Being careful about what you wish for

Politicians love to fool us or themselves by taking a position and then assuming things will go the way they plan. Take the so called leading EUskeptic Douglas Carswell and his call for a referendum on the EU caused no doubt by Cameron's acceptance of the non treaty he did not block by his non veto back in November.
Telegraph.

The Prime Minister is facing a revolt among Tory MPs over the “circumventing” of his veto which blocked a new EU treaty to deepen further fiscal union among eurozone countries at a summit last month.
Douglas Carswell, Tory MP for Clacton, said: “It looks like the veto has fallen apart ... we are back to ministers and mandarins cutting deals in Brussels and shutting the interests of the British people out."
Some Tory MPs were due to meet in Westminster to decide how to how to make clear their unhappiness ahead Mr Cameron's statement to the Commons.
Mr Carswell said a referendum on Britain's place in the EU was necessary.
"What happened yesterday was final proof that we cannot trust politicians to make Europe policy. We now need a referendum," he said. 

The problem is of course is that the EU cannot be trusted on referenda, they'll either keep asking until they get the answer they want as they did with Ireland or they'll stack the deck against the answer they don't want as they have with Croatia where the normal requirement for a 50% turnout threshold was abolished. The government gave money for the Yes campaign but not the No campaign. Their post office gave out Yes leaflets free, but not No leaflets. There were also free or discounted TV and radio Yes advertisements due to the largely German-owned media who campaigned for a Yes vote.
Even before the campaign started their Ministry of Foreign Affairs had paid for advertisements and one of their Ministers stated that pensioners could lose their pensions in the event of a No vote.
The campaign itself was limited to four weeks in midwinter (including the Christmas holidays) and at the end of it the vote split 66% Yes, 33% No on a 43% turnout. (H/T Norman Tebbit)

Anyone think it would be different here particularly with a well funded EUphile minority in Westminster?
Unless the EU is kept out of funding a stay in campaign (almost impossible they could claim an interest) then a leave campaign will face an uphill task to make up ground though admittedly there would be a slightly more friendly dead tree press to highlight any really over the top shenanigans though you could lay money on the BBC being so pro stay that would balance out the equation. There's a strong possibility that the Trade Unions will throw their weight into a stay in campaign as well.

You could also lay money on the question asked being highly controversial somewhat along the lines of "Do you wish to remain in the EU with all the benefits to the UK that this brings" or "Do you wish for the UK to struggle alone in a hostile world" exaggerated yes, but you can bet the question will be something along those lines.
We should always bear in mind that the only way the EUphiles will allow a referendum is if they think they'll win.
Douglass Carswell and others in favour of a referendum on the EU should be very careful about what they wish for.

You can't backtrack where you've never been

The real truth about Cameron's non veto of a non-existent treaty has finally hit the Europlastics in Westminster. Not surprisingly they are a tad miffed that the boy Dave appears to have lied to them, though I doubt it will be enough to stop him doing what was always on the cards and let the Eurozone countries to use the EU institutions funded by Britain to prop up the single currency including letting the European Court of Justice to enforce the new rules on spending. Cameron doesn't even appear to be making a fight of it, it's just going to go by on the nod and no doubt make the people of the EU (not the EU itself) suffer some very severe financial constraints.
Express.

DAVID Cameron has been warned not to backtrack on his tough EU stance by senior Tories when he arrives at a crunch Brussels summit today.
The alarm bells come amid signs he is prepared to “be flexible” over a veto he used in December to block a treaty which would have harmed our financial interests.
There are fears among Tories that Britain could concede by allowing the European Court of Justice to police the rules of a new fiscal union pact due to be signed at the talks.
Yesterday Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith was among those who urged him not to backdown.

You cannot back down or backtrack from where you've never been, Cameron never vetoed anything in the last meeting he just said vaguely that he'd fight for UK interests, specifically any attempt to attack the financial heart of the UK (The City of London) with any measure designed to affect its profitability. He never said no to anything in pretty much the same way he never said yes to anything.
That this should have the EUskeptics in the Tory party worried is a given, but they really should have kept up with what was actually going on rather than hailing Cameron as the hero of the hours last November.
As for threats of a referendum debate leading to a referendum, that's the last thing we want, just look at Croatia where the EU stacked the deck with bribes against a no vote, even starting a rumour that pensioners would lose their pensions if Croatia did not join.
The EU would make some massive bribes to politicians, the MSM, they already have the BBC in their hip pockets and the result would not be the foregone conclusion that many people think it would be. What we need is simply a decision to leave and let the Eurozone sort itself out using its own cash, not ours.
We should simply leave.

Lessons no doubt will be learned...

I've occasionally had a go at social workers in the past for not spotting things, though I do accept that current regulations and workload makes for an environment where mistakes can and do happen, that's not to excuse gross misconduct such as in the case of Sharon Shoesmith and various others who have let children down where they knew there was a problem and did nothing.
Still you'd think that after the Baby P case, social services would be quicker to act, of course as ever, you'd be wrong
Daily Mail.

The parents of a newborn baby left with horrific injuries and fractures all over her body walked free from court today, despite admitting child cruelty charges.
The unnamed infant was just 23 days old when doctors discovered she had suffered multiple breaks to her legs, knees, ribs, right wrist and right hip.
MRI scans showed the baby girl had also sustained a skull haemorrhage and trauma to her brain tissue.
But her parents were spared jail at Bristol Crown Court today, despite pleading guilty to child cruelty on the basis of neglect - because a judge blamed social services for the ordeal.
The court heard that a social worker had warned her bosses that the couple were incapable of caring for their child, but her fears were ignored.
Judge David Ticehurst sentenced the youngster’s father and mother to two-year community orders each, last December.

I'm not sure what the judge was taking when he didn't lock the couple up and throw away the key, though to my mind forcible sterilisation might just have been an option too, though sadly that's apparently against the rules too. But once again a social services dept was warned by one of their own and did nothing and a child suffered. Yes I know that we often scream out against social services and family courts for being over zealous, but that's often enough because they have acted in secret without the parents being represented by solicitors and the evidence considered from an opposing point of view. In this case there was certainly enough warning to allow the creaking mechanism of social services to lurch into action and at least put the child into care pending a full investigation.
As ever, they didn't, expect the usual excuses and platitudes...

A spokesman said today: 'This is a terrible case where a three-week-old baby suffered significant injuries while in the care of her parents.
'This area of social work is an extremely challenging one, where complicated individual circumstances have to be considered when making any judgement about parenting.'We have already carried out a full review of our procedures in light of this case.'

Oops too late, still I'm sure lessons will be learned...

Not.

Parish Notice

I'm off to see my Dad over the next couple of days as he's been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He's on chemo and hopefully this will extend his lifespan by a couple of years. We're also off to see Lady QM's step brother who also has terminal cancer though his outlook is not so good.



Back Saturday but will probably not blog till Sunday

A slip of the tongue?

Sometimes it's the slip of a tongue which gives away the greatest details. Now I think the BBC is biased in  being left leaning and all the political upholstery that goes with that sort of thinking and no I don't accept the argument that because the far left complain just as much as the right do that somehow this means that the BBC are somehow treading the middle ground. Impartial after all does not mean running down the middle, it means showing lack of favouritism or being free from undue bias or preconceived opinions and sadly the BBC fails in spades with either of those definitions.
However what director general Mark Thompson admitted to the Leveson inquiry appears to show an arrogance that goes beyond all I've suspected from the BBC over the years.
Express.

THE BBC has spent £310,000 of taxpayers’ money on private detectives – including a convicted ­investigator – director general Mark Thompson revealed for the first time yesterday.
He told the Leveson inquiry into press standards the corporation used Steve Whittamore, who in 2005 was convicted of illegally accessing data. In total, BBC staff used investigators 232 times between 2005 and 2011, Mr Thompson said.
The inquiry heard the BBC was mentioned in documents seized during the investigation into Whittamore’s activities known as Operation ­Motorman. A current affairs journalist asked Whittamore to supply details about whether a paedophile was on a flight to Heathrow in 2001. The programme, never broadcast, was about whether people with ­convictions for child sex offences in the UK could get jobs giving them access to children in other countries.
Mr Thompson maintained the case was in the public interest. In July last year, Mr Thompson commissioned a wide-­ranging review of the BBC’s editorial practices but it found no evidence phone hacking or improper payments to police officers.
He said the probity, integrity and ­conviction of BBC journalists was “not to be questioned”.

