in the window of his company van.

Colin Atkinson, 64, from Wakefield, has been called to a disciplinary hearing at the housing association where he has worked for 15 years.

His bosses at the publicly funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH) have demanded he remove the eight inch long cross made from woven palm leaves that sits on his dashboard.

The organisation claims the cross may cause offence but says it strongly promotes "inclusive" policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols at work.

It has provided stalls at gay pride events, held "diversity days" for travellers, and has allowed other staff to display photographs of Che Guevera*, the revolutionary leader, in their office. 

 So, perfectly ok to display a picture of a mass murdering revolutionary, but not a symbol of someone who said "Love your neighbour as yourself" 
Now WDH has said “We do not allow employees to display any personal representations in our vehicles, although they are free to do so upon their person" and normally that would be fair enough for me, but in this case given the lengths the company seems willing to go to in order to appease other beliefs (stalls at gay pride events, held "diversity days" for travellers, and has allowed other staff to display photographs of Che Guevera, the revolutionary leader, in their office) I rather believe that were any other faith to display a symbol in their vans that WDH would be falling over themselves to allow it or excuse it. I may be wrong of course, WDH may be entirely consistent in their policies and I'd applaud them if they were, but the continuing spate of actions designed to marginalise Christians from the mainstream is worrying and it's something I'll be keeping an eye on.

Raedwald also believes the guy is on a hiding to nothing but has an interesting solution.


*The exact number of Che’s Cuban victims has not been verified, but include people he personally
executed and those put to death under his orders. Che’s biographers consistently report that he sent
thousands to the firing squad. Over 4,000 deaths are documented to have taken place in Cuba, mostly
firing squad execution, in the first three years after Fidel Castro’s takeover (1959-1962). Che Guevara
was one of the regime’s chief executioners during this period and is said to have acknowledged ordering
"several thousand" executions. All took place without affording the victims fair trials and due process of law.

So tell us something we don't know

Apparently Labour lied to us about immigration according to Lord Glasman, one of Ed Miliband’s most senior advisers in an interview for the May edition of Progress magazine in which he tells us something we already knew and had raged about.

Telegraph.

One of Ed Miliband’s most senior advisers has accused the last Labour government of “lying” about immigration and blamed the party for the rise of the far Right.

Ah yes, the "Far Right" one of Labours fearsome shibboleths to browbeat anyone who questioned their policies of rubbing the right's noses in multiculturalism, along with racist and bigot. Not that the right were any of those things nor were the right likely to be affected by those things either, no, the burden of coping with mass immigration fell as usual on the urban working class, Labours core vote and hardly an example of the "Far Right" at all.

Lord Glasman claimed that working class men were unable to talk about the matters important to them at Labour Party meetings without being labelled sexist or racist. 

He added: “There was no public discussion of immigration and its benefits. In fact there was a very hard rhetoric combined with a very loose policy going on.

“Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration and the extent of illegal immigration and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.”

No shit Sherlock.

Calling on “progressive” people to recognise their “responsibility for the generation of far-Right populism,” Lord Glasman suggested that Labour was partly responsible for the rise in organisations such as the English Defence League, which was founded in 2009 and organises street marches against Islamic extremism.

He said: “You consider yourself... so opposed that you don’t want to talk to them, you don’t want to engage with them, you don’t want anybody with views like that anywhere near the party.”

This, Lord Glasman said, meant that party members ignored “a hate and rage against us” from working class people “who have always been true to Labour”.

“Working class men can’t really speak at Labour Party meetings about what causes them grief, concerns about their family, concerns about immigration, love of country, without being falsely stereotyped as sexist, racist, nationalist,” he said.

