Bigamy pays!

Bigamy is a crime in this country, for someone to have more than one legal partner is illegal and can end up with the offender being thrown in jail. Not that it stops certain religions from trying it on at times, though in the past it had to be done discreetly, or abroad, even then there was no benefit to be had for doing it, save now...
Express.

IMMIGRANTS with multiple wives could claim higher benefit payments thanks to a loophole in the Govern-ment’s welfare shake-up, it emerged yesterday.
Under current rules, husbands in polygamous marriages are able to apply for income support and other handouts for their extra spouses. Ministers decided to scrap the rules when the new Universal Benefit system comes in next year to end the “absurd” situation where the state effectively recognises polygamy.
But now officials are concerned that multiple wives will claim full single person’s benefits instead, rather than lower-rate payments designed for “couples”.
Some immigrants could see their weekly handouts almost double from £40 to £71 a week.
The emergence of the loophole triggered fresh concerns about why families in some minority religious groups are permitted to indulge in polygamy while bigamy is illegal and punishable by up to seven years in jail.
At present, polygamous families on jobseeker’s allowance could claim £111.45 a week for the initial couple and £40 for each additional wife. Once they are treated as individuals, the wives could claim £71 a week.

Now it does strike me that any potential immigrant with more than one wife should automatically be disqualified from immigrating to this country unless they are prepared to divorce their extra wives and only bring one with them. If they aren't prepared to do that then we won't miss them. What we shouldn't be doing is encouraging an activity which breaks the laws of this land by making it pay.
The practice was allowed under the previous administration (surprise, surprise) and has carried on into the current one. There are plans to change it according to ministers, but you know how bureaucratic inertia works. Plus expect a raft of cases using the HRA to try and prevent it.
One country, one law?
Apparently not.

You pay peanuts...

It was bound to happen when the companies providing security for the Olympics decided to go for the lowest common denominator failed to get acceptable staff to assist people attending the games.
Mail.

G4S Olympic security guard faces sack after calling soldier who had served in Afghanistan a 'baby killer'

• Asian guard is also said to have spat at the serviceman during confrontation
• Pair were working at the archery contest at Lord's Cricket Ground
• G4S has begun urgent internal investigation into claims

Under-fire private security firm G4S was at the centre of another embarrassing Olympics scandal today after an employee allegedly
called a soldier a 'baby killer' as they worked at a Games venue.The Asian civilian guard, who faces the sack, is said to have spat at the serviceman and made the abusive remark at the archery contest at Lord's Cricket Ground.
The remark is believed to have been a reference to the soldier's service in Afghanistan.

There's that ubiquitous 'Asian' tag again, which is a gross insult to the vast majority of Asians who are polite, civilised and generally not Islamic in nature. You can pretty much accept that if the roles had been reversed the police would most likely have been called and an arrest made for a hate crime. As it is there's the usual embarrassed quotes from the various agencies involved, "isolated incident", "Urgently investigating", etc. etc. Nothing from the police though whom you just know would have been called in if the roles had been reversed.
Now you may not agree with our troops being in Afghanistan, though God alone knows they are better behaved than the Islamic Taliban against whom they are ranged. But you'll never convince some people of that, mostly Muslims and the hard of thinking (aka socialists) but you don't take it out on the troops, nor do you spit at the troops themselves, spitting is a disgusting and vile habit and carries the risk of TB and other nasty diseases being spread.
So what will happen? I expect the guard will be sacked, however no criminal charges will be filed, the guy won't end up being detained and his family put into care (as happened to Emma West) nor will he be deported to a shit heap country where his views are acceptable to the masses. Simply because he's one of the states pets, ie, coloured and a Muslim.
Some people are amazed the soldier didn't punch his lights out, but then again I suppose the soldier is infinitely more disciplined and civilised than any Muslim security guard.

What did they expect?

There have been complaints and something of a row over the rows of empty seats at some Olympic events. Seems the corporate block booking of huge sections of the best seats in the house goes against the leftist multiculti opening ceremony sentiments...
Mail (But mentioned throughout the MSM as well)

Olympic bosses have promised to investigate major sponsors after banks of empty seats were spotted at several sold-out Games venues today.
Several high-profile venues, including the Aquatics Centre in the Olympic Park and the gymnastics arena in North Greenwich, had rows of empty seats during morning sessions on the first day of the Games.
Locog said they would be investigating why the seats were unfilled, while Lord Coe has reportedly promised to name and shame sponsors who did not find takers for the venues.

