He who pays the piper

Calls the tune.
Bit obvious really, and a great danger to political parties who become to dependent on one source of income. What tends to happen is a form of dependency as the contributor starts to call the shots rather than simply hand over cash as a gesture of support for the policies of the party, demands are made to make policy the way the contributor wants. It's why the funding of political parties needs to be open, though I rather suspect they'd much prefer to keep their contributors hidden.
Express.

ED Miliband was facing a new funding storm last night as it was revealed that the Labour Party has pocketed more than £20million from trade unions since he became leader.
The largest chunk of cash, £7.5million, came from the Unite union led by Left-wing firebrand Len McCluskey.
A further £3.6million each came from Paul Kenny’s GMB and Dave Prentis’s Unison.
All three unions backed Ed Miliband for the party leadership in 2010.

Though I rather think that many in Labour do not see their union funding as a problem, despite the obvious influence on policy that these mostly public service unions exert. Nor do I believe it healthy for any political party to be subject to the influence of Len McCluskey, who quotes a mass murderer (Che Guevara) and was once a member of the Communist Party and a supporter of Miltant Tendency. We really ought to consider Communists in the same way we consider Nazi's, even the ex ones need careful watching and really ought not to be allowed near any levers of power. Not that the left in general like to see themselves compared to Nazi's as such, despite such similarities in their modus operandi once they get their hands on power as both beliefs have a tendency to trash the economy before being removed from power, often after trying to use violence and intimidation to remain there (both are statist philosophies after all)
Still, it's not healthy for any political party to have 81% of its funding coming from those whose political beliefs are suspect to say the least, if 81% of Tory party funds came from just three sources you'd imagine Labour (and others) would be all over it like a rash.
This on top of the Pilgrim abuses where unions use public bodies to fund their activities mean that to an extent Labour and the unions recycle a lot of public funding to pay themselves and this needs to be stopped. Nor do I support taxpayer funding for political parties either, if they want my money, they can ask me personally, not just grab it from the magic money tree.
Perhaps it is time to look at party funding, with a view to making sure it only comes from private individuals and not businesses or unions. Perhaps then we'll have political parties who will do what we want, not what unions and business want...

I doubt he thinks he's British...

How people define themselves will tell you a lot about them, I define myself as English, certainly not British and definitely not European, despite the best efforts of the various hierarchies to jolly me along into those beliefs. Scots and the Welsh do the same, though the Protestants of Northern Ireland regard themselves as British simply because those whom they see as the opposition regard themselves as Irish. Yet there are those born here who do not regard such national definitions as the be all and end all, they use another far more dangerous category...
Telegraph.

A British man has been detained in Mauritania amid reports that he was trying to join up with an Islamic terror group in the Sahara desert.
The Foreign Office (FCO) said they are investigating reports that a British national had been detained in the African country. The man was allegedly held on the border between Mauritania and Mali as he attempted to cross the vast Sahara desert on foot to join up with terrorists linked to al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). An FCO spokeswoman said: "We are aware of reports of the detention of a British National in Mauritania and are seeking further information." Islamists have seized control of northern Mali, including the ancient desert city of Timbuktu. They have imposed Sharia law, carried out public executions, stoned to death a couple accused of adultery and destroyed mausoleums listed as world heritage sites.

So why do I have the feeling that this 'man' will not regard himself as British at all? Unless of course it's to claim benefits for all sorts of freebies. No, this 'man' I suspect will believe that he's a muslim and that killing the infidel is the be all and end all of his existence, except when it comes to raping infidel women. Oh I've no doubt if it does turn out that he was born here his local mosque and parents will try to keep up the fiction that somehow he'd been led astray or they never suspected etc. Yet it's becoming ever more obvious that he's actually the archetypical muslim, the one that follows the quran and sets out to slay the enemies of islam.
No, this man is not British, but a muslim, a true muslim and one that really ought to be put down like the rabid dog he's chosen to be.

Hitting a nerve somewhere

You can normally tell when a minor political party is starting to hit a nerve when smear stories start to come out in the MSM about the activities (true or otherwise) about its leadership whilst ignoring pretty much the endemic corruption of the mainstream parties. And so we have a hatchet job by the mail on Nigel Farage...
Mail.

So, Mr Farage, why does UKIP's leader have a German wife? ...and did she make you kip in the spare room over that 'seven-times-a night fling' with a Latvian?

First mistake is of course assuming that UKIP being anti-EU is actually anti-European, it's often the first mistake deliberate or otherwise that the EUphiles fall into as well. I suspect most people who support UKIP rather like Europeans, but cannot stand the government they've allowed to happen which overrules our laws and rights and believes it can do no wrong.

A lot of people don't seem to like UKIP ­ leader Nigel Farage. They roll their eyes and dismiss him as brash and vulgar - part used-car dealer, part public-school fool, 'utterly unembarrassable' and 'a poor man's Boris Johnson'.
They mutter about the BNP, a supposed tryst with a very passionate Latvian lady and the £2 million of EU expenses that he claimed over ten years 'to prove a point'.
They do, however, all know who he is. Because, love him or loathe him, he's impossible to ignore - blasting the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, as having 'the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk'; dismissing Robert Kilroy-Silk as a 'vain, orange buffoon and a monster'; camping it up on TV's Have I Got News For You; or dangling upside down from the wreckage of a light aircraft in the middle of an election campaign, UKIP rosette still flapping.

Well the so called intelligentsia of the political classes must really have a burr up their arse if this is how they are going to play the game, not that I suspect Farage gives a damn. It's a pretty much predictable hatchet job by the left leaning political classes who don't like the idea that the people of the UK might just vote for something they hate in an exit from the EU and an end to mainstream party politics in the UK leaving them adrift from the levers of power for the first time in nearly sixty five years. So I suspect that the Tories are in somewhat of a funk over Farage, as they see him as the guy leading a party who will take votes away from them at the next election and let Labour in. Not that I think Labour particularly like him or his party either as they've shown that if the circumstances are right then UKIP can take Labour votes too. As for the Lib Dems, well they're still coming to terms with actually getting the blame for what the government does and seem likely to struggle in the next general election as they are now seen as 'establishment' and UKIP as the protest vote.
I expect we'll see a lot of this sort of thing over the next couple of years as we head towards elections, UKIP are on a roll, though whether or not they'll actually get any politicians into Westminster is debatable. Still it's nice to see the establishment rattled for once.