So we are not to question the probity, integrity and ­conviction of BBC journalists?
To paraphrase Inigo from the Princess Bride, "You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I'm fairly sure he meant beyond reproach, though even that might be pushing it a bit on the BBC's political bias and certainly doesn't come anywhere near the truth in their reporting of the Middle East, but it does give an insight to the type of thinking that goes on in the BBC and like you I suspect I don't think any journalists BBC or no, are beyond reproach or should ever be in a position where their probity, integrity and ­conviction cannot be questioned. Yes sources need to be safeguarded, but if you are tapping phones illegally or even using private detectives to source information, you'd better make damned sure you are operating within the law. After all despite the public's supposed need to know, the end does not always justify the means.

None of our business

Why is it that under the most stringent cut backs in military spending that politicians keep coming up with pledges to send in the troops if necessary to places we have no business being?

Telegraph.

Britain could send military reinforcements to the Gulf if the dispute with Iran escalates, according to Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary.
He said the decision to send HMS Argyll as part of an international flotilla of warships through the sensitive Strait of Hormuz on Sunday sent a "clear signal" to Tehran.
The deployment defied explicit Iranian threats to close the waterway. It coincided with an escalation in the West's confrontation with Iran over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Iran has threatened to close the strait – through which 35 per cent of the world's tanker-borne oil exports pass – in retaliation for sanctions against its oil exports.
The EU agreed an oil embargo on Monday against Iran as part of sanctions over its nuclear programme.
The measures include an immediate embargo on new contracts for crude oil and petroleum products while existing ones are allowed to run until July.

 Yes I know Iran has nuclear ambitions, yes I know they could make a real nuisance of themselves in the Straits of Hormuz if they wanted too, but frankly the amount of ships we could send compared to the Americans is minuscule and would be much better deployed elsewhere say like the Falklands or off the coast of Somalia hanging pirates from the yardarm.
Our armed forces have been gutted by the politicians in Westminster in both this government and the last and quite frankly it's time we brought them home and had a major rethink in just what it is we want to do with them vis home defence and force projection. Should we have them out in Afghanistan keeping the peace or should we simply leave that place to go back to barbarism again with occasional flattening of terrorist camps as and when we find them by cruise missiles, after all, it would be far more easier simply to declare the place a no go zone and allow India to deal with the Pakistani problem.
Our troops and navy should only be where they are wanted keeping an eye on aggressors to us, yes Iran is a problem, but it's a problem easily solved by simply funding its enemies right on its door, not by sending warships into restricted waters. Same with Afghanistan, simply play the tribes off against each other and fund them to attack Pakistan and Iran.
We could and still will need a professional and reasonably large set of armed forces, but we need them closer to home or in areas where we have obligations, the Middle East and Afghanistan don't count for either of those criteria.

 

Must?

The boy Clegg does come out with some corkers, the latest one being that we "must" give more to the IMF to save Europe.
Express.

NICK CLEGG has sparked fury after insisting Britain must contribute more to the International Monetary Fund to aid the ailing world economy.
The UK is expected to be asked to put in more funds as the IMF seeks to raise an additional £320billion.
Britain is liable for 4.5 per cent of the IMF’s £256billion lending capacity. The rise means we could be in for donating another £17billion.
The Deputy Prime Minister said the Government must respond positively, claiming: “We always must be strong supporters of the IMF. It is a linchpin in creating stability.”

You sort of come to expect this from the Cleggmeister, after all his EU pension does depend on there actually being an EU around to pay it, which is probably why he's so free with the "we must" utterances as he's under an obligation to defend the EU at all costs. His pro European stance is echoed by his family ties too as he's married to a  Miriam González Durántez, from Valladolid, Spain and they have three sons: Antonio, Alberto and Miguel so you can see where his sympathies lie and it isn't in or for the UK.
Thing is though that the £17 billion will have to come from government borrowing and we (the taxpayers) will have to stump up the payments for it as for the life of me I cannot see the EU recovering to the stage where they'll ever pay it back, it's a bit like throwing good money after bad. Doesn't matter how much we throw in, it's still going down the tubes. If anything it's far more likely that we'll get dragged down with them as our debts and means of repayment go spiralling out of control as well.
The time has come to simply say no, sort yourself out. Yes it will be painful for Europe, it might even be catastrophic for some Eurozone states, but supporting them by giving more money is simply staving off the inevitable and might end up making it worse.
If anything the case for leaving now before it all goes under is even stronger.

Punishing success

Vince cable marched back to his socialist roots (again) yesterday by calling for a "Mansion Tax" on any homes valued at more than £2 million. Lot of people will no doubt fall for it as the rich are an easy target in the socialist politics of envy doctrine. Problem is of course is what happens if or when they do this, I doubt Vince has given much thought to this, but as a socialist he wouldn't so he'd probably be gobsmacked at the amount of people with money who will simply up and leave. It's the same with the Tobin tax that socialist politicians desire, they see it as a way to grab some easy money and they think (or don't care) that either the tax wont be passed on to the customer or the companies involved will simply move somewhere that doesn't tax them so much quicker than you could say Laffer curve.
Telegraph.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary, is pushing for a mansion tax to be introduced on properties worth more than £2million in this year’s Budget.
While the policy is likely to be opposed by George Osborne, the Chancellor, Mr Cable said that he had spoken to Conservative MPs who backed the plan.
“A mansion tax is still very much on the agenda – it is a very good idea,” Mr Cable told The Sunday Telegraph.
“It is good for two reasons,’’ he said. ''It would constitute a tax on wealth rather than income, which we believe to be right, and also in economic terms it creates the right sort of incentives for the property market.”
Mr Cable added that it was “perverse” that rich “foreigners” could buy expensive properties in Britain and contribute just £1,000 a year in council tax towards the public finances.

Usual stuff from the man féted as an economic expert but only really famous for a one liner about Gordon Brown and Mr Bean. The thing about foreigners is that they'll simply go elsewhere, you know that and I know that, they'll simply stop paying UK tax rates sell their properties and an undervalued amount and sack all the people maintaining it plus putting out of work all the small businesses like plumbers, electricians and landscape gardeners they pay to do the jobs they can't. The point Cable doesn't get (and never will) is that for all these people pay low taxes to live here, they spend their money here too, probably a lot more than they'd pay in taxation as oddly enough the rich have a tendency to be quite generous to those who work for them.
I often run across this tax the rich thing, even from people who really ought to know better, if we tax them too much, well they are rich enough to simply pack up and leave, guess who will have to make up the difference in taxation then? Because I can assure you, the government wont cut back on its spending.
The more millionaires we can attract to live here and spend their money here the better off we'll be and people like Cable will simply drive them off to spend their money elsewhere.

Bribery and corruption

I frequently criticise the foreign aid budget ass I'm a great believer of charity beginning at home, don't get me wrong, I assume some good does come of the various projects undertaken, however it's the cash paid to countries like India (a nuclear power and has its own space program) Pakistan (a nuclear power) and the various kleptocratic states of Africa that really gets my ire, we have enough problems here without lining the pockets of various countries who really ought to be doing something for their own people and not getting handouts from us. If the cause is deserving enough, we'll dig into our pockets to help, as it is though, times are hard. However this one was a new one on me, apparently the foreign bribe aid program keeps us safe.
Telegraph.