Far Right populism? I presume he's not talking about a free market economy where goods and service prices are kept low by competition amongst companies and workers over wages and prices as well as low taxation.
No, "Far Right" is the Labour and MSM codeword for racists, or those who they have tarred with the racist brush, despite the fact that the only supposed "Far Right" political party (BNP) is somewhat to the left of Labour when it comes to economics. Nor are the other group the EDL "Far Right" they aren't even political, though they do seek a peaceful political solution to extreme Islam and mass immigration. Recently they've even started a campaign to force the MSM to drop the "Far Right" tag by a letter writing campaign along with complaints to the Press Complaints Commission.
Facts are as anyone who studies politics will tell you is that National Socialism and Fascism are both the bastard offspring of the far left and contain many of the lefts thoughts and philosophies in their make up, they are only termed "Far Right" to differentiate them from the "Far Left" in the same way that Monty Python took to town the various Jewish factions in "The Life of Brian" In a sense National Socialism and Fascism are the "splitters" in the family of the left in that they encompass nationalism rather than internationalism.
In essence that's where Labour really failed the working class, they became too wrapped up in multiculturalism and internationalism and ignored the ordinary patriotic folk who under normal circumstances would vote a donkey with a red rosette into parliament (and frequently did) to the extent that they took it upon themselves to vote for people and join organisations who said they'd do something about it.
Not right wing organisations as Lord Glasman and many on the left would like to have us believe, but simply groups and parties who said we'll do something about it. And it's taken how many years before anyone in Labour would even come out and admit that they deliberately dumped on their core support and had the gall to deny that there was a problem, indeed anyone who raised concerns was immediately labelled a racist, bigot, nationalist, right winger, etc.
So tell us something we didn't know Lord Glasman, because what you said in that interview we've known for years...

Jobsworths (again)

Step up to the Plate Brent Council in North London who have decided to ban a 13 year tradition of doing an Easter March by the local Christian Churches.

Mail.

Every year the Christians from different churches get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter.

But this year their Good Friday parade has been banned – because it breaches health and safety laws.

Church leaders say town hall bureaucrats are refusing Christians rights routinely afforded to minority groups, and have vowed to defy them.

Last night Brent Council told the worshippers to walk on the pavement.

A spokesman added: ‘Brent Council was not contacted about the march until around a week ago. 

‘There is a strict legal procedure we have to follow to issue a traffic order closing roads so people can march in the highway, which includes advertising and consultation, and this takes about five weeks. 

‘We are very sorry to say there is now not enough time for us to legally facilitate this march.’

I'm sorry, but the not enough time to facilitate the march doesn't cut the mustard with me, the churches have been doing it for 13 years and I'm fairly sure that the council knows about the parade and where and when it's likely to take place. Can you imagine the furore if the GLC decided on health and safety grounds to ban the Notting Hill carnival in August because no-one had asked them about it? Not going to happen is it? This is just a piece of posturing by Brent to discriminate against Christians after all if they can hold and promote a massive Diwali festival as well as asking local mosques about Eid so they can promote that festival too...

Brent Council hosts a Diwali street celebration every year. Last November it boasted it had held the biggest Diwali event in the country, after more than 60,000 people turned out. 

And in July last year the council appealed to the Muslim community to notify it of any Eid events so it could promote them free of charge.

If they can recognise those other newer festivals then surely they can recognise Easter and the traditions in Brent that go on around that celebration that oddly enough have gone on for 13 years without until this year interference from the council.
Personally I think this is just a religiously motivated attack against Christians something that I'd bet good money on that Brent would never try against any other religion, I rather expect they'd move heaven and earth if the local Mosques wanted to do a parade at short notice and would allow them to have their way.
I'm still trying to decide whether it's idiocy or malice that defines all these attacks against the indigenous law abiding people of this land, though I'm starting to come down on the side of malice and a deliberate attempt to wind us all up into attacking a scapegoat for all the problems we face, rather than the political classes as they deserve.

Why is this man in the government?

No, not Ken Clarke (for once) but Vince (famous for calling G Brown Mr Bean) Cable a man who was féted as some sort of economic wizard but for the life of me seems to be some sort of socialist simpleton with no grasp of the effect of socialist policies on ordinary people, in this case uncontrolled immigration.

Telegraph.