This actually shouldn't surprise anyone, corporate sponsorship and block tickets are often bought as 'gifts' for favoured clients as part of sweeteners. There's no guarantee that they'll end up in the hands of people who might actually be interested in the event they're for. It doesn't happen at the Olympics either, any major sporting event that permits it (or indeed doesn't) will find that companies have gone to great lengths to get tickets for an event in the knowledge that the people they might give it too won't turn up as they haven't paid for it themselves so it means nothing too them. Happens at Wimbledon, happens at Wembley, ordinary people are priced out of the market by the sheer expense of the best seats coupled with a system of purchase that is often jammed or oversubscribed. Front seats for the 100 meter's final go at £725 which is a lot of money for something that lasts less than 10 seconds (I have to presume that the tickets are for the day, surely?????)
Sadly I cannot see this ever being resolved to favour the man on the street, assuming he's even interested, there's no way he can compete with the corporates, so the Olympics will have certain events looking empty and the possibility of non enthusiasts at the major finals simply because they have a ticket given to them.
Welcome to modern Britain...

Common sense intruding on the enviroloonies?

Seems the chancellor who is not popular with the Lib Dem part of the coagulation so he must be doing something right (or is simply way annoying over and above normal political levels) He's decided to reduce (though sadly not remove) the subsidy for bird mincers and solar rip off  panels.
Naturally the enviroloons and their political friends are not happy about this...
Mail.

George Osborne infuriated Liberal Democrat colleagues and environmental groups yesterday by refusing to sign up to carbon emissions targets and insisting on a new ‘dash for gas’.
The Chancellor is understood to be determined not to commit Britain to tough climate targets beyond 2020, arguing they will be a disadvantage for businesses.
The Energy Department resisted calls for deep cuts to onshore wind subsidies, announcing yesterday a reduction of 10 per cent in payments for new turbines.
But green groups reacted angrily as the Government’s energy strategy endorsed support for future gas power in a compromise between the Lib Dem-led department and Mr Osborne.
Significantly, sources said the Chancellor and Prime Minister were determined to block ‘decarbonisation’ targets after 2020.
One Whitehall source said: ‘The official line is the Government is reserving its position, but George Osborne and David Cameron have made clear they object to post-2020 targets, which suggests the Government will never agree to any.’

I do wonder if the wheels are about to come off the 'green' bandwagon, though sadly this appears simply to be a case of trying to run the whole scam on the equivalence of running a car with a flat tyre. It's still capable of going and costing us in other words. Nor can I currently see the Lib Dem part of the coagulation or the Labour party giving up on trying to rip off the taxpayer to pay for these useless schemes
Still it's a move towards sanity by the chancellor at least and to give him credit he did appear to want to cut the subsidy a lot more but had to bow towards political reality in the form of appeasing the Lib Dems. It does appear that the government at least are beginning to understand that the proposed 'de-carbonising' proposals would be a death knell for UK industry and would wreck the economy so badly that we'd all be impoverished (something of an enviroloons wet dream I believe) so would not be able to afford to travel or indeed do anything including work.
As there's a review next year perhaps Osborne would get his way and drop the subsidy altogether and opt for a method of power generation that actually works when we need it and is economically sane as well.
Well we can always dream can't we?

Utterly Hilarious

You'd think that a serving police officer would know better, you'd certainly think that a serving police officer with the name Hatef Nezami would know better than to make a prank call about a bomb threat to 'colleagues' in a special branch office. You'd especially think at the age of 48 that he'd at least have a modicum of common sense with regard as to what constitutes a genuine prank and something that caused mass panic...

Mail.

A police officer caused a major terrorism alert after ringing a busy port with a hoax bomb threat.
PC Hatef Nezami, 48, rang colleagues at the police Special Branch office with a coded message that a device was placed in a busy port.
Specialist terrorism staff were so concerned by the call's authentic nature that they started preparing for a full terrorist attack.
The constable, who has completed a regional Special Branch terrorism course, said that a bomb was on a Condor ferry based in Poole, Dorset.
However at the time of his call, the ferry was actually sailing across the English Channel packed full of people travelling to the Channel Islands.
Mr Nezami is believed to have tried to call back to reveal his 'joke' call but was unable to do so for half an hour as staff were engaged on all the available phone lines alerting authorities.

One can only assume that Mr Nezami is one of the 'race industry's' token multicultural parachutee's  ill educated and ill suited for modern policing in the UK but at least his face is the right colour.
You'd expect in a case like this that he'd be hauled up before a disciplinary panel and if the evidence warranted it sacked, though considering what happened to Simon Harwood you have to wonder just how far they could go with no-one doing anything. As it is a packed ferry was put in a situation where it had to be prepared to be evacuated in the middle of the channel.