Spending on projects such as getting more girls into school in Somalia “contributes directly to our security” and should be a source of national pride like the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee, he said in an interview while on a visit to Nepal.
Even as most Government departments’ budgets are being cut, aid spending is rising by more than a third to almost £11billion in 2014-15 as the Coalition aims for a United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GDP. The aid pledge is controversial among some Conservatives, who say the money would be better spent at home.
Mr Mitchell accepted that a smaller aid budget might have meant fewer cuts elsewhere, but insisted that development projects also helped protect Britain.
“Our security is not just provided by soldiers and tanks and fighter jets, it is also provided by training the police in Afghanistan, by building up governance structures in the Middle East and by getting girls into school in the Horn of Africa,” he said. “Those things are all part of what makes us safer.”
Mr Mitchell conceded that the “difficult” outlook made the aid budget harder to sell to voters, but said Britons should take pride in helping those people living in poverty.

Yes, he really does appear to think that Danegeld works, that rather than simply say banning Somali's and Afghans from entering the UK and sending the navy to blow the Somali pirates out of the water that helping them train their police (some of whom have killed our soldiers) and teaching Somali schoolgirls (wonder what Rhea Page thinks about trained Somali schoolgirls) actually stops them from coming over here as asylum seekers and causing no end of bother.
This man though a Tory MP, is clearly another Chris Huhne, utterly bereft of common sense as it's applied to the real world. What the leaders of those countries respect, is strength and what they respond too is fear as far as they are concerned training their police and running their schools just gives them more cash for Mercedes and gold plated AK 47's Or in the case of India, helping running their space program.
Bribes don't keep us safe, the fear of a devastating response if they step out of line will, it's time we stopped lining the pockets of 3rd world dictators, we could simply spend the money arming their rivals and playing them off against each other.
Charity begins at home, we have too many problems here without giving away taxpayers cash to foreign tinpot states and countries who simply do not need it.

Gender neutral

'All I want to do is make people think a bit.' The words of Beck Laxton who decided that for 5 years they would bring their child up gender neutral alternating between girls and boys clothing and keeping a lot of people guessing.
Mail.

A couple who concealed the sex of their child and raised it as ‘gender neutral’ for five years have finally revealed - it’s a boy.
Beck Laxton, 46, and partner Kieran Cooper, 44, decided not to reveal Sasha’s gender in the hope it would let his ‘real’ personality shine through.
They referred to him as 'the infant' and allowed him to play only with ‘gender-neutral toys’ in their television-free home.
For the past five years Sasha has alternated between girls’ and boys’ clothes, leaving friends, playmates and relatives guessing.
However Beck and Kieran, from Sawston, Cambridgeshire, decided to reveal Sasha's masculinity to the world after it became harder to conceal when he started primary school.
Yesterday Beck, a web editor, said: 'I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping.
'Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?
'It’s like horoscopes. What could be stupider than thinking there are 12 types of personality that depend on when you were born? It’s so idiotic.
'Gender affects what children wear and what they can play with, and that shapes the kind of person they become.

I suspect "the infant" might just have quite a few serious issues in the years ahead relating to one sex or another if only because gender rolls are a source of tension for kids.
Kids as a group tend to be merciless little savages when dealing with anyone different amongst their peers and no amount of supervision is ever going to change that. All most teachers can do is try to keep a lid on things in the classroom, outside of the classroom though, it's a bit of a jungle and I suspect this kid will struggle to cope with the differences as he'll have no idea of just how real life works.
Beck and Kieran strike me as being either amongst the most selfish people on the planet or the biggest idiots and what they've done is tantamount to child cruelty as they've imposed an artificial awareness on their child that bears no relation to real life. Sure we all like to protect our kids and keep them safe, but this hasn't kept him safe, it's kept him in ignorance. Still we can all hope that as kids do that he'll be able to soak in the necessary gender cues to at least help him survive without becoming a neurotic basket case.
No, this isn't about him becoming gay (if that's what happens) it's about dealing with an important part of society and being able to relate to it. If he can't and he has had no opportunity to do so, then he's in for several shocks and quite possibly a world of pain as he gets older.
I might be wrong, but I cannot for the life of me see this going well for the poor little chap.

Good riddance, though still not enough

I expect there were screams of anguish from the Green Luddites who seem to infest the corridors of power via various lobbying groups when Huhne the buffoon finally came out with a written statement about the solar tariffs being cut from April for all new installations fitted after march 30th. This is because the tariff subsidy has been proven to have been far too generous to those who chose to install them.
Telegraph.

Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, said in a written statement that the tariff paid to customers who generate their own electricity will be cut from April 1 for all installations completed on or after March 3.
If the Government wins its appeal, however, the current December 12 cut-off date will stand. "We continue to stand by our original proposal," Mr Huhne said. "However, I know that the uncertainty while we await the court's decision is difficult for the industry.
"If the court finds in favour of the Government's appeal, we intend to stand by all our consultation proposals, including an earlier reference date, subject to the Parliamentary procedure and consideration of consultation responses."
Friends of the Earth and two solar panel installers, Solarcentury and HomeSun, took the Government to court over its decision to halve the amount home owners with newly installed panels will receive for every kilowatt hour generated. The total per unit will fall from 43.3p to 21p per kilowatt hour, but the 'export' tariff of 3.1p for energy sold on to the National Grid will not change.
However, the environmental charity and the industry protested that the Government had not given enough notice for the change, which was implemented before the consultation period even ended. Thousands of customers who had already signed contracts missed the deadline, meaning that they will receive less for the electricity that they generate.

Whilst I do feel a smidgen of sympathy for those who rushed to cash in on this ludicrous scheme, anyone trusting the government to keep its word deserves everything they get. The only way the panels could pay for themselves in their lifetime was only if they were massively subsidised by the taxpayer, this is assuming (and it's a big assumption) that they maintain their power output for their 25 year life, as any engineer or even a weatherman could tell you this is highly unlikely. Frost, Sahara dust, snow, bird poo, traffic pollution will all take their toll over the years and reduce the original output by up to 25% at least possibly more depending on their location, after all if they are on your roof, you can't wipe them clean. This was also on top of their poor output in English conditions, so that the only way they could pay was if everyone else via taxation made them economically viable. Which is why in these hard times, the government has reluctantly stepped in to cut the tariff in half, which is a shame really as I'd have just gotten rid of it entirely, same for the bird mincers. Most of the energy budget as far as I can see should go to conventional power generation (as in reliable) and if you wanted to go carbon free then you go nuclear, as it is I'd have put all the money into shale gas extraction which is cheaper and would leave us with a good century or two to come up with something better.
As it is, the government in its pathetic attempts to be green has ripped off the taxpayer (again) and even now refuses to accept that green power generation is nothing more than a massive con designed to wreck the West's economy and turn us into an economic basket case and back to a middle ages economy with a technocratic elite in charge.
Btw, when is someone actually going to charge Huhne over his driving offence?

Money money money

I always suspected that when Osborne paid out all our cash to the IMF that sooner or later they'd be back for more. The problem is that far too many countries out there who have gotten themselves into financial problems have simply taken the IMF money and not cut back on their spending by any sort of sane amount to get their finances into the black. Hence various EU countries credit status being downgraded last week.
Express.

BRITAIN is facing an extra £17.5billion bill to help prop up the eurozone as the International Monetary Fund looks to boost its debt fund to $1trillion. As unemployment figures in the UK hit a 17-year-high, the IMF announced that it was set to raise its debt fund to $1trillion in a bid to rescue the eurozone.
International Monetary Fund manager Christine Lagarde said yesterday that she was looking at ways to 'increase its financial firepower to deal with Europe's debt crisis.
In a speech at the Washington State Department, she said that if Europe's debt crisis wasn't resolved, the world economy could face rising protectionism and isolationism.
The rise in the amount given by Britain will force Chancellor George Osborne to ask parliament for permission for the extra £7.5billion.
Britain has already set aside £30billion to the fund with an extra £10billion contingency.

