Spam, spam, spam, spam...

I got phone spammed again recently over PPI insurance clawback, apparently if I have been mis-sold PPI insurance I can claim thousands back.Though as I've never been mis-sold the stuff I probably can't. I'm not sure where they got my number from, though I've given up replying STOP to the texts I now do something slightly different as I rather think it tells them that it's an active number. Still apparently there's going to be a crackdown on the pests as a lot of people are complaining.
Express.

ROGUE firms who plague the public with spam texts face prosecution and fines in a crackdown on the illegal use of data, regulators have warned. Many of the texts sent out every day tell the recipient they are entitled to compensation from accidents or personal injury claims or from the mis-selling of Payment Protection Insurance.
But yesterday the Information Commissioner's Office fined two men £440,000 for a scam which generated massive profits from sending out 840,000 spam texts a day.
This is the first time that the ICO has used its power to issue a fine for a serious breach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations since powers were approved earlier this year.
It is also considering issuing penalties to three other companies.
Christopher Graham, information commissioner, said: "The public have told us that they are distressed and annoyed by the constant bombardment of illegal texts and calls and we are currently cracking down on the companies responsible, using the full force of the law.

Yes they are pests and I think the regulator is right to come down hard on them. Personally I tend to take their phone number and paste it all over a few online survey sites I know of along with any email addresses of theirs such as contact@myppiguide.com telephone number 07881207486 and return the complement. After all, if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me, even if they are a genuine company, I simply do not want their custom and I do not wish to be bothered by them. If I want something I'll contact them, is that so hard?

Even some judges 'get it'

I'm not certain how long it has been going on for, but I only really started picking up on it a couple of years ago. I'm talking about the police tendency to arrest people for defending themselves with a weapon and injuring or killing their assailants. I'm talking about the likes of Cecil Coley and others who ended up arrested, their DNA taken and then later released without charge despite the fact that it was blatantly not their fault and they should not have been arrested in the first place, asked to remain available for questioning yes, arrested no. Coupled with the recent spate of police arresting people 'on suspicion' that they might be about to commit a crime and you do have to wonder if there's some sort of arrest first ask questions later policy in place.
But it gets worse...
Telegraph.

David Beeley, 44, decided to confront a gang of drunken teenagers who attacked his home with metal weapons in the middle of the night last summer.
He grabbed a cooking knife to defend himself as they shouted that they planned to kill him. But although none of the gang was arrested, Mr Beeley was charged with possession of a knife.
Today, prosecutors came under fire from judge, Michael Stokes, QC, who was highly critical of the decision to charge the logistics manager.
Describing the householder as being of "good character", the Recorder of Nottingham asked: "Which genius thought it was in the public interest to prosecute this defendant?"
Mr Beeley had admitted one count of “having an article with a blade in a public place”, to avoid the stress of a trial, Nottingham Crown Court heard.
None of the youths, a group of squatters who were armed with “metal implements”, were arrested. Neighbours told The Daily Telegraph.

So a man faces a mob of armed lawbreakers and arms himself with a knife, he gets arrested, police and prosecutors can't be arsed to go after the real villains. None of the neighbours who witnessed the incident were even interviewed. The police simply believed the armed mob who told them that Mr. Beeley started it.
Genius eh?
Apparently knives ruin lives, not armed mobs of squatters.
Though in the end the judge was quite right to criticise the lunacy and lack of investigation on the part of the authorities, you can't help but think that this is actually some sort of policy and under similar circumstances it will happen again. Lessons will not be learned and someone who was/is in fear of their life will end up in prison because it's much easier to prosecute them and get them to admit it rather than go after the real problem...

Honesty

Part of the problem anyone in politics faces are calls to step down or apologise over saying something they hold to be true, despite it not fitting into the current multiculti, politically correct, one size fits all equality being rammed down our throats being encouraged upon us by the powers that be in an attempt to destroy society help us all get along. This essentially means that Christians who follow the New Testament with regard to their beliefs can often come under fire for holding to what their holy book tells them.
BBC.

A UKIP by-election candidate has been called on to apologise after saying gay people should not be allowed to adopt.
Winston McKenzie, UKIP candidate for Thursday's Croydon North by-election, told a local reporter placing children with same-sex couples was "unhealthy".
His comments, which he said were linked to his Christian views, have been criticised by a number of his competitors for the south London seat.
UKIP said the party wholeheartedly supported equal rights for gay couples.

I'm sure it would have been easy for Mr McKenzie to have been less than honest in his interview or did a politicians fudge by avoiding the question with waffle (aka answering a different question entirely) but he chose to hold to his beliefs and is now being castigated by various other candidates because of them. Thing is, most people know that Christians are opposed to certain things, it sort of goes with the territory and these are Mr McKenzie's personal views not that of his party. I doubt it will stop the pink mafia descending on Croydon to try and make his life a misery though, but perhaps it might be best to let the electorate decide rather than some special interest groups. Mind you, the only ones (so far) having a go at him are the failing Lib Dems and lunatic Greens both behind him in the polls anyway. The Labour candidate refused to comment which seems to suggest some common sense at work there given the parties now tattered reputation in Rotherham perhaps spilling over into Croydon.
What someone believes and what their party advocates are not the same thing at all, people ought to understand this and not try to make political capital over it. Mr McKenzie is entitled to his views backed up as they are by his religion. He's not calling for gays to be banned, nor hung from cranes as certain islamic countries do.
At least he's honest, perhaps the people of Croydon could do worse than elect an honest man to represent them...

Apparently we just don't understand

The Rotherham fostering case meanders on this week with a fightback lead by a Labour councillor telling us all that if we knew the full details of the case we'd understand the decision, whilst the Council are keeping a report of the case secret, so we can't understand all the details which lead to the decision.
Telegraph.

A senior councillor in Rotherham has accused people of "wading in to pass judgement" on the Ukip fostering row without "any real knowledge" of the case.
Josephine Burton, a cabinet member at Labour-run Rotherham metropolitan borough council, told a member of the public that she was "disappointed" by coverage of the case.
The parents at the centre of the row said they felt "slandered and besmirched" after social workers took three ethnic minority children from their care because they were members of the UK Independence Party.
"As a teacher you will know how frustrating and unhelpful it is when people “pronounce” about Education without any real knowledge of what happens and how it works, apart from the fact that they went to school. The Press, so far, has not reflected this situation very accurately, and that is very disappointing."
Mrs Burton yesterday defended the decision by a social services director to remove the children from the foster parents' care.
Rotherham metropolitan borough council yesterday failed to apologise to the couple and refused to release the findings of an internal report into the case.