Remarkably, the Daily Mail understands that Mr Nezami, who has worked as a detective, has not faced criminal or disciplinary proceedings and was simply placed on uniform patrol at another station.

Clearly a case of one rule for them, another for us as the maximum sentence for a bomb hoax for a member of the general public is seven years. One does have to wonder if Mr Nezami would have faced a lot more in the way of punishment if he hadn't been a) coloured, b) a Muslim.

Relax

Why am I not surprised that a Muslim MP wants the Borders Agency to relax their security measures for airports during the middle of the Olympics. Could it be that he wants a terrorist outrage? he is a Muslim after all and has a history of making threatening gestures.
BBC.

Home Secretary Theresa May should relax border checks to prevent queues at UK airports going back to pre-Olympics levels, a committee of MPs has said.
Border force chief Brodie Clark was forced out of his job in a row over easing identity checks at airports.
But Keith Vaz, chairman of the influential home affairs committee, said the scheme had kept queues down.
And it should be reinstated now the "panic" around Mr Clark had died down.
The former border force chief received a reported £250,000 payout in March after settling a constructive unfair dismissal claim against the Home Office, with neither side admitting fault.
He claimed he was being used as a political scapegoat after Mrs May said he had relaxed passport checks without her approval, something he denied.

Now Brodie Clark's methods included a "risk-based" approach to border control - which saw checks on EU school parties waived and border staff allowed to reduce scrutiny of EU passports deemed to be low-risk Problem being that an EU passport particularly in the Southern EU states was remarkably easy to get hold of and were handed out willy nilly to immigrants on the condition they didn't remain in the Southern EU states. So an EU passport was never a low risk affair and I suspect Vaz and Clark knew this.
Still you have to wonder whilst we're hosting the Olympics and having one or two problems with our own Islamic yahoo's why Vaz wants us to lower our security measures.

You won't be missed

Seems the president of the Argies (Famous for losing the Falklands war) has decided to snub the UK government by not turning up for the Olympic opening ceremony.
Express.

ARGENTINA have continued their bad relations today as they refusedto send their President to the Olympics opening ceremony. In yet another diplomatic snub to Britain and its leaders amid growing tensions over the Falkland Islands, Argentina decided not to send its president to attend the ceremony.
President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will not be attending the ceremony, the Argentinian embassy said.
But relations between Kirchner and Prime Minister David Cameron have been tense ever since the Falklands and the decision by the Argentine leader not to attend gives a sure sign that relations have not been appeased.

It's the sort of gesture which will no doubt go down well in Argentina but leave the rest of the world thinking 'so what' It's not like anyone here will be looking out for the daft bint anyway. She couldn't even get Cameron to take her seriously during the G20 summit when he ignored her attempt to hand him a pile of steaming horse shit her countries grounds for making us negotiate the handover of the Falklands to Argentinian rule. Something that even the daft bint would have to recognise would be political suicide for any British Prime Minister, even a socialist one.
But then that's the root of her problem, she's desperately unpopular at home because she's trying to use socialist economic policies to run her failing economy despite the fact that a quick glance around the world and through history would tell her that it has never worked anywhere, yet the daft buggers keep trying it.
So all the daft bint is left with are grandiose gestures that please the home crowd, yet make her look petty elsewhere.

As morally wrong as say avoiding stamp duty?

Much hilarity ensued at castle QM when the various articles in today's online news sites stated that paying someone in cash was as morally wrong as tax avoidance.
For both are legal pastimes. Nor do I blame anyone from accepting cash in hand either, I mostly consider it cutting out the middleman ie the government.
Telegraph.

People who pay cash in hand to tradesmen are “morally wrong”, damaging the economy and helping tax evaders, a minister has warned.
David Gauke, a Treasury minister, told The Daily Telegraph that home owners who allow workmen to evade VAT or income tax were forcing others to pay more.
His comments reflect growing concern in Whitehall about the cash-in-hand economy, which costs Britain billions of pounds a year in lost tax revenues.