Thing that always gets me is that this is money we could be using to stimulate our own economy, particularly at the expense of our overspending EU partners. The problem is, that Europes debt crisis will not be resolved by giving them money, but by them stopping spending the money that they don't have. It's a bit like alcoholics and drink, you don't get an alcoholic to stop by buying in another round, you stop them by removing access to booze.
Yes the end of the Euro and the collapse of the Eurozone will be a terrible thing, but the entire situation has now gone far too far for anyone to stop it, it has the inevitability of a steamroller running over a snail. The time to have sorted out the flaws in the Eurozone system was before it came into being. Not during it's Götterdämmerung stage.
What the IMF are proposing to do is throw good money after bad, perhaps it's time to let the financial institutions which caused the damage pay the penalty. Crops will still be grown and goods made, other means of finance will come into being. Perhaps even a few politicians, lawyers and banker will be hung for good measure.
But it will happen, there's no way to stop it now and grabbing more of our cash will not help save to make the inevitable even worse.

You what?

Why is it that certain people have what amounts to a get out of jail free card? If I were in a pub and glassed some woman who I suspect was eyeing me up (I know, I know, I should be so bloody lucky, but bear with me here) I'd expect to go to prison and I'd expect no mercy from the judicial system. I very much doubt a case of claimed sexual harassment at work would help me much either.
However, reverse the genders and hey presto I would get a get out of jail card for the same excuse...
Mail. (usual caveats, but the basic facts are correct)

Judge refuses to jail woman plumber who glassed nightclubber who smiled at her 'because she had been sexually harassed during training'

• Attacker walks free after judge says harassment was to blame for her behaviour
• Judge describes her harassment as 'intolerable' and says she is 'impeccable character'
• Victim was described as being in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'

A woman who glassed a male clubber that smiled at her - and then blamed the attack on the fact she was sexually harassed at work - was spared jail by a judge.
Sheona Keith threw her glass at a man in a nightclub who she thought was 'eyeing her up', in an unprovoked attack which resulted in him needing hospital treatment.
However, a judge refused to give her a custodial sentence after accepting that earlier sexual harassment she suffered at work was the reason behind her behaviour.
Instead, 22-year-old Keith - who admitted a charge of actual bodily harm against James Kirkham - was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £400 compensation by Judge Philip Wassall when she was sentenced at Exeter Crown Court.
Describing Keith's case as 'unique', Judge Wassall said she had an 'impeccable character' and that the sexual harassment she had suffered was 'intolerable'.At one point he said that she threw the glass 'without knowing' it was in her hand and described the victim as being 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'.

I'm sorry, but seriously is there any excuse for this sort of action other than they started it and you were in fear of your life? You throw a glass into someone's face causing them to need hospital treatment and blame it on the fact that you'd lost your job and were drowning your sorrows due to sexual harassment???? The guy was just looking at you!!!! God alone knows what might have happened if he'd wandered over to say hi.
Can anyone imagine a guy getting similar treatment off a judge?
Fair enough, sexual harassment is a terrible thing for some people, but there are proper channels for dealing with it, glassing a human being for looking at you is not one of them, doubly so if they are a complete stranger.
The judge in this case seems to be some sort of gullible idiot and easily swayed by a feminine sob story, yet justice is supposed to be blind.
Sheona Keith should have been starting a prison sentence today, pretty much any male who did what she did would certainly be.
In this case the law (well the judge) is an ass.

Tom Harris’s downfall

I don't like socialists, I don't like the left and I don't like the Labour Party, but that's a group thing, as individuals they tend to be fine save for those on the more extreme fringe. When it comes to scandals involving humour or Nazi party regalia though I'm more or less indifferent in the same way I was completely indifferent to Aidan Burley who was simply at a party where someone wore it.
One of the internet memes of recent years has been to mock your opponents via the "Downfall" scene in the Fuhrerbunker, some are funny, some are tasteless, but mostly it's a case of sticks and stones etc. Save when it comes to politicians as Tom Harris found out.
BBC.

A Labour MP has stepped down from his internet adviser role after he posted a joke video portraying First Minister and SNP leader Alex Salmond as Hitler.
Tom Harris, who ran in the Scottish Labour Party leadership race last year, apologised for his actions.
He had been given the post of the party's new media guru after Johann Lamont was elected leader.
The SNP called the video "tasteless" and said it was "hugely embarrassing" for the Labour Party.
The controversial video takes footage from 2004 movie, Downfall, featuring Hitler's German voice with subtitled words from Mr Salmond.
The clip has been used to mock a number of well-known names, including former prime minister Gordon Brown.
Mr Harris published his version of the video, titled "Joan's Downfall", following a row involving SNP MSP Joan McAlpine who claimed that Labour and the Lib Dems were being "anti-Scottish" in their attitude to the planned independence referendum.
The Labour MP for Glasgow South said: "Having spoken to Johann, I have decided to step down from leading the party's social media review.
"The video I posted has been a well worn joke used to parody a range of public figures.
"However, context is everything and in the context of Johann's and my desire to improve the level of political debate on social media and the context of Joan McAlpine's much more serious statements about all political opponents of the SNP being anti-Scottish, my actions have been an unhelpful distraction for which I apologise."

Personally I think the SNP should grow a pair, after all they like to throw insulting rhetoric around too as do all politicians and after all, Joan McAlpine's assertion that Unionists are anti-Scottish started the whole affair. I doubt anyone cares to be called a traitor in a country they love. Though Scot's themselves have a bit of a problem in some areas with Anglophobia which is apparently not as big a problem as Islamophobia and it's this strain of bigotry which drives some nationalists into the name calling business as they see the UK government as somehow being an English government, though God alone knows why considering how Westminster actually treats the English. Still I guess it's a useful tag to hang your prejudices on.
Was it a bad taste video? Possibly, should Tom Harris have had to apologise and resign?
Judge for yourself...

 

 Personally I think some Scots should get a sense of humour or a thicker skin.

And naturally, here's the riposte


H/T Guido.

The magic money tree creed

Ed Millipede is in trouble, not his usual trouble of being totally out of touch with what actually needs to be done to put the economy back on track. Nor is it the usual problem of having abandoned your core group of voters in order to suck up to immigrant groups. No, the Millipede is in trouble because the left have sussed that he no longer believes in the magic money tree.
Mail.

Embattled Ed Miliband was told by Labour MPs last night to stop copying David Cameron and start showing some leadership of his own.
The Labour leader sparked a furious backlash after the party abandoned opposition to the Coalition’s public-sector pay freeze and refused to reverse cuts.
The U-turn was unveiled by Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, who insisted the party had to set a ‘credible’ alternative to the Coalition and be ‘honest with the British people’.
But Labour MPs accused the two Eds of caving into the Tory agenda.
Labour veteran Austin Mitchell attacked ‘barmy’ Mr Balls’s cuts somersaults and also lambasted ‘weak’ Mr Miliband.
He told The Mail on Sunday: ‘This is a desperate attempt to get respectability but it’s barmy. Miliband is acting out of weakness. We are not the Government and we will get nowhere by going around wearing a hair shirt like this.’
And Blyth Valley MP Ronnie Campbell said: ‘The activists are livid. We are dancing to the Tory tune. We’ve been opposing their cuts, now we’re saying we agree with them. We don’t know whether we’re coming or going.’

This sadly has always been the problem of the left, they actually don't know (or in a lot of cases don't care) exactly where the money to pay for things comes from. As far as they are concerned money comes from a magic tree that pays for everything, not from hard pressed taxpayers who are sick to death of paying for things like public sector pensions, people who wont (not can't) work, translation services, diversity co-ordinators, racial awareness committees and all the various things that socialist policies have left us in their poisonous legacy of the Blair/Brown years. Not that I think the Millipede actually grasps this, but he will have been told that such policies as cutting back the public sector is popular with voters, so lets go for it. This of course puts him into conflict with the dinosaurs of the left who as far as they are concerned think that the rich should pay for everything, rich being anyone in a job as far as I can see. Nor do they see the problems the UK faces as anything other than someone else's fault, that the massive levels of public spending have made recovery very difficult as they aren't contributory to wealth creation, in many cases they are entirely the opposite.
They never learn, the magic money tree is their religion and like a lot of false religions it blinds its followers to the obvious. Thatcher had them sussed though with her comment that "Socialism only works till someone else's money runs out." Well the money has run out, but not the mindset of the left who want us to carry on spending what we don't have.