It's also been announced elsewhere that whilst looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs and interests (Which apparently anyone who is a member of UKIP can't) the family have been split up by the councils social services, thus compounding the original decision with insult to boot.
It does appear that the Labour controlled council do not appear aware of the maxim about holes and stopping digging as they just can't seem to help themselves where it comes to appearing callous and ignorant.
If the kids had gone as a group to eastern European ethnic foster parents then fine, but, the council social services moved them with less than 20 mins notice, split the kids up, and potentially slandered the foster parents who had an impeccable record to boot simply because they belonged to a political party that opposes immigration, not immigrants though, something which appears to have escaped the notice of the council and social workers.

Appears to say it all

 Truly this one is going to run and run...

Problem is it's taking away the scrutiny of Rotherham social services other major failing, the grooming of under age girls by muslims.

Another 3,000 reasons to leave the EU

It has long been a mystery to me why public servants value themselves so much whilst producing little of value themselves., the higher up the food chain you go, the worse it gets, a prime example being the EU and the amount it pays its public servants to meddle with the rest of us.
Express.

ANGER at the Brussels gravy train intensified last night after figures revealed 3,325 Eurocrats earn more than David Cameron. An astonishing seven per cent of the EU’s civil servants are paid more than the Prime Minister’s annual salary of £142,000.
Their income is boosted by lavish perks including an “expatriate allowance” for living abroad, which is worth an extra 16 per cent of their basic salary, plus generous tax allowances.
The shocking figures, released by a German MEP, were published after the Brussels summit row over Mr Cameron’s call for cuts to the EU administration budget.
The revelation fuelled demands for a referendum on Britain’s EU membership.
Tim Aker, of anti- Brussels campaign group Get Britain Out, said: “British workers seeing pay freezes or cuts will
be outraged at these ridiculous Eurocrat salaries.
“Our £53million-a-day bill to the EU would be better spent at home rather than lining the pockets of bureaucrats in Brussels.”

But a European Commission spokesman said: “The majority of us are highly-qualified professionals such as lawyers or economists, so of course the average salary is high.”

Nothing quite like blowing your own trumpet from the EU, nor do I believe any economist or lawyer is worth over £142,000 of my cash, especially considering the EU's economic record, levels of corruption and interference in matters which should not really concern it. If they did a good job, I might not mind, but it's like our local councils paying over the odds for their chief executives and still closing down or trimming back services when the most obvious one is the wages at the top. Of course these tend to be the guys who decide which services have to go so are reluctant to actually deal fairly with the problem.
And that is at the crux of the EU's problems, it values itself because the people within it running it value themselves and don't have to face any form of scrutiny as to their worth both to the EU and especially those who pay for the bloated edifice. After all, the EU's auditors have not had its books signed off in God alone knows how many years such is the waste and corruption inherent in its systems.
The problem is that our own government will not do anything to stop the rot, well nothing that will really work such as leaving the damned thing and simply getting on with being a nation again. Nor I expect could we see the £53 million actually coming back into our pockets, there would always be some grand project (and its administrators) needing that sort of funding.
Perhaps the best and only way would be a system where taxpayers get to vote on the governments budget plans each year, with a complete breakdown or tick sheet as to what you believe you should pay for and what you shouldn't.
But that would be taking power away from politicians, so they won't go for it...

We can but hope

Prince Charles is the man who would be king and fears he is running out of time, after all he's 64 and his mother is 86 and his grandmother lived until she was 101. Thing is though, no one but Charles and a few of his closest friends believe he'd make a good king...
Telegraph.

In a series of remarkably candid comments, Prince Charles hinted that he feared his legacy as king would be cut short.
During a visit to Dumfries House, the stately home in East Ayrshire which the Prince helped save for the nation, he joked about his reputation for pursuing projects with notorious vigour but made a poignant reference to his mortality.
He said: “Impatient? Me? What a thing to suggest! Yes of course I am.” He added: “I’ll run out of time soon. I shall have snuffed it if I’m not careful.”

Well from a man who thought it perfectly ok to keep a married woman as his mistress. All that stuff over Princess Diana. Who believes that he should be defender of all faiths (including Islam) Talking to plants (I could possibly live with that one) Unable even to put his own toothpaste on his toothbrush. Goes on endlessly about green policies yet has his own veg driven from Cornwall to Balmoral in four fume belching range-rovers which despite running on vegetable oil are hardly 'green'
No, Charles is not exactly my ideal of a good king, I'm not exactly in favour of a monarchy in the first place, though having seen what politicians can do it seems a slightly better option than the likes of someone like Tony Blair ever becoming president. Popularity contests (which in essence is what all elections are) inevitably allow some real charlatans access to the levers of power and prestige.
Still, considering the longevity of the ladies in the House of Gotha Saxe Coburg Windsor we can but hope her majesty continues to reign for a long time yet.
Whilst I doubt now that Charles would have the time to become a disaster for the UK, best not to take any chances...

Racist UKIP?

In my various trawls through the MSM looking for anything that piques my interest i ran across this odd story, something I must admit to put any sort of credence in. Mind you as we're dealing with a situation in Labour run Rotherham perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
Telegraph.

A couple had their three foster children taken away by a council on the grounds that their membership of the UK Independence Party meant that they supported “racist” policies.
The husband and wife, who have been fostering for nearly seven years, said they were made to feel like criminals when a social worker told them that their views on immigration made them unsuitable carers.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, the couple said they feared that there was a black mark against their name and they would not be able to foster again.
They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.
However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.
They were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.
The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’
“Then one of them said, 'Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.
“I’m sat there and I’m thinking, 'What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.

This is pretty much what I and other have been railing against for years in the way that the hard of thinking loony left have taken such a hold in certain areas of the country when they can regard a political party such as UKIP to be racist. This by the way is the same Labour run Rotherham whose social services turned a blind eye to the muslim grooming scandal in their home town in case they offended the religion and its Pakistani community.
Not for one second in the real world (as opposed to the lunatic world socialists believe exists) would anyone believe that UKIP were a racist party, but in the wonderful (for a given value of wonderful) world of left wing thinking anyone to the right of Stalin is suspect and probably a closet racist and must be removed from any form of contact with the services they provide. By the way UKIP are fielding a black candidate in the Croydon by-election so somehow or other the belief that they are racist does not appear to have entered UKIP's own mentality.
What this couple have run into is leftyspeak which takes a basic premise of a UKIP policy and twists it until it no longer resembles the actual policy. UKIP opposes the EU = UKIP hates Europeans and wants to send them all home, after all who could think otherwise, well apart from 99% of all the rest of the country, but they don't count as they're probably closet racists too...
Wonder if their next step will be to prevent Tory party members from adopting, after all they're right wing too?

Image taken from Casuals United Blog

Living in la la land

Tim Yeo the Energy secretary loves his wind farms, he's certainly making a lot of money from them, so much that he's broken from cover to tell us all struggling under mountainous energy bills that it is sensible to ask households and businesses to pay £7.6 billion a year towards greener power stations as prices are “going to go up no matter what”.
Telegraph.