This being the same David Gauke who claimed over £10,000 worth of expenses back from taxpayers to avoid paying the stamp duty and fees involved in the purchase of his home in London, yes, that David Gauke whose wife is also a tax avoidance lawyer. Guido has all the dirty details if you want to read them.
Yet for all that Gauke is morally repugnant, he hasn't actually broken the law, yet he has used the law to benefit through tax avoidance as pretty much anyone who has received cash in hand has for their troubles. Yet receiving cash in hand isn't really a crime, just not declaring your income is so it's a bit hypocritical of Gauke to go criticising people who choose to pay in cash rather than those who don't declare their income as well.
Any politician who goes on about 'morality' is of course heading straight for trouble as the breed as a whole are not exactly known for morality, good behaviour, common sense or indeed honesty.
What it boils down to is an overly complex tax system in the UK where instead of say a flat rate, we have various types and levels of taxation, including legal loopholes, grants and reliefs on income. We also have, VAT, corporate taxation, council tax, road tax all needing collected and administered. Tax law is a bit of a minefield for anyone who doesn't specialise in it and occasionally even the various collectors get it wrong.
If it was simple and concise, there would be less in the way of 'fiddling' or even morally questionable avoidance, though again I see nothing wrong with avoiding paying tax and keeping as much as possible out of the hands of the government.
Gauke should perhaps have remembered the old maxim about people in glass houses not throwing bricks. His idea of morally wrong is aimed at the wrong target for one, they are doing nothing more illegal than he did.

Guaranteed Greed

The government are still obsessed with getting as much of our cash out of us as possible with the green energy scam. They won't guarantee prices and with the current policy in place as designed by an ignorant 'Friends of the Earth' fanatic look set to wreck the UK's economy with impossible carbon reduction targets. (all for our own good no doubt)
Telegraph.

Households will pay too much for their electricity bills because of the Coalition’s botched energy reforms, MPs have warned.
The Commons energy and climate change committee found that plans to encourage companies to build wind farms and nuclear plants were too expensive and executed poorly. Under the reforms, households would subsidise the construction of low-carbon power plants through their energy bills.
The Government would fix the price of electricity in an attempt to make it affordable.
It will raise the cost of bills by about £100 over the next decade, according to Government estimates
However, the Treasury has backed out of providing an official state guarantee for the reforms, meaning it will cost more for companies to borrow money to fund the projects.
MPs said this would raise the price of building power stations and wind farms, which could “impose unnecessary costs on consumers”.

Essentially this means the government are hell bent on bucking the market with regard to cheap reliable energy production and asking us to pay out on expensive (nuclear) and unreliable (wind and solar) energy projects. Completely ignoring shale gas production which has lowered prices in the USA on the grounds that according to environmentalists (not engineers or geologists) it will cause earthquakes and probably will see Blackpool slip into the sea. This is despite solid evidence that Earth tremors happen all the time in the UK and so far the test drills have not increased tectonic activity in the slightest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for looking after the environment, but the only way we can really do that is if the country has an economy to pay for it and the current energy supply program instituted by ignorant politicians and enviroloonies will destroy the economy and wreck the wealth of the nation. Not that I expect them to do anything about it until it's probably too late. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price of the politicians and environmentalists mad gamble with renewable energy, we on the otherhand have the opportunity to freeze to death on cold winters days unable to pay the bills anymore.
Hang them all!

Not even trying

Looking at the Human Rights Act and the way criminal (and criminal lawyers) have twisted the supposed meaning of the wording can drive you to despair at times. The actual blame lies with the (Labour) politicians who foisted this odious piece of loosely worded legislation upon us without setting up any safeguards to prevent criminals from using the infamous 'right to a family life' clause to remain in the UK often despite the fact they don't live or have contact with their families.
Telegraph.

Two hundred and fifty foreign criminals who should have been deported at the end of their prison sentences were allowed to stay in Britain on human rights grounds last year without their claims being challenged in court.
In each case, the Home Office accepted their argument that deporting them would breach their human rights rather than asking a judge to decide. The number has increased fivefold in four years, throwing into doubt the commitment of Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to deporting foreign criminals.
They were allowed to stay despite Damian Green, the immigration minister, telling the Commons last December that the Government was "doing everything in our power to increase the number and speed of removals".
The figures, disclosed to The Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act, show that there were 56 such cases in 2008, rising to 80 in 2009, 217 in 2010 and 250 in 2011 and that:
• In 2011, at least one terrorist – and possibly up to four – was allowed to stay, as well as up to eight killers and rapists. Also among the total were 20 robbers and up to eight paedophiles, plus as many as four people convicted of firearms offences.
• In 2010, the Home Office conceded in the cases of up to four murderers and up to four people convicted of manslaughter, as well as up to four rapists, up to eight paedophiles and 43 people convicted of violent crime or robbery.
• In 2009, there were 17 robbers and 10 violent criminals allowed to remain, and between one and four murderers.
• In 2008 up to four people convicted of manslaughter and up to four rapists were allowed to stay.