Well they would wouldn't they

Seems our EU overlords aren't particularly happy about credit ratings particularly after France, Italy, Spain, Portugal along with Cyprus. Austria, Malta, Slovakia, and Slovenia all had their credit ratings dropped a notch or two. This has to be particularly galling for the French (or should that be Gauling) who believed that the UK should have had its credit rating dropped before them, though I don't think they quite grasp how the UK economy works with a pound able to be devalued or revalued to deal with market fluctuations unlike the Euro which is locked into the strongest economy (Germany) and does not allow individual nations to devalue or default.
BBC.

The EU's top economic official has criticised a decision by Standard and Poor's to downgrade the credit ratings of nine eurozone countries.
Economic affairs commissioner Olli Rehn said the move was "inconsistent" as the eurozone was taking "decisive action" to end the debt crisis.
Other senior European officials have also hit out the move.
The downgrade - which included stripping France of its top AAA rating - was announced on Friday.
Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal were cut two notches, with the latter two given "junk" ratings. Germany kept its AAA rating.

The thing that EU officials are forgetting is that you cannot buck the market and for every action there will be a reaction. As certain Eurozone countries took on more debt during boom years than they could pay back once their economies slowed. Those concerns led investors to demand astronomically high yields or interest rates to lend money to countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal, eventually forcing those three to seek bailout loans, rather than rely on market financing. This situation has come home to roost as the markets realise that  some of the Eurozone countries cannot be trusted to pay back a loan because they're a poor credit risk due to overspending on their account. What Standard and Poor have done is looked at the economies of the affected countries and decided that there's a possibility that any bonds issued or loans taken might not be repaid at their full value, hence any monies loaned to that group will now have higher interest charges as they are a greater risk. This affects their ability to run their countries with the ruinous overspend on various things such as pensions, infrastructure etc. In a sense it's a way of saying you aren't doing enough, you can't be trusted.
As for the UK, well we're well enough off outside the Eurozone, though there's a possibility we'll be dragged under if it goes under, if only because our politicians don't quite grasp economic realities either. But at the moment our credit rating is safe enough, we may even get a boost as investors seek the security of British bonds.
What it does mean is that the Euro as such is doomed, it may survive as a Northern European currency, but sooner or later the Southern European states along with France and Ireland might just have to be cut loose to default on their debts. That's why they got downgraded, the market is rarely wrong about these things and is self correcting.
John Ward at The Slog explains exactly why it's happening.

Reinforcing a culture of failure

I was always under the impression that if there were a bonus scheme available, that it is a reward for success. I'm also pretty jaundiced towards any bonus schemes in the public sector as they seem to measure success by an entirely different criteria than the private sector, plus they pay out their bonuses from taxpayers money.
So this made my blood boil...
Express.

STAFF bonuses at the Met Office rocketed by a third to £3.3million last year – despite failing to predict the coldest winter in memory.
Workers at the Government-owned organisation were handed the perks despite a series of forecasting failures.
The big freeze of December 2010, the coldest in over 100 years, saw Britain grind to a halt, costing billions of pounds and jeopardising the recovery.
But staff still pocketed £3,368,000 in bonuses during 2010-11, up 30 per cent from the £2,593,000 handed out the year before. In the past five years, Met Office staff have been awarded £13.9million in bonuses – with last year’s payments averaging around £1,800 between 1,900 people.
Democratic Unionist Party MP Sammy Wilson, who obtained the information, said: “It’s a bit ironic that, in the week the Prime Minister has talked about ending the bonus culture and bonuses for failure, a Government body has awarded staff a 30 per cent hike in bonuses.’’ Business Minister Ed Davey, whose department oversees the Met Office, said payouts were “in line with reward principles”.

This strikes me as paying out a bonus simply for doing your job and doesn't seem dependent on any results, after all the Met Office are still convinced that Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption is actually happening and is something humanity can do something about. Which is why their long term models are no longer published owing to the fact that they'd become a laughing stock over the sheer inaccuracy of them. In a sense here, what is happening is the reinforcing of a culture of failure after all, next day temperature predictions are only 87 per cent right and its daily forecasts are only right six days out of seven.Which essentially means that there's only a one in seven chance of the forecast being right on the actual day they pronounce it! With all the equipment they have you'd expect a somewhat higher percentage than that. As for the long term forecasts, well unsurprisingly enough they don't count in the bonus scheme as they are for research purposes only which rather suggest that the weather does not still co-operate with their climate models. Not that this or last years weather was particularly easy to predict, certainly the seasons seem slightly out of kilter with an unusual mildness over the last 3 months though it was pretty cold this morning with the first frost of the year in Kent.
A bonus scheme is only really suitable in a company that makes money not in the public sector, the criteria for success is not judged in the same way nor are the business models even slightly similar. If Cameron et al want to go after the private sector and their bonuses, they really ought to clean up their own acts first.

A pub of character(s)

Today was my bi-annual trip into London to get my arm checked over since I had a cancerous tumour removed. The visit to the hospital was routine with a chest x-ray and a visit to the radiotherapy clinic who check me over mostly by asking how I felt and checking my lymph glands and poking at the scar. What makes it a good day though is a visit to my favourite London pub, The Anglesea Arms on Selwood Terrace SW7 close to the Royal Marsden Hospital where I go to be poked and prodded.

As pubs go it has a very friendly atmosphere and a clientèle which can only be described as eccentric after all how many pubs do you know where a customer turns up riding one of these?

Yep, that's right, as we just sitting there enjoying a pint of Doombar this guy pulls up on a penny farthing and greets another customer with "You're looking smart today." And gets the reply,  "Another bloody funeral."
It's one of those pubs where you could sit all day with a pint or seven and just people watch. Bare floorboards and scrubbed tables, but wood panelling, old photos, prints and some impressive oil paintings, coupled with the absence of any music or fruit machines, almost heaven really.
The selection of beers and wines is huge, you can even get mulled wine there if you are so inclined. Pub meals can only be described as "gourmet" class and although they aren't as cheap as a "Brewsters" or "Weatherspoon's" they aren't as generic either and all prepared on the spot from fresh ingredients.
If it weren't for the Anglesea Arms, my trips into London would be so much more boring and lengthy seeming, it's almost a shame that after next July I'll only be going in once a year. It's almost tempting to just go in and visit the museums for a chance to go back more often.
Lady QM loves the place too, so I'll probably suggest a visit just for a chance to people watch again.

Research funding

Some of the greatest pieces of scientific research have developed from individuals who have strayed off the beaten track and observed something a bit odd and followed it through. It's the initial observation itself that often provides the impetus, Fleming might have discovered penicillin, but it was a massive development afterwards by other scientists who produced the results. Yet it's only because the state didn't interfere (then) with research of all kinds that some of the greater discoveries were made.
Telegraph.

The future of British science is under serious threat because its funding body is making “disastrous errors”, more than 70 senior academics have warned.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, they claim changes introduced by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council are “damaging scientific discovery in Britain” because civil servants have taken on new powers to dictate what type of science is given money.
The letter says a pledge by David Willetts, the universities and science minister, to make Britain “the best place in the world to do science” would be difficult to achieve because the council had “exceeded its remit so spectacularly”.
The group calls on Mr Willetts to make sure the research council is either overhauled or replaced.
Prof David O’Hagan from the University of St Andrews, one of the signatories, said: “We’re being asked to identify where our programme may go in 10 to 50 years’ time. This is anti-intellectual. Nobody involved in research would pretend to know where embryonic ideas may lead.”

In a sense they are quite right, no-one knows where the next greatest discovery will come from and you can probably rest assured that it wont come from anything that Whitehall wishes to be researched.

Attila Emecz, director of strategy at the research council, said the accusations were “a major and gross misrepresentation”, adding: “We believe the new policies will protect and improve UK research.”