Tim Yeo, the chairman of Parliament’s energy committee, said it is sensible to ask households and businesses to pay £7.6 billion a year towards greener power stations as prices are “going to go up no matter what”.
According to Department of Energy figures, bills will be £178 a year higher by 2030 than they are currently with the Government’s planned green energy and fuel poverty policies. The contribution to nuclear and renewables will make up £95 of an average bill by 2020.
Mr Yeo, who is a director of several green technology companies, told the BBC: “I personally think that a couple of pounds a week, maybe rising to almost £3 a week, is a reasonable price for Britain to achieve a degree of energy security to reduce its total dependence on fossil fuels and to honour its commitments to cut green house gases.”
One of his Tory colleagues, Douglas Carswell, the MP for Clacton, disagreed, saying the rise in bills is “a lot of money”.
“The average constituent in Clacton is already paying between £10 and £20 extra for their electricity as a direct consequence of these hidden green surcharges," he said. “If you have lots of non-executive payments from green energy companies, then perhaps another £2 or £3 a week doesn’t sound a large sum of money from your household budget.
“For those in my constituency who do not have green energy directorships, then it is a lot of money.

They do seem to be ignoring the fact that shale gas extraction will drop the price of gas and that the green energy tariffs subsidise an inefficient and costly method of electricity generation that will require massive standard backup of power stations for days when the wind doesn't blow, or in many cases blows too hard. In other words we cannot rely upon it to be there when we need it, it's costly to run and it's not even environmentally friendly (huge concrete blocks anyone?) No, what Mr Yeo wants is for us to keep making him rich and he intends to stretch it out as long as possible along with telling us it's good for us.
We have enough shale deposits under England to keep us powered at current rates for over 300 years. Perhaps by then 'green' energy might just be economic to give a try.
I have my doubts though...

Realistic

I don't think the word realistic means the same to David Cameron as it seems to mean to the rest of us. Mind you he is talking about attempting to negotiate with the EU which has totally different ideas on negotiating anyway, more on the lines of give us what we want or else.
Telegraph.

David Cameron will today fight for a "tough but realistic" deal on EU budget, amid reports that Brussels may be prepared to cut spending by more than expected.
He will meet this morning with Herman Van Rompuy, the EU president, who is proposing a deal that would cut the overall budget, but reduce the value of Britain’s annual rebate.
Speaking this morning Mr Cameron said he would be “negotiating hard” against an "unacceptable” EU spending increase and defending the British rebate.
The PM said it was “quite wrong” for the European Commission to propose increased Brussels budgets at a time of national austerity.
"These are very important negotiations. Clearly at a time when we are making difficult decisions at home over public spending it would be quite wrong - it is quite wrong - for there to be proposals for this increased extra spending in the EU.

The EU seem to believe in the rob Peter to pay Paul principle in offering a budget reduction, but only if we give up our rebate. No doubt Cameron believes himself to be between a rock and a hard place with his every instinct telling him to give in, but knowing it will be political suicide for him if he does.
As the post title suggests, Cameron's idea of realistic probably does not match my, or indeed pretty much anyone's idea of realistic save only the rabid EUphiles in the Tory party and the Lib Dems.
Quite frankly the sooner we leave the better, no one, but no one, believes the EUphile lies about going it alone, we're a trading nation, we'll trade plus there's a deficit of trading advantage to the EU against us so those who believe the EU will stop trading with us will have to think again.
We can and will be better off out that Cameron and many politicians can't see this is to the UK's extreme detriment.

Ignoring the obvious

The Pakistani community at the heart of the grooming scandal comprises but a tiny percentage of the muslim community as a whole, yet they figure large in all the current investigations into grooming cases. Yet in the supposed report by The Office of Children's Commissioner into child abuse in the UK, guess who really doesn't get a mention...
BBC.

Thousands of children are sexually abused by gangs and groups in England each year, according to a report.
The Office of Children's Commissioner study says there were 2,409 victims in the 14 months to October 2011 - but the true number is likely to be far higher.
The report also identifies 16,500 children who were at "high risk of sexual exploitation" in 2010-11.
However, the government has questioned the methodology of the report, describing parts of it as "hysterical".
The report's authors insisted their tone was "measured", and some of the most harrowing details of child abuse had been left out.
The deputy children's commissioner, Sue Berelowitz, said the evidence indicated the perpetrators "come from all ethnic groups and so do their victims, contrary to what some may wish to believe".
She cautioned the "model" of Asian men preying on white girls was just one of "a number of models".

The problem of course being that all the 'other models' know what they are doing is wrong, which sadly muslim males of Pakistani origin do not accept. Nor does she explain why figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian being the code word in the media for muslims of Pakistani origin and a terrible slur on the billions of law abiding Asians in the world. Indeed, this total equals 27 per cent of offenders and far in excess of the proportion of Asian people in the community at large, which is 6 per cent (of whom 3% would be male? and an even lesser percentage adult males)
So whilst I can accept that there may be a number of models ranging from lone white males downloading child porn and acting on impulse, the fact that over a quarter of the sex crimes committed were by one tiny community should be ringing massive alarm bells to the Children's Commissioner, but apparently they aren't, it's just one problem amongst many. Nor does the fact that these males are using their religion and culture to justify their vile crimes seem to have crossed her radar either.
The abuse is widespread, our cowardly government aided and abetted by the liberal left in the name of multiculturalism, political correctness and community cohesion have caused those who should have prevented it or sounded the alarm to be silenced.
We have been betrayed by these people!

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Other peoples stuff

Once again our 'beloved' Coagulation are insisting that people who own something and charge for its use should give it up to those who don't pay for it. After all, what else can you think of this little scam...
Mail.

Private schools should not be expected to open up their facilities to pupils from local state schools, a leading headmistress said yesterday.
Louise Robinson, president of the Girls’ Schools Association, said it was ‘beyond the pale’ for the Government to insist that private schools share their ‘unique selling points’, such as facilities and resources, with the ‘competition’.
She said that middle class parents who manage to find the money for private school fees should not be expected to bankroll state pupils who want to use the same resources.
Her comments are likely to spark fierce debate among private school heads, many of whom justify their schools’ ‘charitable’ status by stressing the ways in which they share facilities with local state schools and the community.

Shared facilities is fine, these are already agreed between the private and public sector, however to insist that something which is not part of the deal becomes part of it well that sounds like the government at work. The unique selling points however are not the bits which the private schools share, otherwise they wouldn't be unique now would they? Nor under any stretch of the imagination (save perhaps to a socialist) would a public school be regarded as a charity in order to reap the benefit from those who are paying out for unique selling points.
Perhaps the government ought to be looking at ways to actually improve the public schools rather than leech off the private sector?

Parish Notice

Blogging may be light to non existent today as I'm about to become a grandfather (again) and will be running around ferrying people whilst my step-daughter has a caesarian.
Oh it's my first Grandson.

Life is good, if busy.