A new take on conjugal rights

It's always been a problem when people talk rights, particularly politicians who encoded some rights into law and allowed judges (and the legal system) to twist them beyond what was actually intended but still within the letter (if only barely at times) This in essence is why proper legal documents are rather bizarre to read at times as legalise is a very precise language where what is stated is exactly what is meant. Politicians (and people) rarely realise this and their idea of a right has all sort of exclusivity built into it unknowingly whereas to a legal expert it's all open to interpretation. Also no system of rights seems to come with a system of responsibilities, otherwise we probably wouldn't have stories like this in the press.
Mail.

Four murderers and a drug dealer are in line for taxpayer-funded fertility treatment so that they can father a child from behind bars.
The killers are demanding to be allowed to take part in IVF treatment despite serving life sentences. Ministers may be powerless to refuse because of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to a private and family life.
Turning down the prisoners’ demands could lead to court action and compensation claims running into tens of thousands of pounds.
Last year the Daily Mail revealed that a prisoner had been given access to artificial insemination treatment on the NHS at a cost of around £2,000.
Since then, 13 applications have been made by inmates in England and Wales. Eight have been rejected but five remain in ministers’ in-trays.

As it's the Mail, usual caveats apply, however there are several documented cases where criminals have used the rights system to evade justice as well as use the Human Rights Act and its various clauses to act as if they are not prisoners at all. That has ever been at the core of the Human Rights Act in that it remained specifically vague as to the differences between the law abiding and the criminal. Rather than go for a basic set of rights, it opted for all encompassing and got a hell of a surprise when it got used in ways they never envisioned by people who clearly ought not to have access to IVF fertilisation or indeed the right to vote. This is what comes of allowing badly written law onto the statute books, a table of rights for all, should also have come with a table of responsibilities for all which if not abided to, restricted you to a very limited set of rights. As it is, the way that the EU is set up with regard to the European Court of Human Rights means that in order to get this odious piece of legislation off the statute books means we'd have to leave the EU. Nor would bringing in an extra layer of 'British rights' in the manner of a new Magna Carta work either as it would simply be a layer on top of the HRA and not a replacement as some politicians would have us believe.
I'm not against people having rights as a protection from the state, I do have a problem when the scope of those rights goes way beyond what was originally intended (in the public's eye at least) you should only get the full raft of rights when you take on a full raft of responsibilities. We don't need to just get rid of the HRA, we need to add a Human Responsibilities Act in future rights legislation to prevent things like this ever happening again.

Ah the inevitable must...

I don't think the boy Clegg has quite grasped this democracy thingy yet in that politicians are supposed to represent the views of their constituents (I know I know in an ideal world etc) But it does seem the lure of his pension overwhelms his responsibilities in a clear case of getting them wrong. Not that Lib Dems have such a great recent track record with democracy, I suspect it comes from taking in all those deluded socialists from the SDP demise.
Telegraph.

Nick Clegg has warned David Cameron that Britain must not back out of Europe and dismissed plans for a referendum on the country’s membership of the EU as “putting the cart before the horse”.
The Deputy Prime Minister made the intervention as his Coalition partner, under pressure from members of his own party, prepares to set out a new approach to the issue in a speech in the New Year.
The Prime Minister is widely expected to demand a repatriation of powers from Brussels as the price of agreeing financial reform of the eurozone, with the promise of a referendum in the 2015 Tory general election manifesto.
Mr Cameron has already promised Conservative MPs that the party will fight the election on a “clear Eurosceptic position”.
Meanwhile a poll today shows that most Britons now want to leave Europe, with 51% saying they would vote for an exit – in a marked hardening of eurosceptic attitudes.
But Mr Clegg argues in a newspaper interview today against offering a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU and says that Britain should instead be exercising its leadership role in Europe.

It's the usual tired old lies about Britain's leadership in the EU as Britain does not nor never will lead the EU short of conquering it. They tell us what to do and the people of Britain know this and whilst previously were prepared to put up with it or ignore it, attitudes are hardening and there is a small but definite trend towards getting out and sticking two fingers up to the corrupt bastards in charge there. Not that the EU can be trusted in any referendum (same as Cameron really) but it does look like most politicians at least are starting to read the writing on the (UKIP) wall and harden their attitudes at least towards the EU, even if they still think we should remain in (most of them do I suspect). However in Cleggy boys denial of democracy should such a referendum be held and return a massive slap in the face of the EU in a in/out referendum in insisting that we musn't back out regardless of what the people want, then we see the true colours of an EUphile revealed. The one that trots out the old hackneyed arguments about it being a disaster and we'd be on our own (despite being unable to prove it) whilst ignoring the success of such countries as Norway or Switzerland who have trade ties but no political ties and so can stick two fingers up to the meddlers if they interfere in national interests.
The UK can be a good trading partner with the EU without being part of the EU and that's what the EUphiles truly fear that in going alone we'd prove that the whole corrupt edifice is not necessary at all.

 

Infantilism

No this isn't aimed at the general public, though God alone knows I've run across an increasing number who appear to have opted out of thinking for themselves and allowing the state to do their thinking for them. Still you can always rely on the EU to come up with some idiotic standard only to have companies fall over themselves to comply...
Mail.

A kickabout in the park might leave many dads suffering after their exertions, but it could have deadly consequences for toddlers – according to EU officials.
Toy footballs now have to be stamped with a warning that they are a choking hazard for the under-threes, despite the balls being bigger than an adult’s head.
The brightly coloured plastic balls with a circumference of 25in – just under the size used in the Premier League – come with the caution: ‘Warning! Not suitable for children under three years. Choking hazard.’
One manufacturer, Bellco Sports, which sells tens of thousands of its £1 balls every year in high streets all over the UK, confirmed it has had to comply with the EU regulations and brand them with the warning.
The balls bear the CE mark, which stands for Conformité Européene – translated as European Conformity – to show that they comply with EU legislation and are passed as meeting ‘harmonised levels of safety’.