The Prime Minister will today claim that uncontrolled immigration has undermined some British communities. Pledging to cut the numbers entering Britain to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, Mr Cameron will say that "for too long, immigration has been too high".

Mr Cameron’s speech, his first major address on the issue since the general election, will please many Conservative MPs and voters.

But Mr Cable, a Liberal Democrat, described the speech as “very unwise” and suggested it could fuel extremism over immigration.

“The reference to the tens of thousands of immigrants rather than hundreds of thousands is not part of the coalition agreement, it is Tory party policy only,” Mr Cable told the BBC.

“I do understand there is an election coming but talk of mass immigration risks inflaming the extremism to which he and I are both strongly opposed.”

Thing that strikes me is that if Cameron's speech will inflame extremism, why did we invite extremists into the UK in the first place? Assuming of course we did invite them and they just didn't turn up on their own bat, which under labour was entirely possible. Doubt that Cable has got an answer for that one other than a Neville Chamberlainesque appeasement to totalitarianism, which seems to be what he's aiming for. You don't appease bullies and extremists, they see it as weakness and will just attempt to extort more concessions from you. I know that, I suspect you'll know that, but politicians? I just don't know any more, after all you'll see or hear Cameron's speech today and not that the only immigration he can do anything about is non EU immigration which means anyone getting an EU passport from any after escaping any violent shithole can come here and start their own branch of gangsters r us complete with a full set of benefits and a decent house paid for by us. What Cable doesn't get is the fact that it's our generosity that's fuelling extremism because we pay for extremists to do nothing except sit at home, or meet up to plot extremism. If they had to work hard to feed themselves trust me that will knock the extremism out of anyone.
Cameron can't stop mass immigration, it's no longer under the UK governments remit as it's under EU control, he can only sound off and make as if he can make a difference to get votes during the local elections. Cable claims that he and Cameron oppose extremism, though neither are able to do anything about the extremists in our midst, though I do know that talking about immigration won't inflame them, they're already inflamed and Cable would only have us appease them, it's an old socialist fantasy that being nice to someone will make them nice right back, that only works with civilised people and those who would be inflamed are not civilised otherwise they wouldn't be extremists.

Any publicity is good publicity?

I finally caught up with a tv series called "The Walking Dead" last night, it's showing on Channel 5 on Sundays and seems to be repeated this Friday, though owing to the wonderful Virgin it's available all week via their system along with various other BBC, ITV and Channel 4 shows. It's quite handy to me at times as the way my shifts work out my days off vary by a day owing to 4 on 4 off.
Still I did enjoy it though zombie films aren't really my cup of tea, still it came highly reccomended by friend who'd seen it previously on the FX channel (which I don't get).
Anyway I must admit to having a good laugh when I read about this in the BBC.

An advertising firm has apologised for placing a billboard for a TV show called The Walking Dead on the side of a funeral parlour.

The unintended, "unfortunate juxtaposition" caused raised eyebrows in Consett, County Durham.

The roadside advert for the Channel 5 post-apocalyptic drama has since been removed from the exterior wall of the Co-operative Funeralcare premises.

An alternative poster has been pasted in its place.

The Walking Dead follows the survivors of a zombie apocalypse

Ok, it was a bit insensitive placement, but damn me if it didn't make me smile.

Hat tip to Thomas Hobbes in the comments

Ban it?

I don't like the idea of bans, they give our various politico's and righteous far too much in the way of precedence when dealing with the way we live our lives. Take the recent burka ban in France, they've legislated away a right to dress just how the hell you want and it seems the calls are rising for our lot to do the same and no doubt some of the idiots who purport to govern us are champing at the bit to do so.

Express.