Grandson and mother are doing fine, thank you for your best wishes.

You're pleading with the wrong guy Dave

What is it with politicians in this country and their need to interfere in other peoples business? From taxpayers, drinkers, smokers, even foreign governments (those that we don't bribe with taxpayers cash)
So here we go, I'm trawling through press reports and as ever the main headlines are of the Israeli/Palestinian problems. I normally don't get involved with online discussions on the subject as there are too many entrenched views, though I do note just who the aggressors are and oddly enough it's rarely Israel...
BBC.

Prime Minister David Cameron has urged Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do "everything possible" to end the crisis in Gaza.
In a phone call with the Israeli PM, Mr Cameron also expressed sympathy for the "unacceptable rocket attacks" Israel has suffered from militants.
At least 50 Palestinians and three Israelis have now been killed.
On Saturday, pro-Palestinian protesters gathered in Edinburgh and London to urge an end to the violence.
An Israeli air strike killed Hamas military chief Ahmed Said Khalil al-Jabari and another official in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday.
This air strike followed a wave of rocket attacks into Israel from the territory.

Now lets just look at this from another perspective. Suppose you or I lived next to a neighbour who insisted on tossing dog muck over your fence on a regular basis. You've tried remonstrating with them, getting the authorities involved, documented lots of times when they and their friends have behaved very un-neighbourly because as far as they're concerned they want you to move (never mind the original causes of the dispute) Finally you snap and empty a whole sack of fertiliser on top of your neighbour and they go bleating to the authorities about your behaviour and you end up being told to behave.
That is pretty much Israel's position from a strictly layman's point of view, yet Cameron phones up the aggrieved party and asks him to behave rather than the barbarians who started the thing in the first place. And no I won't go down the road of proportionality when it comes to casualties, no other army would accept that they have to go one on one with casualties, why the hell should the Israelis? As for civilian casualties, well the Hamas militants terrorist government could always choose not to site its munitions and arms under schools, hospitals or residential areas.
Cameron should really just mind his own business in the middle east, if Israel wants to fight the Palestinians for behaving like dickheads then that's Israel's choice.

Took them long enough to notice...

Most of us on the right of the blogging world are aware of the activities of a group called 'Common Purpose' whose stated aim of preparing people to take responsibility when called for seems to be at odds with their training up of what seems to be a hidden clique of authoritarian power brokers within the political establishment of the UK. With 'members' in all walks and branches of the UK establishment from police chiefs to senior civil servants, journalists and local government executives, their tangled web runs throughout all walks of our lives without a lot of people knowing. That their influence comes from the left is known, though not all who have passed through their hands are of the left, but their authoritarian nature is known along with parts of their agenda from various bloggers and internet sites who take an interest in such things...
Still, it seems as if the MSM might just have caught a whiff of what's actually going on, rather than what they think is going on.
Mail.
Sir David Bell's certainly a very busy bee. A greying, dishevelled figure in an ill-fitting suit, he appears to have been by far the most assiduous of the six 'assessors' appointed by the government to advise Lord Justice Leveson and his Inquiry.
Bell is an ideological bedmate of the aforesaid Julia Middleton — another very busy bee who has been described as the best-connected woman you've never heard of.
Public-spirited you may say. Except that an investigation by the Daily Mail raises serious questions about the suitability of Bell as an assessor and the impact this may have had on the objectivity and neutrality of the Inquiry itself.

• Bell is a trustee and a former chairman of a leadership training organisation called Common Purpose, whose thousands of 'graduates' have been described as the 'Left's answer to the old boys' network.' (though not all share the same political views). Their identities are well protected.
• Founded by Ms Middleton and registered as a charity, Common Purpose boasts a 'considerable reach' throughout senior positions in public life. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on sending public servants on its courses.
• Three of the six Leveson assessors have Common Purpose connections, either through direct participation or through senior colleagues within the organisations they lead or have led.
• Bell and Middleton set up the Media Standards Trust, a lobby group which presented a huge amount of evidence to the Inquiry. The Media Standards Trust, whose chairman was Bell, gave its 'prestigious' Orwell Prize for political writing to a journalist who turned out to have made up parts of his 'award-winning' articles.
• The Media Standards Trust established Hacked Off, the virulently anti-popular-press campaign group which has boasted of its role in significantly increasing the Inquiry's terms of reference. The Media Standards Trust shared the same headquarters address as Common Purpose. It then shared an address with Hacked Off, whose funding it controlled.
• Many of those who provided the most hostile anti-press evidence to Leveson are linked to senior figures at the Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off.
• The Media Standards Trust has strong links with Ofcom, the statutory media regulator which, despite its denials, some suspect has ambitions to regulate Britain's free press. Ofcom's ex-chairman Lord Currie is a Leveson assessor.
• Much of the financing of the Media Standards Trust comes from a charity of which Bell is a trustee — a practice that, while legal, would seem to many to be inappropriate.
• Despite being formed by the Media Standards Trust, which is campaigning for 'transparency and accountability in the news', Hacked Off refuses to make explicit the sources of its own funding.
• And, of course, Bell is a trustee of the now notorious Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has wreaked such damage on the BBC.

Thing is I've known about and suspected the true intent of Common Purpose for years. I was alerted to it by various bloggers including John Ward in Medway who has been gathering data on them for years. Though I suspect that those reading the article in the Mail are pretty much unaware of the invasive rot that Common Purpose has lodged in the public services and the body politic, some seem to believe that the Mail is trying to shift blame after the Leveson Inquiry which as far as I know hasn't reached any form of conclusion yet.
Yet the facts as the Mail has published them speak for themselves, it rather looks like Common Purpose intends to put a stranglehold on press reporting to remove their activities even further from the public view.
We are in danger of slipping incrementally into an authoritarian state with merely the trappings of a democracy around us. Organisations like Common Purpose have their own agenda and it isn't one in which personal freedoms including speech, religion and thought have any place.
The more exposure these dangerous people get the better, but I do fear some in the UK simply refuse to believe the evidence.

Truth hurts?

There's outrage and then there's faux outrage when people believe something should outrage them, no more so when the high and mighty run into the truth and don't know how to handle it...
Mail.

A Tory MP has sparked controversy after claiming ‘gangs of Muslim men are going round and raping white kids at this moment in time’.
Kris Hopkins, MP for Keighley, said the extraordinary claim was a ‘fact’ and urged government agencies to tackle the problem.
But he has been criticised by Muslim leaders in his constituency, who said he overstepped the mark during a Commons debate.
Mr Hopkins, a former leader of Bradford city council, also claimed Muslim men were ‘fundamentally’ sexist towards women, and politicians had to challenge behaviour and culture.
Speaking in a parliamentary debate on child sexual exploitation, Mr Hopkins claimed mainstream parties had failed by not speaking out about the racial and cultural aspect to some abuse cases and extremists groups had filled the vacuum.
He told MPs: ‘The British National Party will use grooming as a key element of its campaign in the Rotherham election campaign, which will start soon.