Yet this is the mindset that funds the current craze in climate research, not because it will make any major discoveries (probably) but because it is intended to justify increased taxation. The government isn't interested in disproving global warming climate disruption, because if it did it wont be able to justify what they've done to promote useless alternative energy schemes, whilst also not funding research into shale gas extraction.
Unfortunately for a lot of universities funding is a major issue and they tend to follow the money to a certain extent. So if the government want to fund research into climate change that's what the universities will research, often as in the case of the Climate research Unit in East Anglia making stuff up to keep the funding coming in.
In an ideal state, universities would simply be told to research anything they felt was worth looking into, the governments obsession with getting value for money along with making sure their own pet prejudices are promoted means that nothing of the sort happens.
research will still get done, there's no doubt about that, but unless it's freed from the constraints of government (Whitehall) guidelines then chance discoveries will be made elsewhere.
We have a tradition of making great discoveries in this country, if this carries on though, that's now at an end.

It's all kill, kill, kill with the religion of peace.

For something that is alluded too as the "Religion of peace" it doesn't half throw up some intolerant, racist, murderous bigots on a very regular basis.
BBC.

A group of men handed out a leaflet calling for homosexuals to be given the death sentence, a court has heard.
The five men from Derby are said to have distributed notices titled The Death Penalty? outside a mosque and put them through people's letterboxes.
The men deny stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The prosecution at Derby Crown Court called the literature, given out in the lead up to a gay pride event in 2010, as "frightening".
Ihjaz Ali, 42, Mehboob Hussain, 45, Umar Javed, 38, Razwan Javed, 27, and Kabir Ahmen, 28, have said the leaflets were designed to "raise awareness".

I'm pretty sure most people are aware of Islam's total intolerance towards civilised values, so I rather suspect the men were just bigots with a religious base for their bigotry.

The court heard the leaflet was one of three distributed by the group as it tried to organise a protest against Derby's Gay Pride event in July 2010.
It showed an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and said gay people were destined to go to hell
Prosecutor Bobbie Cheema said a copy was handed to a police officer near Jamia Mosque, on Rosehill Street in Derby, on 2 July 2010.
In the weeks before that, the group had distributed two other leaflets, called Turn Or Burn and God Abhors You.
One of them showed a lake of fire and said homosexuality was the root of all problems.
A fourth leaflet, called Dead Derby, which compared homosexuals to paedophiles was found, but not distributed.

Lovely bunch of people aren't they? All five men are accused of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation in the first prosecution of its kind since legislation came into force in March 2010. Something I rather expect was designed specifically to target religion in general as most religions seem to believe that God hates gays, though admittedly most don't call for them to be hung. Nor do most interpret their holy books in such a literal sense as Islam seems to.

1. Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) 7:80-81
2. Male homosexual activities are condemned as unnatural. 26:165-6
3. Male homosexuals commit abominations and act senselessly. 27:54-55
4. Male homosexuals acts are condemned as unnatural. 29:28-29

I'm sure you can scour the Bible both New and Old Testament for other relevant quotes of intolerance too, however, our society as a whole for all its Christeo/Judaic roots is mostly a secular one which promotes tolerance generally (if a bit too generally in Islam's case) in other words what people get up to and say so long as it does not harm others is generally allowed, though recent government rulings tightening up what can be said and done are infringing severely on civil liberties.
Still it will be interesting to see just what the sentencing for this crime assuming they are found guilty goes. Will a Muslim card trump (as usual) a gay one in the fascinating rules of victimhood poker.

Getting your history wrong

People (well men) are randy by nature, whilst a woman will try to find a reason to have sex because of the consequences, men usually need only to find a place. In the past, the more money and power you had, the easier it was to have a mistress and one of the forms of birth control such as it was for the nobility was to marry your mistress off to one of your fellow courtiers/men at arms who in order to increase their influence, were quite happy (for a given degree of happy) to tolerate this. it meant that any children were not born bastards and if or when the relationship ended the woman involved had a settled secure place.
No it wasn't perfect and yes there were problems with it, but it's something that was common enough with male monarchs throughout the centuries, power (wealth) and sex often going hand in hand.
Which is why this story in the Mail made me sigh in exasperation, I don't know if it's just the Mail being ignorant or the historian putting modern thinking on a historical situation. Either way they're wrong.
Mail.

King Henry VIII had a secret daughter who should have taken the throne before Elizabeth I, new research has revealed.
Elizabeth Tailboys was the Tudor monarch's illegitimate lovechild who would have changed the course of English history had the King acknowledged her as his at the time.
By rights she should have taken the throne on the death of Queen Mary in 1558, making her the true Elizabeth I and not Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn.

Leaving aside the laws of primogeniture and the occasional royal meddling in which the King was given the power to designate his successor legitimacy tended to be the key to which the royal line was maintained. Henry might have acknowledged his son Henry Fitzroy and possibly even planned to marry him off to his daughter Ann (Catherine of Aragon's daughter) but, acknowledged is not the same as legitimate and would have caused major problems (schism) had he not died young probably from the same affliction as his legitimate brothers Arthur and Edward. Male succession aside though, female offspring did not get the same treatment, Ann and Elizabeth, Henry's daughters only maintained power whilst there were no men in their lives. Ann's marriage to the King of Spain was not popular and it's likely she would have been overthrown had the King ever tried to land on English shores to take charge, the later defeat of the Spanish Armada stems from this marriage when Philip of Spain tried to assert his right as King of England by way of his previous marriage to Mary.
There was never any possibility of another Queen Elizabeth ascending to the throne, acknowledgement or not, the very fact Henry did not acknowledge her probably saved her life, look at what happened to Lady Jane Grey after Edward died.
First law of a disputed succession, kill all your rivals, save an immediate heir, Had Mary had a son, (both) Elizabeth's days would have been numbered, an illegitimate Elizabeth's for certain.
I'm pretty much certain a historian would know all this, so I suspect it's just the Mail playing fast and loose with facts again.

Legal or not?

(Scottish blood runs in my veins) Cameron has stepped into the Scottish independence debate by saying it's up to Westminster as to whether or not a referendum would be legal.
Telegraph.

David Cameron went on the offensive over Scottish independence today - pledging to publish legal advice reported to show Westminster must give permission for a referendum.
The Prime Minister said it would give "clarity" to the people of Scotland as he renewed his determination to see a vote held "sooner rather than later".
And he accused First Minister Alex Salmond of seeking to delay a vote because he knew Scottish voters did not "at heart" want a full separation.
Mr Salmond wants the poll in the second half of his current term - which ends in 2016.
Mr Cameron told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show that the uncertainty over when a referendum would be held and what the question would be was damaging the Scottish economy.
"We owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive so in the coming days we will be setting out clearly what the legal situation is," he said.

Technically I suppose he's right, though the way he's going about it will no doubt get right up the nose of Scottish Nationalists as he seeks to goad Salmond into falling in with his timetable rather than the Scottish First Ministers timetable. In fact I cannot see anything more likely to boost the nationalist cause more than a Tory UK Prime Minister telling them what they can and cannot do.
That aside though, it doesn't matter what Cameron thinks about referenda, he's hardly got a great track record on them himself, but if the Scottish government decide to hold one it doesn't matter about the legality or not, what will matter is the result. If a majority of the Scottish people decide that going it alone is what they want to do, what exactly is Cameron going to do about it? Send in the troops?
My own personal opinion on the matter is that if the Scots want to go their own way, that's a matter entirely up to them, my only (slight) peeve is that the English and other don't get their own referenda to decide as to whether or not the Union is worth keeping. I suspect a federal UK could work, but if others want to go it alone, then that's up to them, not the Prime Minister and Cameron stepping in to say that we'll tell you what the rules are is not helping at all, it just gets peoples backs up.
As it is, for all Cameron is currently the Prime Minister for the entire UK, Scotland has it's own parliament and runs most of its own affairs, his interference I suspect is nether wanted nor welcome.
I could only wish that England could do the same.