My granddaughter is two and I rather doubt her ability to swallow a full sized football, even a deflated on, she was far more likely to have choked on a little green ball of death sprout over Christmas and we had far more in the way of choking hazards around than footballs, most of us wouldn't even recognise a football as a choking hazard. Still that's the way the EU works, someone has justified their (excessive) salary by producing such a ridiculous rule and is probably laughing themselves all the way to the bank at the manufacturers for falling into line to put it on the footballs.
Are we expected to take such rulings seriously? Well try not taking one seriously and see what happens if you don't, swinging fines as an example of opening broadsides springs to mind, imprisonment may also be mentioned.
Sadly though our own governments are not above infantilising the populace so leaving the EU may not protect us from the control freaks in charge.
Still, it would be a good start...

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all those who have taken the time to look at my meanderings.

“During the coming
Christmas season
May you be blessed
With the spirit of the season,
which is peace,
The gladness of the season,
which is hope,
And the heart of the season,
which is love”

 

The consequences of not using joined up thinking...

The government may or may not put up the minimum price of alcohol, Cameron seems to favour it, though he seems to have a problem convincing his EU masters that it somehow doesn't breach their rules. However the consequences of driving up the price of a product that many of us legally enjoy is now being felt by those who sell it...
BBC.

UK tax authorities are not doing enough to tackle alcohol duty fraud, claims a leading off-licence chain.
Bargain Booze told the BBC that the number of stores telling HM Revenue and Customs that they face illegal competition is rising.
Last year HMRC received over 600 reports to its tax hotline relating to alcohol fraud.
The Revenue said it acted on every piece of intelligence, but admitted investigations could take years.
The government has given HMRC £17m to tackle the gangs behind the fraud.

The obvious solution is of course to reduce the price of duty to make it not worth the illegal traders time, but governments never think that way, their solution is always regulation and enforcement, aka jobs for the boys.
What they won't do is tackle the actual problem of people who go out and get blotto, nor even study as to why it's happening, possibly because they suspect the problem is actually them and that people will drink themselves into oblivion to try and forget all the shit that the government and life has foisted upon them. Perhaps is the government would butt out of our lives or improve our way of life and standards of living (pipedream I know) then they wouldn't have people getting so concerned over drunken behaviour. As it is we have laws which can deal with drunken behaviour, though too few police to deal with them and no social mechanisms in place to control it, mostly due to state interference in peoples lives by restricting the ways we can deal with law breaking and lawbreakers. That's why ordinary people end up getting arrested whilst criminals get away with it essentially, we don't know the rules, they do.
Still for as long as the government believe that putting the price up on anything that we enjoy then there will be those in the criminal fraternity that will provide those services at a much cheaper price (though not necessarily the quality) than the legal commodity.
It's called market forces, something no politician (or bureaucrat) really understands as they so rarely have to deal with the folly or consequences of their actions, except to put it on expenses.

To costly to sack

Those clever sods at the centre of the Saville scandal at the BBC have managed to get themselves into a position where they cannot be sacked because it would be too expensive to do so. Which rather begs the question as to who the hell negotiated the contracts in the first place. After all, most companies have certain procedures in place to weed out incompetents and gross misconduct. Then again this is the BBC we're talking about so I suppose we must assume that they believe their top people are above reproach and of the 'right' (in this case left) mindset.
Express.

CUSHY contracts at the BBC mean it would cost more than £600,000 to fire the four most senior people at the centre of the Jimmy Savile and McAlpine debacles.
The revelation that those criticised would have had six months’ or more of their inflated salaries will ­reinforce the view that more heads did not roll because the BBC could not afford the sackings.
Fears will be raised that more incompetence could be tolerated because 451 senior managers at the BBC have contracts that mean they get six months’ pay if they are sacked for not doing their job properly.
Seven members of the executive board, the top jobs at the BBC, have contracts giving them a year’s pay if they are fired.
Matthew Sinclair, of the TaxPayers’ ­Alliance, said: “The BBC has been engulfed by a crisis and much of the blame for that lies at the door of senior bosses at the broadcaster. They should be given the boot, not a wedge full of money.”

Of course there is the problem that these people actually think they did nothing wrong in presiding over a cover up and mudslinging that brought the BBC into further disrepute. It's always someone else's fault after all isn't it? Besides in Savile they have the perfect target, he's dead, can't tell no tales and cannot prosecute them for libel or slander. Shame about McAlpine, but much of what he's doing is threats, some out there doubt he'd actually get a lot of sympathy in court but why take a chance, besides he's establishment and deserves the cash etc.
Time and time again when it comes to incompetence in public service we find that the contracts negotiated have been bound in iron clad clauses which effectively mean that being caught and proven unable to do your job might get you sacked but with a golden handshake that beggars belief. It does seem that in public service different rules apply than to the rest of us, you know the ones who actually pay for this sort of stuff by making money rather than spending it.
I used to only think that politicians were worthy of being strung from lampposts, now I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a massive clear out at the top where the scum has apparently risen...

Easy targets

One of the more downheartening aspects of watching (so called) radical atheists these days is that so many of them are looking at the wrong target. Or rather they are going after easy targets possibly because they know what will happen if they go after the harder one...
Mail.

Raising your children as Roman Catholics is worse than child abuse, according to militant atheist Richard Dawkins.
In typically incendiary style, Professor Dawkins said the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.
He said he had been told by a woman that while being abused by a priest was a ‘yucky’ experience, being told as a child that a Protestant friend who died would ‘roast in Hell’ was more distressing.
Last night politicians and charities condemned the former Oxford professor’s views as attention-seeking and unhelpful.
The remarks are due to be broadcast tonight by Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera.
Interviewer Mehdi Hasan asked Professor Dawkins about previous comments he made, when he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’

You would think that Dawkins talking to islamic mouthpieces might just have noticed the islamic tendency to bring their children up believing that women are second class citizens, that Jews and Christians are descended from apes and pigs, that it's ok to beat your wife, that paedophilia is fine after all look what the 'prophet' did, that blowing up innocents  and other acts of terrorism are fine because the people aren't muslims. Or indeed the ever growing hatred between shia and sunni sects in the religion of (not) peace at all.
No, Dawkins does as many militant atheists do, go after the easy targets, the ones who don't threaten to kill you if you look the wrong way at them.
It would be interesting to see him have a go at islam, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that, I rather suspect he never will...

It's the end of the world as we know it...

Hunkered down here in Schloss QM waiting for the end of the world whilst eyeing the Christmas treats I cannot help but feel slightly cheated here. After all it's the last day of the Mayan long count calender and as everyone knows the world is supposed to end, or should it be the biggest new years eve party ever? I'd prefer the latter to be honest, it would at least mean I got a lie in rather than face having to go into town and do some Christmas shopping for all the stuff I cannot get online and pre wrapped.
Still whilst we wait here's a particularly apt song by REM.