One does wonder why the so called Muslim community thinks he's overstepped the mark, you'd think that the trials of over a hundred Muslim males so far would have alarm bells ringing in their community as well as others that there is a 'BIG' problem in there.
He's also right that the mainstream parties have let the people of this country down by not dealing with the issue in anything like an honest manner. Too many times we've heard the excuse of not wishing to offend, or cultural differences, or even the age old community cohesion that allowed the abuse of our young underage women for so long in areas where these communities abound.
For far too long politicians of the mainstream parties have been pandering to minorities in order to gain their so called block votes, this has to end. Honest criticism over the actions of many in those communities is the only way in which anything can be put right and trying to shut up those who criticise simply hardens the attitudes of the rest of us who see the wholesale abuse and wonder how they're getting away with it. Not that I expect those who tried to brush it under the carpet ever to be brought to account, though God knows they ought to be.
Perhaps if there were more honest politicians we might see a revival in the number of people prepared to vote.
I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Litigious

Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to tweet unsubstantiated allegations deceive. Well it seems the twitter and media storm over Lord McAlpine is about to go into overdrive with several letter naming his intention to sue after the leftists premature ejaculation of joy over the child abuse allegations spectacularly misfired.
Mail.

Sally Bercow is set to be sued by Lord McAlpine after she wrongly named him on Twitter as a paedophile - but despite the threat of legal action she still went back online to tweet: 'Gulps'.
The Speaker's wife has been sent a letter before action by the Tory peer's legal team - warning her to apologise publicly and agree a settlement or be hauled before the courts.
Mrs Bercow, who admits she will be seeking legal advice, joined a Twitter frenzy following a botched Newsnight report that incorrectly put McAlpine at the centre of a North Wales sex abuse ring.
A source told MailOnline a 'handful' of letters will be sent to people today with more to follow in the coming weeks and months.
Meanwhile, Phillip Schofield was accused of 'destroying' Lord McAlpine's reputation and 'embarrassing' the Prime Minister as he was disciplined by ITV for his paedophile TV blunder.
Lord McAlpine has already received two apologies from Guardian journalist George Monbiot, who had named him in the Twitter storm

Now I don't tweet, I regard it as somewhat akin to mass texting and at 180 words to get your point across I can't really see the point. Nonetheless it has produced a series of gaffes amongst the rich and famous as well as certain of the powers that be which suggests that very much it is a medium where you can open mouth and insert foot with startling ease. Not that bloggers can be exempt from such activities, it's just that with most of us a blog post is something that requires a modicum of thought rather than texting what we think and having second thoughts afterwards.
Twitter itself seems to be an area where the hard of thinking particularly on the left thrive, though I do know a good number of right wingers who also partake of that online bloodsport. Taunting and undermining the left being a particularly easy task in a target rich environment. Still hopefully some out there might just be a tad more careful in the future about tweeting unsubstantiated rumours as gospel fact...
Actually, what am I saying, this is the liberal left we're talking about they never learn.
Still, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Not listening, not listening!

Oh dear the MEP's are up in arms over the fact that a lot of countries finance ministers want to discuss their budget with them rather than just rubber stamping it. Seems the UK isn't alone after all in calling a halt on increasing the budget, and the MEP's do not like being told 'no'
Express.

TALKS over the European Union budget collapsed last night as MEPs boycotted discussions over Brussels' demand for an extra £13.8billion in spending money. Treasury ministers had been summoned to Brussels to continue negotiations after the first round of talks had descended into chaos as the European Parliament refused to discuss the 2013 budget.

Appears the ubermasters in the Reichstag believe that not listening will get them the answer they want which appears to be 'here's the money, no questions asked' After all what else can you ascribe to their actions in boycotting any talks over their budget.
The EU seems determined that austerity is something that happens to everyone else, particularly the Greeks, though I'm pretty sure they expect everyone else to help out at the cost of their own budgets and spending. After all this is the EU they're talking about and not something that the rules which would apply to lesser governments or countries be a factor in their thinking.

Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius

(Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad)

Game on!

It's not immoral nor is it illegal

If MP's were truly serious about stopping 'tax avoidance' then they'd actually change the laws to eradicate the loopholes in the system that people and companies exploit rather than bleat about it for 'big headlines' in which they berate companies for doing something quite legal because certain pressure groups can't quite grasp the difference between illegal, immoral and campaigning to get the laws changed rather than having a go at those they think are cheating...
Mail.

The 'immoral' tricks used by corporate giants to avoid UK tax were laid bare yesterday.
Executives from Google, Starbucks and Amazon revealed how they base operations offshore and route profits to tax havens.
They had been summoned by MPs to explain why they contribute little or nothing to the Treasury's coffers. In a three-hour inquisition:

• Google admitted funnelling profits to a company in the tax haven of Bermuda;
• Starbucks said it had a deal with the Dutch government to minimise its tax bill and 'buys' coffee through Switzerland even though the beans never touch Swiss soil;
• Amazon admitted basing its European operations in Luxembourg because of the low tax there;
• The internet giant also claimed not to know its UK turnover.

Protest group UK Uncut yesterday vowed to take direct action on December 8 to try to shut down some of the nation's 700 Starbucks outlets. 

Ah UK Uncut, a group who claim not to be left wing nor right wing but an alternative, yet who appear to be socialist to the core in their hard of thinking attitude towards tax avoidance which is a perfectly legal activity and should be practised by all good citizens and companies.
 Direct action against companies not breaking the law? Yes that will be the left, rather than target ministers to change the law to close down the loopholes which allow such avoidance.
We really do seem to be in thrall to some utter cretins don't we? MP's summon some companies to ask them why they are using the tax laws in exactly the way they were meant to be used? Laws that some of those MP's would have had a hand in drafting? Certainly laws that some would have voted for when the budget was presented to the house. Even the Committee chairman Margaret Hodge (Ah yes, Labour, I should have guessed) would have voted for laws having been passed by the previous administration now sees a way to try and use the public's ignorance for political capital. I suspect she knows fine well that the companies are not breaking the law, or I would hope so or God help her constituents in Barking. She's just using it as a means to get at the government for laws Labour probably passed. She's just another one of these idiots who think that taxing the rich will make us all rich. Her definition of fair probably means the lowest common denominator (MP's excepted) for all rather than giving anyone the opportunity to become wealthy.
This committee is simply playing headline grabbing as a means to hit the government, it isn't interested in changing things, merely looking good.

So who's going to pay for this?

Another day another Boy Clegg attack on businesses and revenue. Oh I'm sure the liberals out there will welcome it with warm fuzzy glee, though I'm more than willing to bet that they haven't really costed the measure properly.
Express.