Flying the flag

There are rules for flying a flag, the only ones you can freely fly are the national ones such as the Union flag and the Cross of St George and only then if they are unmarked by other symbols. So, the government in the shape of Eric Pickles wants to cut red tape and let anyone fly the flag they want too. Which in essence is a good thing, though oddly enough I can foresee problems ahead.
Express.

FLYING a flag in England is to be made easier under new Government plans.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles wants to cut red tape to let sports teams, pubs and societies hoist flags ­without paying a £335 fee.
Current strict rules ban flying all but county or ­national flags without ­permission from the council.
Under the new plans flags, including ­regimental standards and the gay rainbow flag could be raised without planning ­permission. Mr Pickles said: “If people want to celebrate something that is ­important to them by flying a flag they should be able to do so without having to fill in forms or paying town hall ­officials for the ­privilege.”

Nobody I know other than a few frothing at the mouth leftists and Islamists could or would have a problem with any non political association flying their flag, but we all know that at least those 2 groups have a major problem with freedom of expression with regard to anyone who is not like them and have in the past sought to use by any means possible to shut down any form of expression from groups they oppose. Just look at the Islamist "Shariah gay free zone" attempts in Tower Hamlets, still I suppose anyone flying the black flag of jihad will at least be easy to find when inevitably the Islamists go too far. Same with the patriot hating left, they already have a problem with people flying the national flag anyway (we're racist apparently) and so will see this as a swing to the right by the government.
Still the law of unintended consequences is bound to rear it's ugly head on this one, after all if you give people the freedom to do something, sooner or later they'll end up doing something with it you didn't expect.
I expect this will get very interesting very soon if it goes ahead with people trying to wind up those they oppose so expect a lot headlines about punch ups in the cities very soon.

(Another) compare and contrast

What price on a human life? Well if you followed the Lawrence trial it's in the region of 14 years, although apparently this is only if you are a juvenile at the time and apparently the Attorney General is going to have a look at that as being unduly lenient. So what would you say should have been the result of a gang attacking an innocent bystander...
Mirfield Reporter.

A MAN has been jailed for killing a man in a street attack.
Mohammed Nazakat Alam was today sent to prison for 21 months for the manslaughter of Jack Carter in August 2011.
Co-accused, Nisar Shah, formerly of Victoria Road, was given a six month jail term suspended for two years and 120 hours unpaid work for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Leeds Crown Court heard how the attack took place shortly after Mr Carter, 39, and his girlfriend, Melanie Boocock, left a friend’s house in Victoria Road, Thornhill Lees, on Sunday August 28.
Prosecutor Christopher Tehrani said Ms Boocock hurled racist abuse at local resident Junaid Azad as they left the house.
Another man, Basharat Hussain, told her to shut up and she threw a punch at him.
Mr Azad stepped in, followed by a group of Asian men who were stood nearby.
One of the group, Alam, then punched Mr Carter who had been watching.
Shah then came out of his house and stood on Mr Carter’s head, but he stayed with Mr Carter until paramedics arrived.
Mr Carter, of Bretton Street, Savile Town, was taken to Dewsbury and District Hospital with serious head injuries and died three days later.
Alam, 25, of Beckett Lane, Dewsbury Moor, was originally charged with murder but that was dropped when he admitted manslaughter last month.

Yep, that's right, 21 months for attacking a man who whilst he has a gobby (racist alledgedly) girlfriend was not involved or being provocative in any way, at least according to this report. But because Azad was full of remorse and admitted manslaughter plus stayed with Jack carter after he stood on his head he only got 21 months.

Passing sentence, The Recorder of Leeds, Judge Peter Collier QC, said Mr Carter’s family had been ‘devastated’ by his death.
He said he accepted that Alam was ‘full of sorrow and remorse’ because of the effect his actions.
He told Shah: “Immediately after your assault, you tried to assist and attend to the man who lay clearly injured on the floor.”

Yes, I'm sure that makes it ok, after all he'd been subjected to racist abuse before the violence...
Hang on, no he wasn't he just launched an attack on Carter who hadn't actually done anything and it was Junaid Azad who was being verbally abused and Basharat Hussain who was physically attacked by the woman.
Makes you wonder what else would get you 21 months...
Herts and Essex Observer.

A RACIST from Great Hallingbury who attacked a supermarket security officer will spend Christmas behind bars after being jailed for 21 months.
Serial offender Ben Horton, 22, of Copthall, had gone to Sainsbury’s in Harlow on August 16 to try to steal some wine before the fracas began.
Horton, who pleaded guilty to attempted theft, racially aggravated assault, assaulting police and breaching bail, was spotted by security officer Mohammed Raza, who was then racially abused, punched and spat at.
During a struggle on the ground as Mr Raza tried to calm him down, he then bit him, leaving an inch-long wound on his arm.
After police arrived and tried to get him out of the store, Horton spat blood at them and dug his nails into one officer. When he was later interviewed he denied being a racist.
Ben Hargreaves, mitigating, said Horton was a long-term drug user who had left home aged 15 and had since lived “from place to place without the support of his family”. He added that he also had an alcohol problem.

So, attacking a security guard and some police but not actually killing anyone will also get you 21 months, of course he's a serial offender so I guess that makes up for it, couldn't possibly be any other reason now could there?
 You know like someone being treat differently due to religion or race, but no, that's just being silly, we're all supposed to be dealt with impartially and had Horton shown remorse and attempted to apologise he'd now be up for a knighthood..
Still, I'm sure it's all down to circumstances, I can't believe for one second that it might just be anything else.

You won't read this in the MSM

Taken from the Casuals blog.

Inside info that 47 Muslim groomers, alleged paedophiles mainly from Rochdale and Manchester appeared at Liverpool crown court this week under massive police security. All are males aged between 20 and 50. Newspapers have been told not to report on this. Why?
Its good that the police are acting on this massive problem, but why the secrecy? They obviously are concerned about “community cohesion”. Even while dealing with it, they STILL want to keep the scale of the problem from the British public.
All suspects are bailed to Liverpool Crown court on February 6th for trial.

Suzy

The original story appeared in the Rochdale Observer. June 08, 2011

Eight men were due in court this morning following a police probe into the alleged grooming of young girls.
All of the suspects, from Rochdale, were charged late last night with conspiracy to commit penetrative sexual activity with a female under 16 years.
The men are Abdul Rauf, 42, of Darley Road; Liaqat Shah, 40, of Kensington Road; Adil Khan, 41, of Oswald Street; Qamar Shahzad, 29, of Conisborough; Mohammed Sajid, 34, of Jepheys Street; Mohammed Ikhlaq, 31, of Clover Hall Crescent; Mohammed Amin, 44, of Failinge Road and Abdul Aziz, 40, of Armstrong Hurst Close.
The men were due before magistrates in Rochdale today.

Now I can't confirm this information as it appears to be under a news blackout from the MSM, it may be that it's just one of those urban myth rumours, however...

This was from the Liverpool Crown court hearings for the 3rd Jan 2012, these are the Rochdale lot.

03-01-2012	Liverpool Crown Court	4-1	T20117520 T20117522 T20117536 T20117537 T20117538 T20117539 T20117540 T20117542 T20117543 T20117589	abdul aziz abdul qayyum abdul rauf adil khan hamid safi liaqat hussain shah mohammad amin mohammad sajid qamar shahzad shabir ahmed	For Pre-Trial Review – Hearing finished for MOHAMMAD SAJID – 16:13
03-01-2012	Liverpool Crown Court	4-1	T20117520 T20117521 T20117522 T20117536 T20117537 T20117538 T20117539 T20117540 T20117542 T20117543 T20117589	abdul aziz abdul qayyum abdul rauf adil khan hamid safi kabeer hassan liaqat hussain shah mohammad amin mohammad sajid qamar shahzad shabir ahmed	For Pre-Trial Review – Resume – 14:28

H/T EDL forum.
 Now it might just be a coincidence that a group representing the religion of peace with the same names of the Rochdale groomers appear in Liverpool Crown Court, I'll let you judge that for yourself.
If there is a news blackout, one can only wonder why? What is it (particularly after the Lawrence trial) that the authorities want to hide or avoid? A fair trial due to trial by media? Can't say how that would possibly bother them after all they don't appear to by shy on publicity when it suits them.
As it is, it might just appear in the MSM today, it certainly didn't yesterday though and you'd suspect a case involving the grooming of under age girls for sex on this scale (a possibility of over 60 young girls) would certainly make the headlines.
Then again, who am I kidding, it's the wrong colour thing again isn't it?