For as much as it's worth happy new long count Mayan calender...

This is no victory

The Mail seems to believe that it's campaign to get the government to censor the internet for parents rather than parents doing it for themselves is a good thing. You'd think that by now people would have realised that giving any government control of something usually leads to unforeseen circumstances such as the government using the legislation in ways that no one ever anticipated.
Mail.

Children will be protected by a block on online pornography which parents will have to choose to have lifted, David Cameron vows today.
After weeks of confusion over the Government’s plans to protect youngsters, the Prime Minister makes clear that under the proposals, web filters will be ‘default on’ for houses with children.
In an article for the Daily Mail, the Prime Minister says it is ‘utterly appalling’ that so many children have been exposed to the ‘darkest corners’ of the internet, adding: ‘A silent attack on innocence is under way in our country today and I am determined that we fight it with all we’ve got.’
He announces that Conservative MP Claire Perry, who has led the campaign for a broader, automatic block on adult material for all internet users, is to be appointed as his adviser on reversing the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.
She will be in charge of implementing the new web filter system, which will also require internet providers to check the age of the person setting controls.

Anyone remember the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? Remember how we were told it was 'necessary' in the fight against terrorism to be used to monitor suspected terrorists? Remember also the use it was put too in checking litter bin use, peoples locations vis school catchment areas...
Derby City Council, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool all used RIPA powers to snoop on dog fouling, and Bolton used powers under the Act to investigate littering.
The most prolific user of the Act in 2008 was Durham County Council which used the legislation 131 times almost exclusively against traders suspected of selling counterfeit goods or suspected of selling age-restricted products to kids.
Anyone want to bet that as soon as the government can force ISP's to censor their content that the range of content that can actually be censored will increase to the point where any criticism of the government or anything they don't want us to see is included?
Think we'd discover about MP's expense scandals, Islamic grooming gangs, social services 'disasters' even mention of the family courts scandal?
Well we would, though we'd have to go via various unblocked sites (probably based abroad) to get it. It's not like the UK's attempt to block the Pirate Bay was terribly successful. I'm pretty sure that most bloggers and other net savvy individuals will find things out, but ordinary people???
Asking governments to take on powers it really ought not to have is a recipe of disaster because there is always mission creep and frankly politicians cannot be trusted, one government might initially behave itself but the next one?
The Mail may be crowing about victory, but this is no victory at all, they've just campaigned for the government to have the power to censor them.

Lies, damned lies and videotape.

There has been some furore over the last 24 hours in regard to whether or not the police evidence about whether Andrew Mitchell was witnessed calling a police officer a pleb. Which if the video evidence is to be believed, there was no witness as claimed by the police and it has become one man's word against another.
I didn't see the Channel 4 program as I was busy elsewhere indulging in my love of Tolkien at a showing of The Hobbit, but I've read and viewed some stills of the so called incident and the evidence as presented by the police including an email of a member of the public whom it turned out was a serving police officer who was supposed to be a witness and it now appears to be highly suspect and that Mitchell was set up by the police to take a heavy fall by lies. I'm not saying he didn't call the officer concerned a pleb, but it now appears if he did do it then only the officer concerned heard him...
It's not the first time that someone has fallen foul of trial by media and that the initial evidence and perceptions have been false, the problem being that some elements in society were all too prepared to believe it of the Tory Party (yes unions and leftists we're looking at you) and we really should have known better as the police have put themselves into various positions over the last few years in which what they consider to be evidence often isn't. It does seem odd that the person tasked by the government appears to have missed the email thing or rather not checked it correctly, but we're talking politicians here and at the time it did appear an open and shut case. Though I suspect if Mitchell is ever reinstated as chief whip some politicians are going to seriously regret it (Shades of Francis Urquhart anyone?) The man may be forgiving over being thrown to the wolves, but I personally wouldn't.
As it is, the reputation (already low) of the police has just taken another blow and the politicisation of the forces during the Labour years and the infiltration by Common Purpose now needs to be removed root and branch.
Otherwise they'll just go away, lick their wounds and try again...

Access denied, denied

Why do some people believe it's the job of the state to do everything for them? Take online porn, there are some people out there who actually believe that the government should get involved to block access to various sites so they don't have to do it themselves. It's the classic 'for the cheeeldren' meme that's so popular amongst the hard of thinking and the devoid of discipline that seems to permeate some areas of society...
Mail.

One of the most pressing anxieties of responsible parents is how to stop their children from accessing pornography on the internet.
Nearly three-quarters of nine to 16-year-olds in Britain go online daily. Growing numbers of three and four-year-old children are accessing the net.
So preventing them from stumbling across or even choosing to download internet porn is a very real problem.

If you're that bothered put a password on the pc and don't let your little darlings access it out of your sight... Simples.
Well apparently not, some people believe the government should do it for them...

There is cross-party support for tougher online controls, reflecting acute parental anxiety.
In a consultation exercise, half of parents said they wanted some content blocked automatically.
So the Government’s proposals, which were slipped out quietly a few days ago on the Department for Education website as if it didn’t want anyone to notice, have left many frankly baffled.
For it said that while access to internet porn would be banned in public places, no such ban would apply to private use.

Ooh apparently someone in the government actually gets it that what you do in your home is your responsibility. That includes monitoring what your kids actually see and do, rather than say simply letting them get on with it in an out of sight out of mind attitude that some parents believe is responsible parenting.
There are a host of programmes out there which can block access to porn (and other stuff) you just have to google it and it practically leaps out at you. Of course that means actually having to do it yourself which means that for some people it's not a good idea. they'd rather the nanny state did everything for us automatically.
These are the people who I believe think that the internet is some sort of babysitter bit like the tv, used to be (and possibly still is)
Perhaps these people ought to be examined to see if they are actually fit to be responsible parents, because if they want the state to do it for them, then clearly they are not...

So why do we pay Road tax?

Rhetorical question I know, I suspect we all know it's just a means to fill the governments coffers, after all if they spent all they took in on the actual roads we'd have the best transport system in the world bar none...
As it is, they keep looking for ways to dip their hands in our pockets again and again to pay for transport infrastructure, rather than taking the money from the fund that's actually supposed to pay for these things...
BBC.