GRANDPARENTS are to get the right to time off work to look after their grandchildren, Nick Clegg will say today. And millions of other employees will be allowed more flexible hours and freedom to work from home to allow them to mind the youngsters of friends and neighbours, he will announce.
The Deputy Prime Minister is set to enrage firms by signalling Coalition plans for a massive expansion of workplace
flexi-time to help workers share the burden of childcare.
Mr Clegg will use a keynote speech on economic policy to claim that helping more mothers of young children back into work could help boost Britain’s stuttering business growth.
But although the Lib Dem leader’s plan will be welcomed by grandparents and working families, it is bound to enrage private-sector bosses already infuriated over the growing cost of employment regulations.

Well I'm a grandparent and I can assure you I'm not welcoming the measure, I rather doubt the company I work for is looking forward to it either. After all, the whole point of running a business is to make a profit at the end of the day and being told that your staff have a statutory right to work whatever hours they choose does not help.
Oh I'm sure the public sector will welcome it with open arms, after all they're tied to the magic money tree that never runs out and don't have to worry as to who is going to pay for it. Well the chances are it's going to come out of the pockets of the taxpayer and the burden will hit most heavily on the private sector as they'll be forced to accept lower pay rises due to 'flexible' working arrangements plus having to stump up for the public sector who won't.
God I hate socialists, they really do not have a clue as to how a successful economy should work, they're simply wreckers, one and all.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning...

Picture from Richard Cherry photography

For The Fallen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

Money grubbing

It always strikes me as odd that in a matter that's only vaguely linked to a person, they feel that they have the right to tell others what they should do with their money. It's a bit like betting on a winning horse and being asked by the winner to donate to its favourite charity...
BBC.

The next Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested people who made money by correctly betting on his appointment should donate their winnings to parish churches.
The Rt Rev Justin Welby made the call on the social networking site, Twitter.
Ladbrokes, which suspended betting after a flurry of bets placed on Bishop Welby's name, has now said it will donate £1,000 to Canterbury Cathedral.
The bishop was named as the next head of the Church of England on Friday.
On Saturday morning, Bishop Welby tweeted: "Thought in the night, those who made money betting on me give it to their local church! I suspect it was less than papers suggest."

Now if I were to be a successful betting man (I'm not, I'm pretty much the antithesis) then I'd hardly be likely to be influenced by the wishes of the object of my bet, after all, what I do with my cash is my business (something I wish the government would take note of)
Still it's bloody cheeky of the new Archdruid to try and prick peoples consciences to hand over their ill gotten gains simply because he won the equivalent of a talent contest.
The world seems to be full of people who think they have the right to our cash, or a right to ask for it from charity chuggers to the robbery with menaces through the Inland Revenue. It's an unusual month for the QM household not to receive a batch of raffle tickets from some charity or other who have gotten our address from somewhere and expecting us to sell them for them (binned every time)
I'm really tired of people in the media and elsewhere telling me how I should be spending my money, I know which charities I support and I'm not happy about being spammed by those I don't, particularly ones with government ties, the government gets way too much of my hard earned cash as it is.
It might just be a jokey or frivolous throwaway comment by the Archdruid, but really he ought to keep comments like that to himself. What is bet upon gets no say in how the winnings are spent.

Like father like son

Islam the religion of choice for the hard of thinking in pretty much the same way that socialism is the politics of choice for the hard of thinking. So it comes as no real surprise to learn that the son of Hooky Hamza is pretty much cut from the same cloth as his dad.
BBC.

The son of Islamic cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for 11 years over an armed raid on a Norfolk jewellers.
Imran Mostafa, 20, from Slough, was convicted with three London men at Norwich Crown Court in September.
Gems worth £70,000 were stolen from the shop in King's Lynn in January.
Jonathan Abdul, 18, from Fulham, was sentenced to 11 years, Ossama Hamed, 19, also of Fulham, to eight years and three months, and Ahmed Ahmed, 20, of Enfield, seven years and four months.
Judge Peter Jacobs said: "This was plainly a terrifying robbery.
"Staff were praying that they would not be shot and they continue to suffer trauma."
Mostafa's father Abu Hamza last month pleaded not guilty to terror charges in a New York court following his extradition from the UK.

Seems to be a clear cut case of Shariah thinking in action in that what non muslims have is to be taken by force from. After all if it was good enough for old Mo the fence

8:41 And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger (Mo himself) and for the kinsman (Mo's relatives)

Then thievery is ok so long as it's not muslims stealing from muslims, then technically it's hand lopping time.
His father took a far bigger role of course with the kidnapping of tourists in Yemen, but again as they weren't muslims, they were fair game, at least to the mind of an Islamic.
And there lies the nature of the problem, not all muslims are terrorists/paedophiles but their religion does seem to throw them up at an alarming rate using the religion to justify the basest of motives and crimes.
I've said it before and I maintain it, there should be no place for islam in a civilised society.
Unfortunately, the left choose to disagree over Hooky Hamza, there's a puff piece over at the Guardian lamenting his extradition, whilst coyly never mentioning why he was actually extradited and trying to use Gary Mckinnon as somehow justifying not sending Hooky on his way.
Hard of thinking? yes, that will be a socialist for you... 

Unintended consequences

One of the unforeseen consequences of the previous governments attempts to try and get as many young people to go to university was of course the effect of market forces on the value of the product.
After all, if everyone has a degree, what's a degree worth?
Mail.

The higher salary that graduates traditionally gain from having a university degree has been slashed by a fifth during the past decade.
A study has found that the rise in numbers attending university and increased competition for jobs has drastically driven down the earning power enjoyed by previous generations of graduates.
Researchers from Warwick University followed 17,000 students from 2006 to their graduation into one of the worst recessions in history, and compared it to graduates who finished their studies in 1999.
The recent graduates are, on average, earning 22 per cent less than those who started at university a decade earlier.
They are also struggling to find jobs that justify the debts they have built up in getting their degrees, with four in ten failing to get work that requires their qualifications, while one in ten have spent at least six months on the dole.
The researchers concluded that a degree continues to deliver a 'significant earnings advantage', although the size of it varies widely according to the subject studied.

I'd guess that a degree in maths or physics probably does stand higher in earning potential than a degree in flower arranging or any of the other weird and (not so) wonderful things you can get a degree in these days.
The problem is that the number of high earning jobs in the UK is limited, it's all about balance, in order to support the high end there needs to be a middle and broad base and when people with degrees started flooding the market, all that happened was that the goalposts were moved, by the various institutions who only wanted the brightest and the best. It used to be fairly easy, you had a degree your job options were pretty good, now if you have a degree? Well so what, so have a lot of people and sorry but a C in the influence of the Beatles in contemporary society is not going to put you on the fast track to being a captain of industry.
What the previous government did was devalue a product, rather than be something that only our beast and brightest got, they made it so that it was a necessity to even get on at the ground floor of business. They essentially betrayed a generation by selling them a false dream.
Not that the current government is doing any better...