POLICE made the first arrests yesterday of women flouting France’s new burka ban amid fresh calls to outlaw them in Britain too.
Anyone who appears veiled in public in France can now be fined £130 under a law that came into effect yesterday.
The move sparked calls for a similar approach in this country, with surveys showing there was widespread public support for a law that would make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public.
Tory MP Philip Hollobone has tabled a private member’s bill that would ban veils in public, while UKIP has won public support for its policy on outlawing the burka.
Mr Hollobone announced his bill last year, saying: “This is Britain. We are not a Muslim country. Covering your face in public is strange, and to many people both intimidating and offensive.
“We are never going to get along with having a fully integrated society if a substantial minority insist on concealing their identity from everyone else.”

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the burka I think it's an idiotic piece of desert wear and class it as a look at me I'm much more holier than thou statement by the wearer, a sign of mental insecurity of the male involved or both. But I wouldn't take away the right of someone to chance rickets due to vitamin D deficiency away from them, I'd actually empower the rest of us instead. I'd empower the right of any business or government building to say you cannot come in here with your face shielded, I'd remove (in the name of equality) any activity that panders to separation and non integration such as blacking out windows at swimming pools, generally just empower people to make life for someone who wears one of those garments not worth the effort of donning it. Same as I'd remove translation services from all government depts, you come here, you speak English, Welsh or Gaelic (and braille/large print editions), no other translations given, you cannot speak or read the language? Provide your own translator at your cost.
That sadly is not how the state and righteous work, they'd far rather take away a right than empower the rest of us with a right.

Wrath

The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon
Rudyard Kipling

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxons began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved
Ere the Saxons began to hate.

Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight,
There was neither sign nor show,
When the Saxons began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd
It was not taught by the State,
No man spoke it aloud,
When the Saxons began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate
Through the chilled years ahead
When Time shall count from the date

That the Saxons began to hate.

Non Jobs

When it comes to giving value for money, local councils have got to be at the bottom of the pile. Yes I know that some tasks they undertake are required by law whether they like it or not (food hygiene standards for one) but some of the things they get involved with just seem to be excuses to throw council tax payer (and taxpayers via government) cash at to increase their budgets for next year. That's part of the bureaucratic mindset of local authorities not necessarily the councillors, but of the chief executives and their minions down the ranks of the council itself.

Telegraph.

Community Development & Equalities Officer - Tewkesbury; £24,646 to £26,276

Healthy walks co-ordinator - Forest of Dean; £14,733 to £15,444

Project support worker (Voice of My Own) - Scottish Borders, £19,024.64 to £21,135.84 pro rata (fixed term contract)

Family Lifestyles Officer - Rugby; £19,126 to £21,519 pro rata

Active villages co-ordinator - Teignbridge, £10,228;

Life Skills and Positive Activities Officer - Ryedale; £19,000 to £21,500 pro rata (fixed term contract)

Workplace travel plan coordinator - Havant; £20,198 to £22,221, part time, pro rata (fixed term contract)

Gypsy Romany Traveller Community Cohesion Officer - Herefordshire, £22,221 to £26,276

New media improvement assistant - Perth and Kinross; £16,086 to £17,587

Woodfuel development officer - West Sussex; £32,800 to £35,430  

Nice work if you can get it, but probably not something councils should be involved with and certainly areas in which savings could be made. You can practically be certain though that the jobs that will go are the ones of most value to the public, bin-men, nurses, policemen, road and street light repair crews. I very much doubt looking at that lot that the diversity co-ordinator brigades are quaking in their boots with the thought of impending redundancy because if they can still advertise for those types of jobs then the government clearly isn't getting to grips with waste spending. Though I am coming to the conclusion that the government isn't really in control of anything anymore and that civil servants at local and national levels are running rings around them and thwarting any attempts to rein in the bureaucracy. Perhaps the government should have opted for lopping off the top 3 layers of the civil service in all departments, oh I'm sure there would be screams about how much experience we'd be losing, but frankly I suspect it would actually improve things by allowing things to get done rather than obstructed. Certainly put the fear of God into the rest of them.
It's time and past time that the bureaucracy was trimmed in this country and the non jobs removed, but as with most governments, I'll not hold my breath on the chances of it ever happening if only because there's no incentive amongst the bureaucrats and ministers to actually do something about it.