A new Thames crossing could be built without spending public money, Kent County Council (KCC) says.
Paul Carter, KCC leader, said the council had been in discussions with companies in Canada over plans to build the crossing using private funding.
He said many of Canada's road were funded by income from tolls.
In 2011, the government said a new crossing would alleviate congestion at the Dartford Crossing tolls caused by "the success" of the M25.
"They do a 'fund design build and operate' scheme in Canada which has been an enormous success," Mr Carter said.

All well and good, but as I've pointed out above we already do pay 'public' money into the road fund license and that's the money which should (all) be spent on new infrastructure, rather than be pissed up the wall in MP's expenses and green lunacy with the rest of our taxes. They can't even keep their promises on the tolls they grab from other projects such as the Dartford crossing which initially was supposed to suspend tolls after the damned thing was paid for but several years after it was paid for we're still paying. Plus no-one believed the local councils claims that somehow or other they had to keep the barriers in place as a traffic calming method, nor the governments statement that the toll money would be spent in the county on other roads...
I rather suspect that the Canadian companies assuming they want to get involved with UK politics and taxation will do a reasonable job, but then as in all these schemes milk us for the rest of our lives maxing out their profits, not that I have a problem with companies making profits, I just have a problem with government both local and national pissing down my back whilst telling me that it's raining Which is exactly what this is, just another tax grab on top of the road fund license...

Some good ideas

One of my greatest bugbears is translation services. Most local councils provide such services with many documents being translated in all sorts of foreign languages from Gujarati, to Polish, Chinese (few kinds) to Lithuanian. All in a country in which English is the dominant language and should be the main media of communication. Scotland and Wales have their own native language minorities so they can provide other documents in those, but in England, the only language on any official public service document should be English...
Express.

COMMUNITIES Secretary Eric ­Pickles has drawn up a list of money saving tips for town halls as he prepares to confront councils over spending.
Authorities should stop translating documents into foreign languages, “cancel away-day trips in posh hotels,” cut out first class travel and close subsidised staff canteens, according to his “Fifty Ways To Save” guide.
He also wants them to find innovative new ways of raising money, including renting out advertising space, leasing out art works, putting “pop up” shops in empty council offices and opening coffee shops in local libraries.
The Communities Secretary has published the guide as he prepares to do battle over this week’s ­local ­government settlement. Labour-run councils fired the first salvo by warning ­that another council tax freeze and further cuts would hit frontline services.

Some of those cuts and savings could be well applied to national public services too. There simply is no need to provide half of what councils and governments do. It is not the job of the councils (or government) to provide language translation services for anyone, they can't speak English, it's their problem, not ours, they provide their own translator at their cost, not mine or yours. Same with councils providing support for any 'ethnic' groups or other minorities, their problems are their own and self help builds communities far better than everything being handed to you on a plate. We don't need Gay pride funding, support for mosques, gender awareness campaigns, diversity co-ordinators not if it's coming from our pockets. They can pay for such jamborees themselves out of their own pockets and collections and see how far that goes.
For years government at both local and national level have been taking the piss with our money, spending it on their own pet projects designed more it seems to ensure votes rather than actual quality services. It's funny how they always threaten the frontline services when the money tree looks like being threatened too.
Someone needs to take a chainsaw to what the actual duties of local and national government is expected to provide, then and only then do I suspect we'll get back on the road to economic reality...

This is a lie

David Cameron lived up to one if his nicknames the other day when he made an astonishing pronouncement about supermarkets and binge drinking, that nickname being Camoron.
Telegraph.

Middle class families are being charged more for every day food in supermarkets to subsidise cheap alcohol deals for binge drinkers, David Cameron has said.
The Prime Minister claimed that “a family with a reasonable drinking habit” was “actually subsidising the binge drinker” because supermarkets were increasing the price of food to fund cuts in the cost of wine, beer and cider. The comments, to a group of factory workers in north Wales, provoked astonishment from supermarkets last night. The British Retail Consortium said the remarks were “nonsense” and demanded to know what the evidence was for the claims, while a spokesman for Sainsburt said the Prime Minister was "plain wrong".. But Downing Street stuck to its guns, citing an article from a medical journal in 2009 by a leading liver specialist which suggested supermarkets were overcharging for food to pay for cheap drink.

The clue is in the last bit in which a leading liver specialist 'suggested' supermarkets were overcharging on food. No doubt the leading liver specialist checked with the supermarkets or simply presumed that supermarkets were stupid enough to sell a popular product at a loss continually.
Thing is whilst supermarkets will occasionally put a 'loss leader' into their stores, it's likely to be spread over a wide range of products and is more likely to be a buy one get one free and may just be bread rolls or yoghurt's. What they don't tend to do is discount cheap alcohol, particularly at the bottom of the range or spirits.

Andrew Opie, the food director of the British Retail Consortium, said: “This is nonsense. What evidence? The Government’s own figures show alcohol prices rising at exactly the same rate as food prices.

Nonsense indeed though it's a bit milder than my thoughts about it being a blatant lie thrown out because the powers that be hate the idea that people might be enjoying themselves a bit too much or that somehow or other if they keep putting the price up people won't find something else (probably illegal) to help them forget how hard life is a and just what a bunch of bastards the political classes are. Prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will the man in a van who sell cheap ciggies has proved that, he'll no doubt branch out into booze if the government makes it worth his while. I expect booze cruises to start up soon enough as well, if minimum pricing goes through, the retailers of Calais will be rubbing their hands at the idiocy of the UK government.

Research carried out by Sheffield University for the Government has showed that a 45p minimum would reduce the consumption of alcohol by 4.3 per cent, leading to 2,000 fewer deaths and 66,000 hospital admissions after 10 years.
The number of crimes would drop by 24,000 a year as well, researchers suggested.

The clue is in the last word...
Suggested...
The twats don't know but are saying stuff the government wants to hear, bit like climate change and the other green bollocks that the government use as tax grabs, because that's all minimum alcohol pricing is, in the end if it's government it's a tax grab.

Ok, but how about an insurance disk instead?