The law must not only apply to people whose views are "favourably received"

Seems the no platform for the BNP/(add whichever group is not flavour of the month) has had a poke in the eye from the European Court of Human Rights. When it ruled that summary dismissal of an employee who was/is a member of the BNP was a breach of his human rights.
BBC.

The sacking of a bus driver for being a member of the British National Party (BNP) was a breach of his human rights, a court has ruled.
Arthur Redfearn was dismissed in 2004 after winning a seat on Bradford Council. His employer, Serco, said it feared possible reprisal attacks.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in Mr Redfearn's favour.
The judgement on Tuesday said the law must not only apply to people whose views are "favourably received".
The judges ruled Serco's actions breached the law on Freedom of Assembly and Association because Mr Redfearn was sacked from his job of six months only because of his membership of a political party.
In its judgement, the European court judges said: "The court was struck by the fact that he had been summarily dismissed following complaints about problems which had never actually occurred, without any apparent consideration being given to the possibility of transferring him to a non-customer facing role.
"In fact, prior to his political affiliation becoming public knowledge, neither service users nor colleagues had complained about Mr Redfearn, who was considered a 'first-class employee'."

I've always found it odd that being a member of a legal political party which receives a good few votes during elections should be so feared by the liberal left. I'm no great fan of the BNP myself, I don't like their policies (far too leftist) in general but don't really have any personal bone to pick with them. That said I would have far more fear over sitting on a bus with a muslim in full beard and islamic regalia than I would with a BNP councillor.
Sacking a guy who had a record as an exemplary employee sent out all the wrong messages as far as I'm concerned and no unlike the rabid left I don't think being a member of the BNP or any right wing party is grounds for sacking or social ostracisation. Personally I reckon being of the rabid left is probably better grounds for ostracism, their track record in mass murder, discrimination and support for terrorist organisations is second to none.
Still it's nice to know that occasionally the ECHR works against the liberal left...

Another asylum seeker? Hopefully not.

Cameron it seems (as ever) is not getting the point about letting known terrorist suspects free travel the world over...
Mail.

Syrian president Bashar Assad could be allowed to flee his country if it would end the bloodshed, David Cameron said today.
The Prime Minister said it would do ‘anything to get that man out of the country’ but refused to offer Assad a safe haven in Britain.
Mr Cameron is on the second day of a tour of the Gulf and Middle East, where he has faced criticism for trying to sell UK arms to countries with questionable human rights records.
But the PM has also publicly backed the Arab Spring uprisings, which began in Tunisia and also saw governments swept aside in Libya, Egypt and Yemen.
In Syria there have been bloody battles for more 18 months, with tens of thousands of protestors killed by government forces.

So, he can leave, but not come here? Not exactly a great option now is it Dave? Assad is holding onto power by the skin of his teeth, he won't try to run unless he has a bolt hole to go to if he thinks he's losing. Why Cameron thinks it's his duty to interfere with another countries civil war is beyond me either, I was quite happy to see muslims killing each other in Syria and all over the middle east so long as they weren't trying to kill us or ours.
What the UK (such as it is) should be doing is heading towards a state where we aren't a major player on the world stage, a bit of armed isolation is called for where we only defend what's ours and not get involved in anyone else's wars.
Why Cameron should be criticised for selling arms is beyond me either, so long as they don't end up being used against us we should sell them everything they want. A questionable human rights record is not our business, selling them the rope to hang themselves is.

More money grabbing

Cleggy boy is at it again, his latest idea to dip his hands ever deeper into our pockets to subsidise child care.
Telegraph.

Nursery fees could be subsidised by the state after Nick Clegg promised he would work to end the “nightmare” of high child care bills.
The Deputy Prime Minister said it was absurd that hundreds of thousands of women felt it was not worth returning to work after having a baby because child care was so expensive.
In the first of a series of “informal” emails to party supporters, the Liberal Democrat leader disclosed that he would be lobbying in Whitehall for more money to be spent on reducing the cost of nursery places.
One policy likely to be considered is increasing the state-funded free child care allowance for three- and four-year-olds from 15 hours a week to 25.
The Lib Dems are expected to press for changes in talks with David Cameron and George Osborne ahead of the Chancellor’s autumn Budget statement next month.
Currently, an estimated one million women who could work are not doing so, partly because child care costs in Britain are among the highest in Europe.
Parents are spending up to £15,000 a year on nursery fees, while part-time child care in London costs up to £130 a week, recent figures suggest.

He'd actually do better to look at exactly why the UK's child care costs are the highest in Europe, rather than as is the usual socialist solution to rob Peter to pay Paul.
There are several reasons for high childcare costs, the minimum wage, the cost of building rent and insurance and the cost of CRB registration for staff turnover. No doubt there are others, but those are the main ones I can think of.
Yes the reason childcare costs are so high is because the state has made them high, not because childcare provider are (necessarily) greedy. That plus the current UK trend of more or less insisting that dual income is a necessity in order to afford ever more new thins (or simply make ends meet) means that women need childcare provision, yet are wondering why they bother as the extra work they do unless they are really well paid simply covers the childcare costs.
So what is Cleggs solution? Well he wants to shake the magic money tree to subsidise the costs, rather than remove the legislation which makes it so expensive. He wants the taxpayer, many of whom do not have kids in childcare to subsidise those who do.
Is anyone else out there sick of their taxes going to pay for people not to work or paying for the childcare costs of those who do?
Clegg really doesn't get it, or if he does he doesn't care, after all he's stinking rich.
IT'S MY MONEY YOU GREEDY BASTARDS, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF IT!
Clear enough?

Only half?

They don't get it, they really just don't get it...
Mail.

The International Development Secretary will this week unveil plans to slash Britain’s controversial £280 million-a-year aid budget to India.
Justine Greening will outline how the payments could be reduced amid claims the country is too rich to need handouts.
Sources suggest that Miss Greening may cut the subsidies by up to half.
The move comes amid mounting criticism that Britain’s overseas aid programme – which is set to reach more than £12 billion by 2014 – cannot be justified at a time of spending cuts back home.
However, The Mail on Sunday understands that Ms Greening will merely divert money sent to India to poorer countries – not cut the overall aid budget.

In a time of economic crisis, in times when cuts are being made at home, the first thing to go should be foreign aid. If indeed the government should actually be giving our money without our permission to foreigners anyway. I've always maintained that charity should begin at home and that governments should not under any circumstances be giving taxpayers cash to any charities at home or abroad. Yes that definitely includes the fake charities suckling at the taxpayer teat in order to tell the government what it wants to hear, rather than what the public want.
Given my way I'd scrap the Dept for International Development, I'd stop any payments to fake charities or indeed any charity directly from the government, if they want my money, they can bloody well ask me directly. I'd take a chain saw to the likes of any government funded bodies that do not serve a useful purpose (looking at you Quango's) and remove the green tariff on energy bills.
Any spare cash left could either go to reduce taxes, or remove as much of the fuel duty as I could in order to really kick start the economy by giving people more money to spend at home.
I know it's human nature to want to help those less fortunate than ourselves, but frankly we have enough of those at home. Government ought to realise this as much as the taxpayers do...