That's right, because they knew there was no way they'd win, they never even made the attempt and it's hard to blame them, after all the only losers would have been the taxpayers who have too foot the bill in such cases, including the legal aid these parasites (lawyers and criminals) claim when 'defending the rights of rapists, terrorists, murderers and thieves to remain amongst the good people of this land.
The thing is, even if we change the government, we still won't be able to get rid of the HRA because we're part of the EU too, the only way to do it is to vote for a party that will take us out of the EU and both the Labour and Tory parties who inevitably end up forming a government of the UK are hell bent on keeping us in. So unless people out there start voting for the minority parties who have as part of their policies a clause to get us out of the EU, this situation is not going to end any time soon
Abstaining from voting is not the answer either, that simply allows the main parties to get in by default and as we all know, they'll never bring in compulsory voting with a place on the voting card for 'None of the above' however much we'd like them too.
Still that shouldn't stop us trying to get our point across, however frustrating it is. Sooner or later the situation will get so bad that the government will be forced into action, the election of some of the minor parties at a general election may just tip their hands, though that will not as yet stop the EU. Still we can dream, can't we?

Servants of the people

There must be something in the water at Westminster that turns MP's and civil servants into power hungry imbeciles. I know they say power corrupts, but surely you'd expect to see the occasional exception to the rule? Mind you I'm probably clutching at straws here, or living in a fantasyland of my own imagining.
Express.

ARROGANT ministers have warned they may boycott the Olympics after being told to ditch official cars for public transport when travelling to events, it emerged yesterday.
Downing Street has banned them from being driven except in certain circumstances, amid fears of bad publicity if they are caught cruising down the lanes reserved for Olympic VIPs, athletes and media.
David Cameron said this week he would use public transport “and that is how I recommend everyone should travel”.
But some ministers, many of whom have been drafted in to look after VIP visitors, are unhappy.
One Cabinet minister said the “draconian rules” had caused “a lot of ill feeling and frankly some of us would rather not be going to anything at all”.

Most people I know won't be going to the Olympics at all, mostly because of the cost, the few that are, are sports fanatics and have paid through the nose to get there. I suspect their (and my) reaction is pretty much the same, these 'servants of the public' are getting freebies and watching purportedly one of the great sporting spectacles of the century. So when they bleat about having to use public transport and their dignity, my reaction is if you don't want to do it, give the tickets to a worthy cause. They seem to forget that it's our money paying for them to attend and that we expect value for money. Not that we do seem to get much in the way of value for money from any government office these days. Still it seems churlish to complain about getting something for nothing and keep bitching about having to use the same means to get there as everyone else save the other waste of spaces using the unpopular VIP lanes (not the athletes, fairs fair, they have to be there)
Still at least we know (again) just what a bunch of greedy pigs that were elected to serve us...

Allah 0 Olympic Security 1

Well it's been an interesting day in my part of the woods, we had the Olympic torch running through Chatham this morning, no I didn't go, I'm not really that interested in supporting Great Britain other than the Armed Forces. Still it was only a matter of time before a loon from the followers of allah decided that someone carrying around a golden torch was there to be mugged.
Mail.

A 17-year-old shouted 'Allahu Akbar' - Arabic for 'God is Great' - as he unsuccessfully tried to grab the Olympic torch during a stretch of the flame's route through Maidstone towards Redhill.
Broadcast live on the BBC, the youth lunged from the crowd to try to take the torch from the hands of its bearer Anna Skora, but was swiftly bundled away by officers.In one video posted to YouTube he can be seen waiting behind a car and as Ms Skora gets closer he lunges towards the torch.

No doubt this wasn't typical of Muslims, he was brainwashed by fanatics, anyway Western youths have tried to nick the torch on numerous occasions, you're all 'waaaacist!!!!' yadda yadda.
Still this is what happens when you allow a bunch of religious fanatics to set up in your country whose beliefs and culture are at odds with just about everything we believe in and then encourage them not to integrate as well as breed like mad and live off benefits. This isn't even one of the more dangerous ones, though give him a few years, others have already been arrested for attempted terrorism, carrying bombs, storing equipment for orthers to commit atrocities. yet we're still being told by the powers that be that a) they're welcome here and b) any criticism of said religion will be treat as a hate crime, including telling the truth about it.
I really don't know who they are trying to fool, it certainly isn't the Great British public, though it might just be themselves and possibly the socialist loons who believe any attack on this country's culture will eventually lead to a spontaneous revolution with them (obviously) in charge. That this will eventually lead to a set of circumstances looking a lot like the old communist states, Cuba or North Korea completely escapes them too.
Islam and socialism, the two great evils of the 21st century, yet both convinced they are the answer to everything.

Well there's a reason for that

I did have to smile at the 'evidence' that diesel cars were actually more expensive to run that petrol cars. because the actual reason why is in the article.
Mail.