It may be the law, but it isn't justice

It didn't really make anything but a footnote in the various MSM outlets, but justice for Amy Houston failed on Thursday. Amy was the young girl who was killed by Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, 33, an Iraqi Kurd and a failed asylum seeker who was already banned from driving, who left Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

Sky.

A bid to deport failed asylum seeker Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who killed a 12-year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Lancashire, has been rejected.

Ibrahim, a 33-year-old Iraqi Kurd, had already been banned from driving when he left Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

He was jailed for four months over the death but on his release was allowed to remain in the UK

Ibrahim had faced deportation as an illegal immigrant but was allowed to remain after an immigration judge ruled in 2009 that he had established a "family life" in the UK.

Amy's father Paul had campaigned for years to get Ibrahim deported.

The Court of Appeal judges expressed their "greatest sympathy" for Amy's family but said their only task was to decide whether there had been any error of law.

After the judgement was given, Mr Houston, who was in the public gallery, addressed the bench saying: "What about my right to a family life?"

There is some debate going on currently as to whether or not Ibrahim is married or that the children are his and he's simply using this as an excuse to stay in the UK. But whether true or not it's plain to me that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice here, oh certainly with Ibrahim the law was upheld and his human rights were not breached, though again what of Amy Houston's rights and those of her father to see justice done? 4 months in prison hardly strikes me as just and as for being allowed to stay here after he had failed to be granted asylum status...
Oh yes I'm sure they took the rights of his new family to have a "man" in their life into account, but my sympathy for them is by far outweighed by my disgust at his actions, nothing stopping them from going back to Iraq with him after all if they need him so much.
As the father said we have a system that protects the criminal.
This killer is free to live in this country despite his criminal past, but meanwhile the family of the girl are "sentenced" to live the rest of their lives in mourning, a judgement made on a legal point, NOT common sense.

Going against (some) human nature

You often read about health and safety gone mad, occasionally from me, but mostly out there in the MSM where because of litigation claims spiralling out of control and people seeing easy money to be had over the slightest thing we are developing a "risk averse" attitude amongst various groups who don't wish to be sued should someone be injured doing their job.

Express.

TWO friends saved a drowning man by ignoring the health and safety advice of the ambulance service and jumping into a freezing canal.

Brave Josh Felvus and Liam Jempson dialled 999 after seeing the man floundering in the icy water as they walked home after a night out.

But when the operator told them to stay on the towpath for their own good, the pair refused.

Mr Felvus, 20, and his 19-year-old friend plunged in and dragged the victim to the bank, just as he was beginning to sink below the surface.

Yesterday both young men spoke modestly as they recalled their heroics on an 8ft-deep feeder canal off the Avon, in Bristol.

Mr Jempson, from Bristol, said: “I just couldn’t watch this man die. It all happened quickly but I knew I had to do something. It’s only afterwards that I realised it could have been dangerous going into the water. The water was freezing and I was in shock afterwards.”

Well done those guys, yes it was dangerous but they saved a life, though if they'd followed "official" advice from the ambulance service they could have stayed safe and watched a man drown.

A spokeswoman for Great Western Ambulance Service said: “We don’t ask anyone to put themselves in danger and try to keep as many people safe as possible.”

That's the official line, it has to be, the operator could/would lose their job if they told the lads to jump in and rescue him, but it's also a prevalent attitude in the UK where doing nothing and staying safe is actively encouraged by the state and various private companies in case they are sued. The prevalence of claims for injury adverts on the tv shows how deep this current fad for claiming for every single thing that happens to you that hurts goes, so much so that companies will now spend thousands on training their staff to be careful, putting up guards and generally coming across as more nanny state than the nanny state.
Not that I'm saying that people should put their lives at risk doing every day things, but that we should at least accept that there are some risks worth doing, risking yourself to save a life being one of them, yes those two lads could have been killed, but they weren't they were have a go heroes and a guy is alive because they were willing and able to take a risk.
It just strikes me as very sad that society has gone the way it has where people in authority have to actively discourage risk taking where a life is concerned, a simple don't do anything stupid, not a stay on the towpath should have been enough.
Perhaps it's time to reign back the compensation and risk averse culture in England at least.