Justice?

I don't know whether the 2 guys who stand convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence are guilty, I suspect they may be, however the lengths that the authorities had to go to to get a conviction strikes me as being very unsafe. First the law on double jeopardy had to be removed as the accused had already been tried once and found not guilty. Excuses had to be found for the poor storage of evidence meaning that cross contamination may have (not necessarily did) occur. The accused had already been named as "guilty" by the MSM in the shape of the Daily Mail. Plus there is now an ongoing campaign to try and get to the other 3 involved. A massive and costly undercover operation was set up by the police that looks from an outsiders point of view as entrapment yet the accused were finally only convicted on 16 fibres and a speck of blood.
I don't know if they were guilty, I do know that the appeals court and the lawyers are going to have a field day over this and when or if it goes up to the European Court of Justice which will sift the evidence and the trial procedures then I suspect the case might just be overturned and hefty compensation paid out.
What was done here to try and get a conviction had far more to do with political correctness and a desire not to appear racist. The murders of Charlene Downes and Gavin Hopley have already proven that you need to be the right skin colour to get this sort of response from the police, the government and various other  political groupings.
So from my strictly jaundiced viewpoint, if this was justice, God help us all.

Seems I'm not alone...

http://goingfastgettingnowhere.blogspot.com/2012/01/justice-maybe-but-at-what-cost.html
http://timworstall.com/2012/01/04/stephen-lawrence-verdict-no-not-happy-about-it/
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/is-this-justice-for-stephen-lawrence/
http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-deaths-of-richard-everitt-and-stephen-lawrence-compare-and-contrast/
http://4liberty.org.uk/2012/01/03/disposable-double-jeopardy/

Biased BBC?

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy the Labour party accused the BBC of pro coalition coverage, though I suspect it's more down to the fact that Ed Millipede has less of a personality than Gordon Brown. I hated Brown with a passion for his anti-English attitude, his spite, his reckless financial management and his selling out our interests to the EU in the form of the Lisbon Treaty, whereas Millipede E usually just produces a "meh" reaction in a similar way to the mother of Gru in Despicable Me.
Guardian.

The Labour party has made a "serious complaint" to the BBC about a lack of political balance in its news coverage as it attempts to reinvigorate Ed Miliband's leadership and counter what it sees as widespread media bias in favour of the David Cameron-led coalition.
The Observer has learned that Labour chiefs have written to the corporation raising concerns that its party spokesmen are not receiving their fair share of airtime at a time when they are neck and neck with the Tories in opinion polls.
It is understood that party officials have monitored invitations, and time given, to senior Tory and Liberal Democrat figures on the BBC's main news outlets against that allotted to Labour counterparts. Their analysis has shown that Labour has been represented less than half as often as the coalition.
While acknowledging that the Tories and Lib Dems are in government and should therefore take precedence, they believe the imbalance has left Labour struggling to get its messages across. They have made their point to top BBC executives in forceful terms.
One source familiar with the dispute said Labour had made a "very serious complaint" to the relevant authories.
Labour insiders insisted on Saturday that the party was not "declaring war" on the BBC or "whingeing", but merely holding the corporation to its obligation to show impartiality.

Now I'm well aware of the BBC's position in that if both sides are complaining, they think they are being impartial, though the evidence over the years rather suggests that the dividing line on complaints is hardly central as Biased BBC has frequently pointed out  with the BBC assuming that far left complaints and right wing complaints somehow put Labour in the middle, despite the fairly obvious bussing in of left wing activists to Question Time and the outright pandering to Labour spokesmen without an answering opinion in the Today Program amongst others.
I don't know why Labour even think that somehow the dying dead tree press is behind their recent popularity nosedive, I rather suspect that their unpopularity is more down to the blogging world who constantly remind people just exactly who is to blame for the mess we're in, something the BBC has never done (nor the Guardian oddly enough) Fact is, the BBC literally fell over themselves to trumpet the left wing cause of the Labour party during its time in power, their frequent use of right wing to describe the Tories along with the unsavoury BNP was an attempt to associate the right always with racism and extremism in a way that left wing never did for the excesses and folly of socialism, which in many countries combined racism and brutality beyond belief at times.
All I can assume is that the BBC itself feels under threat from the continuing exposing of its bias by various sites and feels the need to justify its credibility by a ridiculous accusation from the left.

Not a Sheep, sums it up a bit more succinctly though.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse

The human rights lawyers and their tame judges have allowed various criminals and other scum to remain in the UK for various reasons including the right to a family life, when common sense tells most people that the correct judgement should have been bye bye, see you in hell. However a recent judgement has just opened a new floodgate.
Mail.

A Bangladeshi student has won the right to remain in the UK - after he declared that his love of cricket proved that he was committed to British life.
And there are now concerns that the controversial ruling could open the floodgates for thousands of foreign students to remain in the UK after completing their college courses.
Abdullah Munawar, 23, who has been studying in London, applied to have his three-year student visa renewed in 2010, but was turned down by the Home Office.
However, the accountancy student appealed that ruling, telling the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber that he deserved to remain in the UK because he played cricket at weekends and had also formed friendships with students and work colleagues.

That's right, a love of cricket and a couple of friendships made is enough to turn over a visa refusal and to rub salt in the wound, the judge ruled that the initial refusal of a visa renewal 'amounted to a disproportionate interference with private life that deserved respect'.
In other words someone who has outstayed their welcome can just claim that they have a few mates, like cricket and they have to be allowed to remain and we're supposed to accept this as a just solution?

Mr Munawar now hopes to get a job with an accountancy firm and has plans to take part in an arranged marriage after his imam lined up a potential bride.

No doubt the bride, her family, possibly village and tribe all living in Bangladesh and now with a potential entry visa into the UK as they'll all have a few mates and love cricket.
The comments in the Mail are as ever quite illuminating.

Predictions

Despite the amazing accuracy of my last set of New Year predictions where I predicted some fairly obvious happenstances (I mean a Tory scandal, come on, when isn't there a Tory scandal) it's a case of here we go again.
The Lib Dem problems of heart and mind will reach a crisis when the social democrat wing of the party will split from the Orange bookers (the real Liberals) and more or less support Labour in the current Parliament. The coagulation will however limp on at least until the €uro collapses.
It will finally reach what passes for the thinking apparatus of political parties that support for leaving the EU is a vote winner, strangely enough it will be impossible to find any MP save only a few who are on record of defending the EU who will admit to have supported any EU policies, now or ever.
The UK will however remain in the EU, but outside the €uro.
The €uro will not collapse in 2012, but throughout the year every effort to attempt to rescue the €urozone will end in ignominious failure and end up making the situation worse. The southern €uro states will be forced to withdraw from the €uro and devalue their currency, though this will only delay the inevitable in the Northern €uro states.
The French economy will go tits up towards the end of 2012 and will trigger the final collapse in 2013.
West Ham will be promoted, Sunderland relegated.
With all the economic crisis going on the UK government will continue to ignore the Islamic problem in the UK and continue mass immigration, anti-white discrimination will continue and the population will become more and more angry about this, though the continuing lack of a charismatic nationalist (and non racist) political party will keep the focus dispersed and the main political parties untroubled.
The Olympics will go without a hitch, the UK medal haul will be average.
The USA will have a new president, it wont be Obama.

Right, hopefully that will have seriously bolloxed up the hopes and ambitions of the EUphiles.

Happy New Year, may it be better than 2011