The Road Tax Fund which is neither a fund nor which the amount collected goes mostly towards our roads is a bit of a contentious issue, drivers are expected to purchase one and many were in the mistaken belief that it paid for our road network, that was until the government started making noises about toll roads and other revenue raising cons to keep the state spending going.
Still someone has now said that we should just scrap the paper disk because the police know instantly whether or not a scanned car has one or not...
Mail.

The car tax disc which has adorned windscreens for more than 90 years could be due for the axe.
Ministers say scrapping the paper discs would cut costs and streamline services to motorists.
They are currently displayed on around 36million vehicles as proof that road tax has been paid.
However, the discs could become the latest victim of the digital revolution.
Officials say that because police can tell instantly from access to the DVLA computer whether a car has been taxed or not, there is no longer a need for proof on the windscreen.
Even tax disc reminders may soon come as emails or texts rather than paperwork through the post.
The paper element of the driving licence – which accompanies the credit card size photo-card – is also due for the chop by 2015.

All well and good, I'm (sort of) in favour of the state saving money as and where they can, though I rather doubt that they'll use any saving to refund taxation for the rest of us, the money will no doubt go to other important places such as India or Africa...
No the biggest cost facing motorists today is insurance, through expensive repairs and through many uninsured drivers out there having accidents and bumping up the cost to the rest of us. Not that I don't have some sympathy for them, after all having seen the prices my stepdaughter was quoted for her insurance I'm amazed anyone would want to be paying out such amounts.
What is happening is the great liberator of the working class (easy and cheap movement) is now being priced way out of their league tying them once again to fixed areas for work (and low wages) Naturally when faced with a massive price for simply owning a car (which may not even be worth the insurance) some people decide to take a chance as the fine for not having insurance is less than the cost of the insurance itself.
So it strikes me that the insurance companies could have been made responsible for some form of disk on a car which says it's insured.
Then again, I doubt prices would come down, so perhaps it's not such a good idea after all, rip off Britain is still rip off Britain...

This is why we can't allow them to stay...

Pride and honour are odd things and can cause people to do strange things in order to fit in to their roots whilst trying their best to fit in with everyone else. It becomes worse when peer, family, tribal and religious pressures are put in place to enforce compliance within a social group and can lead to tragedy when your 'family' discovers your 'real' lifestyle. Well it can if your family are Muslims...
Express.

A WOMAN leapt 80ft to her death after a Facebook stalker exposed her westernised lifestyle to her strict Muslim parents, an inquest heard yesterday.
Rema Begum, 29, fell from the top of Sir Terence Conran’s restaurant Coq D’Argent in front of hundreds of commuters outside Bank Tube station in London on September 5.
After taking a sip of wine, she put down her glass and plunged eight storeys. She died instantly of multiple injuries. There was no evidence she was drunk.
Miss Begum had suffered depression after losing her job as a British Library manager, and also believed she would be punished for an impure life and not be allowed into paradise.
A friend, Avril Atkins, said she shut down her Facebook page after someone sent hate mail to her and information about her to her family.

The thing is, to most people what she was doing was nothing to be ashamed of, nor a matter of taking your life over. However we aren't dealing with ordinary people here but with Muslims who have an archaic honour code in which women very definitely come second and whom 'shame' and family pressure to conform can twist the joy out of life very easily, along with the risk that her family might just decide to end her life in a (utter lack of) honour killing.
Yet our politicians, political classes, the intellectual left and the moronic left have encouraged these people to live amongst us and not to integrate. Telling them that a culture based on the ravings of a 7th century paedophilic sociopath is equal to the western values that created one of the greatest civilisations to span the Earth. No, I'm not saying things are perfect and great for all of us, but until our lunatic politicians and social engineering political classes invited in those who hate us and are not willing to change that hatred we had been to the moon, conquered diseases, advanced the quality of ordinary peoples lives to a stage undreamed of by previous generations. Only for those who hate us to allow in a culture who believes our women are prey to the sexual demands of their savage religion, who treat (and beat) their own women as second class brood mares and who have the utter gall to believe the ravings of their founder mean that they are ubermenschen who have the answers to everything life throws at them including how to govern us whilst extracting protection money off us for the privilege.
Rema Begum is not the first to fall foul of their abomination of a religion, she won't be the last, their are hundreds of young girls out their who have been abused and know exactly what islam stands for.
There is no place for islam in a civilised society, simple as that, it has to go.

Walk on by...

It seems odd that the MSM should be surprised that 2/3rds of us would walk on by if we witnessed a group of teenagers drinking and verbally abusing passers-by in the street. Unfortunately that's the type of society we now live in, where teens have been brought up to believe they are untouchable, after all, they have been brought up to know that adults can't touch them nor it seems criticise them...
BBC.

Two-thirds of the public would walk on by if they saw a group of teenagers drinking and verbally abusing passers-by in the street, a survey suggests.
Only 6% of the 1,784 people in England, Wales and Scotland surveyed by YouGov said they would definitely intervene. A further 21% said they probably would.
The think tank Policy Exchange paid for the survey and called for "citizen police academies" to be set up.
They could offer lessons in making citizens' arrests, it said.
The survey found that, among those questioned, people in Scotland were the most likely to step in, while those in London were the least likely.

The reasons, though not stated being that many of these teenage gangs would be likely to set about anyone who interfered and/or spend time making their lives a misery by constant hounding, vandalism, abuse etc. should they know where the adults live knowing fine well the police and councils will do sod all about it...
Social engineering by politicians and other do gooders in the UK has brought about a feral class of teens who know no restraints save what their own peers and gang culture will permit and any outsiders simply do not count. Not all teens by any means, but we have created a society where their rights appear to transcend all others, at least in the teens eyes anyway.
So now most adults will ignore a group of teens misbehaving and the media (and politicians no doubt) are surprised. Nor would adults being trained to deal with confrontation be the answer, I suspect only the knowledge that if they stepped out of line society would come down on them like a ton of bricks might work, though those days are now gone.
Those with any sort of moral authority (police, doctors, teachers) have now pretty much removed themselves from the areas in which they work, not that I blame them. However society will not change unless this issue is addressed, you cannot give one section more or less immunity from facing the consequences of their actions and expect it to grow up and mature in a manner that is civilised and tolerant.
You need to start as you go on with action bringing a just and fair reaction, sadly this does not happen and we have a situation now where a sort of siege mentality has built up in adults who would rather ignore bad behaviour than take the chance it will spread the them and theirs, because the powers that be have pretty much allowed it to develop over the last few decades.