Saying it how it is

There are rules out there, things which I can think, but not say, well not any more so badly has the government stifled freedom of speech and expression with their political correctness and equality agenda. You know the typical responses to shut down debate and accuse the one who said the truth as they saw it as a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, sexist, mysogynist, it mostly comes from the point and scream bumper handbook of socialist dialectic and it often enough works even to the extent that extremely unfunny feminist comediennes can declare that certain sub groups denoted by skin colour cannot be racist at all.
The unrighteous amongst us tend to use victimhood poker (U.S. version, some UK variations apply) rules to sort out who is and isn't allowed to be criticised or get away with saying something outrageous that say the person holding a lower card could not hope to get away with. As a white heterosexual male, every other genotype counts higher than me on the victimhood poker scorechart which is why I'm very glad I ran across this guy...



Caution contains swearing, not safe for work.

Because technically the only thing in victimhood poker that could trump him would be a black female.

Usual disclaimers apply not all (insert race/religionists/genders/sexual mores) want to murder us in our beds/rule the world/convert us by the sword/think it's all men's fault/turn us all gay

I of course can't say what he said without censure of some kind, I'm not in the eyes of many of the righteous even allowed to think such things (see disclaimer) there's rules you see...

Hell of a good rant though.

£650 million reasons not to vote Tory

You have to hand it to Cameron, when it comes to foreign affairs, he's right up there in the Gordon Brown class. When it comes to running Britain down abroad, he's in a class of his own. and I for one am sick and tired of politicians and other righteous scum apologising for stuff in the past that has nothing to do with me.

Mail.

David Cameron vowed to hand hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money plus vital military secrets to Pakistan yesterday to make amends for offending the Muslim nation last year.
The Prime Minister pledged to invest £650million in Pakistani schools at a time when the education budget at home is being cut.
Britain is also to give highly sensitive military technology to combat roadside bombs to the Pakistani security services, which are widely blamed for funding and arming the Taliban.

The gesture came after Mr Cameron sparked a diplomatic rift last year when he accused the country of ‘looking both ways’ on terrorism.
It is designed to get four million children into the classroom – 17million currently get no schooling. Pakistan spends just 1.5 per cent of its national income on schools but is placing billion-pound orders for six Chinese submarines and 36 fighter aircraft.
The UK will have no control of the curriculum in schools receiving funding, meaning taxpayers could see their money pumped into madrassas peddling extremism.
Mr Cameron defended the payments, saying it was ‘in our interest’ to help Pakistan.

Why is it in our interests to help Pakistan? Don't we have enough problems at home? Also why are we paying into their education system when they are buying military hardware from non UK sources?
What exactly do we get from Pakistan other than trouble? I mean we have the Pakistani gangs in the Northwest pimping and grooming under age girls. There is a good deal of evidence linking them with electoral fraud, police corruption, extremism and benefit fraud to name but a few (usual addendum of not all Pakistanis etc. blah, blah blah).
Cameron couldn't even get the roots right for the Kashmir problem, blaming the UK when it was the governor of Kashmir (an Indian Hindu) who caused the problem.
Still my main issue is this...

This is what angers me, we have problems here that this money could help resolve and Cameron and co are just handing it over to a radical Muslim state without any preconditions as to how they are to spend it other than in education. I suspect a lot of it will go into Wahhabi Madrassas further radicalising another generation of Pakistanis who have already killed non Muslims who called for a reform of the barbaric blasphemy laws in that country. There are suspicions that the military aid will simply end up helping the Taliban to design better bombs anyway.
Cameron's pandering to Islam has to stop, charity begins at home and the money going out in foreign aid would be better spent at home trying to repair the damage done by 13 years of Labour misrule. Yes I know it's only a drop in the ocean compared to the deficit continually being run up by government borrowing, but the lines have to be drawn somewhere and we have need of the money here, spent on British people and British needs. Giving away our cash to nuclear powers who wont spend their own cash on their own people hardly strikes me as a cost effective process. If Pakistan can spend billions on foreign arms to bolster its military, then it can find £650 million to educate its own people from its own pockets and to hell with demanding grovelling apologies from our spineless political classes!