Great diesel myth: They DON'T save you money and petrol models 'are more economical for most makes of car'

• Can take up to 14 years before diesel cars save the average driver money
• Fuel can be almost 6p a litre more expensive than unleaded petrol
• Findings come as diesels make up over half of new car market for first time.

Diesel cars’ reputation for saving drivers money has been shattered by research showing they are often more expensive than petrol models.
It concludes that ‘diesels are no longer the default option for frugal motoring’.
While diesel engines may deliver more miles per gallon, it can take up to 14 years before they save the average driver any money.
This is because of the higher cost of diesel cars and of the fuel, which can be almost 6p a litre more expensive than unleaded petrol.

Yes, the reason that diesel cars take so long to pay back their costs is simply that the greedy government actually taxes diesel at a much higher rate than it does petrol. The article also seems to have missed the evidence that a diesel engine will last up to 3 times as long as a petrol engine if it's kept serviced, simply because the build of the engine requires a far higher degree of  internal strength owing to the pressures and torque of the engines. basically diesels are simply better built and this is reflected in the price of a new vehicle, though where diesels actually come into their own is in the second hand market where you can pick up the equivalent diesel model at the same price as a petrol model and expect to get a far higher mpg plus a car that will simply keep going far longer than its petrol driven cousin.
If the greedy sods in government were ever to reduce the fuel duty on diesel to the same as petrol then the payback on diesels would increase significantly. As it is, the only reasons it isn't is directly due to government interference.

Ambiguity

What would you make of someone who objected to you using a premises for a purpose and deliberately lied in their objections? I suspect a visit from the compo fairy might be in order, however the complications could start if the objector was in fact a member of the police.
BBC.

Police have admitted that they do not have any evidence to support a claim that lap dancing clubs may contribute to sex offences.
Insp Ian Drummond-Smith, from Devon and Cornwall Police, made his claim in a letter to Cornwall Council in March.
He was objecting to an application to open a new lap dancing club in Newquay.
But, in response to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request for evidence, the force said there was "no recorded information held".
The application for a lap dancing licence at the Kiss nightclub was refused permission in May after the inspector's objections were received by the council's licensing committee.
The FoI request asked what evidence he had for a claim in the letter that "those leaving the premises having been subject to highly sexualised performances may be at greater risk of committing sexual offences". Mr Drummond-Smith said: "I cannot prove any link, nor did I claim to prove any link. "I said at the beginning of the hearing that we could not prove it.

Yet still the ban went ahead because of the police objections, despite the fact that there was no evidence other than the 'ambiguous' wording of a police inspector. Yes there was a higher-than-average number of sex offences in the area, though none of this could be laid at the door of the lap dancing club.

"I will concede that the letter was a bit ambiguous, but I still believe it is an inappropriate place to have a sex club in an area which already has a higher-than-average number of sex offences."
He said: "If I had had figures, I would have put them in, but it's still my view that it would have been inappropriate in a mixed area with houses, a shopping centre and churches."

Well that makes it all right then I suppose, despite the lack of any evidence on your part and merely the belief that such a club had no place where it was located.
Don't get me wrong here, I believe that everyone has the right to object, it's just that I believe the evidence provided by a lying Police Inspector might have carried far more weight than say something presented by you or I.
Perhaps a visit from the compo fairy is warranted after all, along with the sack for a lying Police Inspector...

Not really a surprise

The so called 'information tsar' (wonder where the tsar thing comes from??? Anyone?) has attacked the secrecy in which government departments cover their tracks. It's almost as if he's surprised they are doing it...
Mail.

Freedom of information laws are being undermined by the political establishment, a watchdog warns.
Information commissioner Christopher Graham claimed secret documents were being destroyed and Whitehall officials were using private email addresses to evade scrutiny.
He also criticised David Cameron, Tony Blair and former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell for labelling the legislation as a ‘horrible mistake’.
Mr Graham added that public criticism was ‘driving bad behaviour’ and possibly illegal activity in Whitehall.

The thing that seems to be escaping politicians and civil servants about public criticism is that they're actually supposed to work for us and do what we via the electoral system ask them to do. The fact that they're acting illegally to avoid criticism suggests that they are up to stuff they shouldn't be.

The Act, passed by Labour in 2000, has been criticised by senior political figures as hampering effective government because of fears that communications involving civil servants, ministers and the Cabinet may be made public.

Wonder whatever happened to nothing to hide, nothing to fear, it's not like they're going to publish state secrets, just the dirty little deals which they don't like the idea of the public finding out about. Which begs the question why make them in the first place? Particularly if they know the public won't like them.