Racism

Not normally a subject spoken about when talking about white on white, though in the UK it's apparently ok if the people being discriminated against are the majority. Not that those who commit this type of discrimination or racism consider it to be racist of course, they cannot countenance that their behaviour might be wrong...
Telegraph.

Anti-English rhetoric is at risk of “creeping” into Scottish society after police reported a record number of racist attacks against white Britons, it was claimed last night.
Police recorded 1,295 racist incidents in 2011/12 where the victim was white and British. The total is up a quarter on the previous year and 57 per cent more than in 2004/05.
The category includes both attacks on English people and incidents where the victim is Scottish and the perpetrator is from an ethnic minority.
But the vast majority of perpetrators were also white, suggesting that many cases involved racism against the English.
SNP ministers said they were “very disappointed” by the figures but opposition parties said racist attacks against English people should be treated with the same seriousness as those directed at ethnic minorities.
The overall number of racist attacks increased by 10 per cent last year, with the largest number of incidents directed against the Pakistani community.

Thing is the Scottish Nation (though not individual Scots as such) have a history of anti-English violence along with a history of sectarianism which has often been excused as apparently the English 'ruled' them from Westminster and because the English were 'occupiers' that somehow justified bigotry, hatred and discrimination. Recent cases include the 'brave' Scot who attacked an English schoolboy for wearing an England top. Along with a woman beaten up simply because she was English. All condemned of course yet a symptom of a deep malaise or perhaps an inferiority complex in Scotland itself after all defining yourself by who you hate does not seem to be terribly healthy, yet I cannot recall any other nation selling 'anyone but...' tee shirts. No, I'm not talking about incidents where people have made light-hearted comments about English people, this is obviously going beyond that, there's nothing wrong with banter and the English are no strangers to it. But you don't hear of cases where people of known Scottish origin are beaten up in England simply because they are Scottish, do you?
The Scots will soon vote on going their own way, I wish them every success in this, perhaps it will help some of them at least 'grow up' Though I have my doubts...

Accepting is not the same as wanting

A Tory MP has said what a lot of us think (shock horror) in that a lot of parents don't want their children to be gay despite the states attempts to treat it as normal...
Mail.

A Tory MP last night claimed most parents do not want their children to be homosexual - because they are desperate to have grandchildren.
Monmouth’s David Davies made his comments as he opposed his party leadership’s plans to allow gay marriage.
But campaigners said most parents do accept their child’s homosexuality and simply want them to be happy.
Mr Davies told the BBC: ‘I think most people are very tolerant and have no problem at all if people are gay but, and I hate to say this in a way because I expect it’s going to cause controversy, but I think most parents would prefer their children not to be gay, knowing most parents want grandchildren if nothing else,’ he said.
‘What I’m concerned about is... having gay marriage recognised by law which opens to door to all churches being forced to do that.

Now I could accept if my children were gay, but it wouldn't be something I'd want for them, but I do enjoy my grandchildren and certainly would not expect to see any if my kids were gay. And that is the point Davies is making and as ever there's a deliberate attempt to misinterpret what he's saying. Despite claims that no religion will be forced to provide 'marriage' to same sex couples, I rather suspect that the lunatic judges in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have yet to stick their oar in. Gays have a civil partnership which provides exactly the same rights as a married couple, so the only reason I can see for them to be allowed to marry is a prelude to try and force churches (and mosques and synagogues) to marry them. I cannot for the life of me see another reason for this. It also flies right in the face of public opinion, A ComRes survey published today found that 62 per cent of voters and 68 per cent of Tories believe marriage should continue to be defined as a ‘life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman’. Whilst Two thirds of voters back civil partnerships for same-sex couples. So it's not exactly bigot city out there as most people believe gays should be happy with what they have which is equality with marriage.
Though I do believe most people just put up and shut up when faced with extremism of one form or another be it Islamic or gay, there's far to much of the point and scream bigot method of debate stifling goes on with those two communities...

People will believe anything...

Sometime this month the Mayan long count calender reaches the end of its long count. Some people believe this presages the end of the world as we know it and have stocked up on various canned and dried goods to outright purchase of survival centres. It's not particularly bothering me, people are entitled to believe what they want so long as they don't try to force their views on me (Yes government I'm looking at you here) nor expect me to pay for their foibles.
Telegraph.

Fears that the end of the world is nigh have spread across the world with only days until the end of the Mayan calendar, with doomsday-mongers predicting a cataclysmic end to the history of Earth.
Ahead of December 21, which marks the conclusion of the 5,125-year "Long Count" Mayan calendar, panic buying of candles and essentials has been reported in China and Russia, along with an explosion in sales of survival shelters in America. In France believers were preparing to converge on a mountain where they believe aliens will rescue them.
The precise manner of Armageddon remains vague, ranging from a catastrophic celestial collision between Earth and the mythical planet Nibiru, also known as Planet X, a disastrous crash with a comet, or the annihilation of civilisation by a giant solar storm.

Thing is there's always someone predicting the end of the world, the Jehovah's Witnesses had a handle on millennialism for decades before going very quiet about their history and the various spurious claims made by the leadership which somehow or other never came to pass and were wiped from the official record. Almost every religion has its end of the world 'myth' it's frequently used to keep its followers in line and not questioning why the priests need all those people to sacrifice or other odd bits of dogma which worked ok in the 7th century but clearly have no place today.
The internet itself has added to the panic as well as a couple of Hollywood films, it's very easy to reinforce your fears simply by googling, still that's freedom of choice for you, it allows you the freedom to be an idiot...
Thing is, what most of these people don't seem to get is the odd thing about calenders...
When you reach the end of one, you start another after December 31st comes January 1st. We should be celebrating a happy new long cycle calender...

Mayans themselves reject any notion that the world will end. Pedro Celestino Yac Noj, a Mayan sage, burned seeds and fruits to mark the end of the old calender at a ceremony in Cuba. He said: "The 21st is for giving thanks and gratitude and the 22nd welcomes the new cycle, a new dawn."

Says it all really.