Gay free zones?

Back in February their was a furore over stickers going up in the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets declaring it a gay free zone. Of course the number one suspicion was that it was Islamic fundamentalists though there was a suggestion from the idiots on the left that it might have been a black op by the EDL.

Pink News.

However, Jack Gilbert, the co-chair of LGBT forum Rainbow Hamlets, suggested that the stickers could be the work of the groups such as the English Defence League.

“We have evidence that they were very likely to have been produced by far-right sources in order to forment community tension,” he said.

The EDL's official policy on homosexuality is that they don't give a damn what your sexual orientation is, that's not to say there aren't homophobes in the EDL, same as the Houses of Parliament, just that they don't give a damn and will defend those who are gay from Islamists who attack them. The Koran like the Bible condemns homosexuality, though only in some Islamic countries is it punishable by death, nowhere in the West.
Still the rumours stuck in some minds that somehow or other the EDL were responsible for the stickers, at least until today.

LBC.

Stickers featuring homophobic messages have been found at several station in London - including Poplar, Canary Wharf, Whitechapel and Brick Lane.
The 2" by 4" stickers featured a rainbow flag with a red line through it and the message "gay free zone".
One found at Bow Church DLR station is belived to have been put there at around 4pm on February 12 - and British Transport Police have released a picture of a man they would like to speak to in connection with it.

Doesn't look very EDL does he?

 Now whilst there are some Muslims in the EDL, they are so few and far between that the EDL know their own so to speak and according to the EDL he isn't one of them. So where does that leave Jack Gilbert? Well I'm not going to hold my breath on getting a possible apology out of him as he's the lefts token gay in Tower Hamlets. Still it's always interesting when the truth starts to emerge and the lies begin to look rather silly and disingenuous to say the least.

BBC hypocrisy

Yes, yes I know it's a target rich environment but the BBC are very quick to condemn that which doesn't fit into their leftist agenda whilst ignoring anything in the leftist agenda which might just be a tad inconvenient.

BBC.

Policing demonstrations by the English Defence (EDL) and opposing groups in Blackburn could cost about £500,000, it has been estimated.

The estimated cost, by Lancashire Police Authority, is something the force can "ill afford", its chairman said.

On Saturday, about 2,000 EDL supporters gathered on Northgate with about 500 rival protesters at a separate site.

Twelve people were arrested during the demonstrations.

Some shop owners said the event had led to a drop in trading.

Yes, policing demo's does cost money, though that alone should never be an excuse to stop a public right, which is what the BBC seem to incline towards whenever this subject comes up over the EDL. It's quite notable that nowhere on the BBC site is there any mention of the costs of policing the London anti-cuts protests or the student fees protests where a hell of a lot of damage was done and far more violence committed by protesters than at any EDL demo. Of course those demo's were a lot larger than the EDL demo's but still it's plain that when leftists and (so called) anarchists riot against government policies the BBC will deliberately fudge the issue of costs. For instance in 2009 the cost of policing the Tamil protests was £8 million and the cost of the G20 £7.2 million As the EDL space their protests around the country they aren't hitting any police authority on a regular basis and the right to protest is enshrined in Law though as a fellow blogger "The fuel injected moose"  who was at the demo (as an innocent abroad) put it...

If nothing else, we still have the right to protest in Britain. However, all this gave me the impression that they are trying to make it so difficult that we just won't bother.

And so we have the BBC also trying to tighten the screws as to the cost of such demo's too. I wonder how long it will take before a demo gets banned simply on account of costing too much? I suspect it will be sooner rather than later.