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Mr Graham claimed his office had evidence of the destruction of public documents but could not prosecute because of the tight six-month limit on building a case.
He also suspected that the use of private email accounts was widespread in Whitehall.

 Now I know that occasionally there have to be speculative discussions (People do it all the time in pubs, it's called putting the world to rights) And I accept that occasionally that saying or thinking out loud the unthinkable ought to go on. That said, such acts can be dealt with by putting in the term speculative and should only become a matter of public concern if it's acted upon without a full 'public' discussion.
The very fact that Whitehall departments are shredding evidence of their 'wrongdoing' does suggest that there is a hidden agenda behind much of what is said or discussed openly in government. the actions of the EU and its promotion within the state is one example that springs to mind, immigration, human rights, asylum seeking a few others.
All in all I view the freedom of information act a good thing, the very fact that the state has to rely on illegal methods to avoid it suggests it being strengthened rather than scrapped as a lot of MP's and government departments want.

So where's the outrage?

There has been a slowly unravelling cover up coming to light over the last year or so with various groups of predatory Muslims being arrested over allegations of sexual abuse of under age girls. Always from outside their own communities and always complete with denials from the communities themselves along with the whole handwringing political establishment and various elements of the socialist left claiming that these are isolated cases.
Yet the supposedly isolated cases keep coming...
Sky.

Four men have been charged with offences relating to the alleged abduction of a 13-year-old girl, according to Suffolk Police.
Police have issued a statement confirming the arrests.
They said Mohamed Sheikh, a 31-year-old of Seaton Point in London, has been charged with a child abduction offence and with possession of a controlled drug.
Surin Uddin, a 28-year-old of St Matthews Row in London, has been charged with two counts of rape against a girl under the age of 16 and one child abduction offence.
Ali Hamza, a 38-year-old of Chingford Road in London, has been charged with sexual assault and a child abduction offence.
Abdul Hammed, a 46-year-old of Wellington Street in Ipswich, has also been charged with two counts of rape against a girl under the age of 16 and one child abduction offence.

This is on top of the 10 arrests on the 12th of July in Bradford, as well as various ongoing cases in Oxford, Liverpool, Manchester, Telford, Birmingham, Blackpool, indeed it rather looks like the hundreds of abused children now known are merely the tip of the iceberg and the problem is deeply rooted in Islamic communities whose whose religion and culture demands they look down on non-Muslim women and teaches them to regard young English women and girls as filth and "pieces of meat" to be used and abused for their own gratification.
Yet where's the outrage? Where are the mass marches demanding the state do something about this scandal, when Marc Dutroux was found out in Belgium in 1996, more than a quarter of a million Belgians marched in the streets of Brussels to protest at the suspected complicity of the state in the scandal. It was the largest demonstration that the country had ever seen.Yet it seems obvious now that the state was complicit in allowing these barbarians access to our country, the Labour party in particular in its desire to rub the so called 'rights' nose in multiculturalism deliberately opened the floodgates to various groups from Pakistan and Bangladesh whom they hoped for votes as well as gratitude for allowing the culture to take root in various towns and cities in the UK.
Yet it seems only a few patriotic groups dare to take to the streets in protest over this abuse and often enough they are vilified in the press so cowed are the English against accusations of racism, despite the core belief of the perpetrators, Islam not being a race, but an excuse to do evil within our midst.
Make no mistake about this, our politicians were complicit in allowing this evil to take root in our midst, their appointed servants complicit in hiding its spread in the name of community cohesion and political correctness rather than stopping it in its tracks. They'll try to keep covering it up too, sadly there's no movement yet to try and force their hands to deal with this mess of their own making.
So our young girls continue to suffer, politicians, police and social services continue in denial along with covering up the scale of the abuse and Islamic's everywhere deny it's a problem within Islam itself despite being very clear in its teachings. And the people of the land stick to the bread and circuses of imbecilic talent(less) shows and bury their heads in the sand to the despoilation of a generation of young girls by Islamic barbarians.

‘He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it,

Martin Luther King jnr

‘The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict’

Martin Luther King jnr

Sometime I could just weep...

The ongoing degradation of our legal system

The legal system in this country in respect to human rights is fast becoming a disgrace the country can ill afford to live with. Using the Human Rights Act as put into legislation by the last Labour government the various lawyers, barristers and advocates have used it in ways that the general public never envisioned to give judges the power to allow sheer evil in the form of rapists, murderers and terrorists wanted by other countries to remain in our midst along with the odious 'right to a family life' clause which has enabled the very worst of offenders to remain when common sense should have dictated their instant removal...
Express.