The kind of society some want?

One of the means by which the Nazi's and Socialists of the past (and in a few cases today) maintained their grip on those under enslaved by their system was that some people were prepared to report on what their neighbours were doing, in some cases whether they were doing it or not. In this instance kudos have to go to the police for deciding there wasn't a case to answer and no I don't blame them for having to check, it's their job if a complaint is made, it just makes a difference that they actually did bother to look. No I blame the kind of society who produced a person who could do this without checking all the details and simply assume 'fault' was to be found.
Mail.

A pub holding a competition to find the ‘Ugliest Woman’ got a visit from the police after someone reported them for sexism.
An unknown complainant demanded the competition be cancelled and wanted the owners of Islay Inn prosecuted.
However, when police arrived at the Glasgow venue they gave manager George Hogg the go ahead after discovering it was, in fact, a competition for men dressed as women.
Mr Hogg told of his disbelief of the complaint and accused the protestor of being ‘over the top with political correctness.’
He said: ‘I have no idea who made the complaint and the police wouldn’t tell me - but if he or she had bothered to read the advert properly, they would have realised that it was not ugly women we were looking for - but ugly men dressed up as women.

You have to wonder whether it was malice or misunderstanding behind the complaint, possibly it was a combination of the two with someone reading the advert without checking the small print and deciding to be offended by proxy, something which many minority groups claim is the bane of their existence.
Personally I have no problem if a pub wants to hold an ugly woman contest, I wouldn't even be offended if it were just open to women come to that same with an ugly man competition, after all they've been holding 'gurning' competitions for years.
No what bothers me is the political correctness that would make some person decide that this was their business to complain about. Rather than the libertarian view that what someone does is their business so long as it does not impinge on my freedoms. You should not have any right to be offended by any such thing, the most you should be able to do is ignore it, not waste police time on it.
Yet I have the feeling that this is exactly the sort of society that the powers that be want, a one where we imprison ourselves in chains of our own making. It would certainly save them the bother of paying guards, after all a society with people who complain about frivolous stuff will surely not spot them raking in expenses cash or robbing us blind whilst abusing our kids?
After all, that's why the higher echelons of the likes of Nazi's and socialists do...

If we did this we'd be prosecuted and jailed

Seems that child molesting isn't the only scandal to be happening in Rotherham under its MP's nose. Though again, that nose would appear to have been firmly in the trough to take much notice of what was going on under his watch. Besides in the wonderful world of socialist politics, minorities (apparently) do not come under the same rules as the rest of us. Nor it would seem do MP's either (though we already knew this)...
BBC.

Former Labour minister Denis MacShane is facing suspension from the Commons for 12-months.
A Parliamentary committee found he had submitted 19 false invoices which were "plainly intended to deceive" Parliament's expenses authority.
The committee said it was the "gravest case" which has come to them for adjudication.
Mr MacShane, who has been suspended from the Labour Party, said he was "shocked and saddened" by the move.
The MP for Rotherham had been suspended from the Labour party while police investigated his expenses claims, but he had the whip reinstated when the criminal inquiry was dropped.
The committee's report described Mr MacShane's false claims as "far from what would be acceptable in any walk of life" and "fell far below the standards of integrity and probity expected of every member of the House".
The false invoices related to work Mr MacShane carried out in Europe and he was particularly criticised for his use of public money for European travel.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said the "real mischief" of Mr MacShane's actions was submitting invoices that bypassed the "checks and controls" of the House and "enabled Mr MacShane to spend public money as he thought fit".

As the post title says, if you or I had tried such a thing with our employer and been caught then the criminal investigation would not have ceased, we would have been suspended, enquiries made, sacked, arrested, charged and possibly imprisoned.
What made it worse is that this was our money, we're the employers here, not the  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who are supposed to work for us. Yet as ever the old boys network came into play, MacShane will not be sacked, not banned from public office and after a year it will be as if nothing ever happened. We probably couldn't even trust the voters in Rotherham to kick him out as the 'Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire' is notorious for voting in donkeys provided they wore a red rosette.
The people of Rotherham who don't vote for the likes of MacShane and who have seen their towns name dragged through the mud due to the authorities looking the other way whilst muslims of Pakistani origin were raping under age young girls supposedly in their care on almost a factory production line have my sympathy. Those who voted for the likes of MacShane and the various council members under whose watch corruption and abuse festered seem to have gotten the representation they deserved.
Pity we cannot sack him, pity we cannot bring those authorities to justice, but those in power seem to have made sure we can do no such thing...

Out of step and possibly out of his mind

The boy Clegg predictably came out fighting over the mild slapping the Tories gave Cameron over the EU budget last night. Clegg who has to support the EU or lose his pension first said no way, then opted for opt in guarantees. Fortunately his party of nobodies are unlikely to influence any decisions, the opposition are taking the opportunity to play 6th form politics with the government knowing that at least 56 Tories will attempt to kick the EU in the nuts in given a chance.
Telegraph.

Nick Clegg has warned Britain is at risk of leaving the EU if Tories keep trying to “unravel” Europe by clawing back powers

And this is bad how?

After the Government lost a vote to rebels on the EU budget, the deputy Prime Minister warned that Britain is in real danger of exiting if Tories keep "stamping their feet" and demanding new rules.
He also claimed "a grand, unilateral repatriation of powers might sound appealing but in reality, it is a false promise, wrapped in a Union Jack".
The deputy Prime Minister’s remarks will be interpreted as a swipe at David Cameron, who has promised to bring back powers from Brussels.
Speaking at Chatham House, Mr Clegg said the Lib Dems will play no part in taking back powers without absolute assurances that Britain can opt back in.
He also said there is "no hope" of a cut in the EU budget, as demanded by more than 50 Tory rebels and the Labour Party, because no other country is demanding such a reduction.

The fact that no other countries government is asking for a budget cut in the EU rather suggests that we would actually be better off out, after all if they want to pour their cash into an organisation who can't even get it's books signed off on a yearly basis then they're welcome to it.
I suspect Cleggy boy knows that the jig is up, that somehow or other the so called rebels (in reality patriots) will make sure that there is no way in hell that the government can win a budget increase vote. Not that I don't expect the government whips to try to tighten the thumbscrews over the next year or so on the dissidents, it's just that I think that in reality they and the country have pretty much had enough of the EU.
As for opt in's, well the EU will welcome us back with open arms anyway, we're a net contributor, they'd miss us far more than I suspect we'd miss them if only because the other members would be stiffed with the tab.
Hopefully the rebels can force Cameron into doing something which would put us into a position of being forced to accept something unacceptable or leave.
Leaving sounds good...