The UK Border Agency has reacted with fury to a court ruling allowing a Sudanese asylum seeker who raped a 12-year-old girl to remain in Britain. Sani Adil Ali, 28, originally from Darfur and part of a threatened tribe, came to Britain in 2003 and was awarded refugee status in February 2005, it was reported.
But only a few months later he was arrested at his home in Middlesbrough and later admitted one count of raping the girl.
Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to take action on the legislation that helps foreign criminals stay in the UK.
Ali was reportedly jailed for three years at Sheffield Crown Court and released in 2008, when the Home Office ordered that he return to Sudan and he was locked up in an immigration removal centre. But he appealed to an immigration court and though a judge rejected his bid, he mounted a fresh appeal to the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, the Mail on Sunday reported.
He was allowed to stay because deporting him, the court ruling showed, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Yes, the odious Human Rights Act strikes again as lawyers use it to allow the rapist of a twelve year old girl to remain in the UK as being a Muslim from the Zaghawa tribe in Darfur he'd be in danger of 'persecution' if he was deported.
Tbh, my personal belief is that anyone who rapes a twelve year old (or indeed rapes anyone) deserves to be persecuted. Nor if they are an immigrant or asylum seeker should they be allowed to remain in the UK, this should apply to any serious crime, whether they are naturalised or not. But Labour in their usual wisdom decided that the rights of criminals to remain in the UK should supersede the rights of the indigenous populace to remain free of foreign criminals living amongst us. After all, in Labours view, if we have the right to be free of persecution, so do criminals. Yet amazingly enough the vast majority of people don't hold to this view at all, not even the Prime Minister. Yet our judges and lawyers apparently do, though the judge in this case (Judge Jonathan Perkins) has form for allowing the dregs of foreign society remain in the UK as he was the one who allowed the Taliban terrorist to remain as well, the one who may have murdered UK troops, certainly fought against us.
If ever there were a case for zero tolerance it should be applied to those who have come here as refugees yet who commit crimes.

Yet the 'left' still defend them

It seems the EDL are hitting a few nerves here and there with their campaign against the Islamic barbarians living in our midst. Whilst there have been a few incidents involving EDL members in the past including some violent ones, troublemakers have never been welcome at EDL demo's and the organisation has done its best to weed them out via strict and effective stewarding along with setting out its views with its mission statement. Still the MSM along with various 'leftist' groups including all the mainstream political parties as well as trades unions have always without fail tried to make out the EDL to be the villains of the piece despite the ongoing efforts of jihadists worldwide to disprove the case against the EDL.
Mirror.

Counter-terror police were yesterday investigating whether two men found with a bomb in their car were on their way to attack an English Defence League rally.
They discovered the Afghanistan-style explosive device by sheer chance when they pulled over the vehicle on the M1.
Also hidden in the boot were two guns, ammunition and leaflets warning “infidels” not to follow the EDL, David Cameron and the Queen.
One theory is the two male occupants were planning to bomb a march by the notorious anti-Islamic group taking place just hours after they were stopped.
Officers only discovered the guns and bomb two days after impounding the car for having no insurance last Saturday.
By then police had already let the driver and passenger go.

So far six men have been arrested over this incident, all from Birmingham and all (not surprisingly) from that area of Birmingham that the police removed the cctv camera's from after Islamic protests about them being victimised.
Had these men succeeded, not only would the patriots from the EDL suffered, including despite the claims of the MSM and leftoids men, women and children, but police would possibly have been murdered along with innocent bystanders, though to most Islamics there are no 'innocents' amongst the 'kaffirs' it's simply a case of them and us. The EDL have for years now stated that Islamist's are a growing threat to the safety of the people of the UK including their own fellow Muslims, for that the EDL were derided and called thugs by the MSM and those in authority and on the left. Even this weekend when the EDL march in Bristol, the left will be out there to oppose them, despite the fact that the EDL have never tried to bomb anyone. Yet you know the left will stand shoulder to shoulder with child abusers, potential murderous bombers and religious fanatics, it's what they do.
Even in the article the Mirror tries to somehow twist the facts that the EDL are somehow to blame for being the prospective target of these barbarians.
Sooner or later this campaign of vilification of law abiding concerned citizens will backfire on the MSM and its support for Islamists. There is no place for Islam in a civilised society, I'm also coming rapidly to the opinion that there's no place for socialism in a civilised society either.

Parish notice

Blogging will be light to non-existent over the next couple of weeks as I'm on my hols. I'm taking the families advice and getting myself a 'life' apparently they're all the rage in the non blogging communities, whoever or wherever they are...