Media madness

As the world goes on a twitter and MSM frenzy over two Australian DJ's, a hoax call and a dead nurse (why was she on switchboard duty anyway, don't we have proper jobs for them to do?) I suspect that a lot of bad news is being gratefully swept under the carpet government style as it was with the Savile case. There appear to have been a lot of good days to bury bad news recently. Not that this will come as any sort of comfort to the parents of Jacintha Saldanha who fell for the hoax and deserve some sympathy for their loss, but I do wonder how the hospital and the media + twitterati's pressure in keeping the case in the news led to her state of despair.
You see, it was a joke, yes a joke in bad taste, but still a joke, frankly I've heard of worse prank calls, listened to the odd few on local radio. But this one involved a 'royal' so we have massive media exposure and someone who made a mistake died as a consequence. However this is a godsend to the people pushing the Leveson recommendations to control the media ever more closely with draconian laws designed to keep the truth (along with other activities) away from the general public.
Mail.

New laws may be needed to ‘civilise the internet’, protect private lives and prevent ‘mob rule’, Lord Justice Leveson has suggested.
The judge, speaking in public for the first time since his 2,000-page report into the Press was published, launched a broadside against the prospect of people facing ‘trial by Twitter’.
Critics have suggested that the Leveson report’s recommendations risk shackling a shrinking print media while doing nothing to address a ‘Wild West’ online culture in which innocent people’s reputations are trashed every day.

I suppose the question that should be asked is who decides who is innocent? After all, such controls as posited by Leveson would also protect the guilty too. It's all about control, there have been any number of recent cases where the idiots of the ever repeating meme have fallen foul of those who believe silence is golden. What Leveson appears to be proposing though is some form of gossip regulation where speculation and rumour will be subject to ever tighter control. Anyone here willing to bet that any such legislation (and good luck trying to control the internet of the world) will immediately suffer from 'mission creep' after all, that's what happened with RIPA, indeed has happened with a few laws supposed to protect the rest of us from all sorts of dangers yet have been used to control us instead.
In the end, regulation will only be used to protect the 'guilty' not the innocent, it's how these people who legislate's mind work. They don't really care about the likes of Jacintha Saldanha, all they want to do is keep their foibles out of the public view. So they'll use the likes of the crass twitterati to justify their legislation, if it wasn't Jacintha Saldanha it would have been someone else eh Lord McAlpine?

Performance related...

Oh my, the teaching unions are up in arms over the possibility that their members might actually have to prove they are doing a good job... Or not.
Telegraph.

Ministers are facing a backlash over plans to introduce a system of performance-related pay in schools.
Classroom unions could propose fresh industrial action in an attempt to block moves to rip up existing national salary scales for teachers.
It was claimed that the proposal – outlined in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement – represented a “war on teachers” and would lead to “unfairness and discrimination” in staffrooms.
The two biggest teaching unions – the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT – will meet early next week to discuss the proposals, it has been confirmed.
Both unions are already taking part in joint work-to-rule action as part of a long-running protest over changes to pensions, public sector pay freezes and mounting workloads.
It is likely that a move towards performance-related pay will add to their list of grievances and could lead to an escalation of the action.

Whilst those of us who work in the private sector are no strangers to performance related pay it seems the public sector aren't, other than accepting bonuses for achieving it of course. Whilst I have a little sympathy for those teachers who run across the odd class full of unruly pupils, it does rather strike me as a good idea that the best and those who achieve the best ought to be paid more for doing so, it might after all cull the useless and feckless amongst the teachers if they find they cannot get a pay rise.
Then again having seen what schools will do to 'pss exams' rather than teach, perhaps we should simply go back to basics and restore the entire system from the ground up removing the dross subjects from the curriculum and simply teach kids stuff that will help them get jobs, rather than teach them about multiculturalism and sexual awareness.
Just having kids who can read, write and do maths would be a godsend to a great many employers out there after all...

 

 

Parish Notice

Owing to family issues mostly down to having to child mind a hyperactive two year old, blogging will be intermittent for the next few days as I'm quite exhausted...

Press regulation

Everyone over a certain age remembers Pravda the old Soviet state newspaper fondly remembered for what it didn't print ever, mostly criticism of socialist policies and politicians whilst telling everyone that things were great when to the ordinary man and woman in the street they obviously weren't. It was a classic example of state control of the media, something the left appear to love.
Something the left would love to implement today in the UK...
Mail.

Labour was last night accused of attempting to hijack a petition calling for new laws to shackle the Press.
The petition, launched by the father of Madeleine McCann last week, urges the three party leaders to implement every word of Lord Justice Leveson’s 2,000-page report on press standards.
Set up by the Hacked Off protest group, it has been widely portrayed as non-partisan campaign.

Hacked Off has never been non partisan, it's a protest group, that implies partisanship, particularly when they wish to control the press.

Labour leader Ed Miliband yesterday urged his 177,000 Twitter followers to sign the petition.
Mr Watson has been authorised to use Labour’s databases to email all party members telling them to back the petition.
In an extraordinary message, he told them to persuade family and friends to sign up as well, in the hope of forcing the Prime Minister to reverse his ‘betrayal’.

I don't like Cameron, never have, never will, however he did state clearly that he has grave reservation about using the law to enforce press regulation as (I believe) he at least understands what might happen if some political party gets into power (yes Labour we're looking at you) and proceeds to shackle the press to prevent 'bad news' from being published. After all we have the prime example of the Regulation of investigatory powers act (RIPA) which strayed so far from its original intent to monitor terrorism that it ended up being used to check on what people were putting in their dustbins and yes we have Labour to thank for that too.
Labour are clearly hoping to prevent any sort of criticism being levelled at their party for its ridiculous economic policies and awful social engineering, along no doubt multiculturalism and political correctness.
What they want is press censorship, not just of the MSM but even humble bloggers too.
It's what the left do, just remember Pravda every time Leveson is mentioned by someone supporting it.

Karmic balance...

Temperance, a strange sort of condition practiced by those who cannot cope with the effects of alcohol and meddling busybodies who wish to run our lives for us (for our own good, well that;'s what they say) it had its hay day in the declining days of the 19th century in this country, though hung on in the USA until it caused major issues with prohibition and the cycle of crime resulting from that madness.
Express.

THE owner of Britain’s last surviving Temperance bar has been banned from driving for 17 months after he admitted drink-driving.
Christopher Law, 52, owns the 122-year-old Fitzpatrick’s bar in Rawtenstall, Lancs, which has sold health remedies and non-alcoholic drinks such as sarsaparilla or dandelion and burdock since 1890.
Temperance bars originated in Lancashire in the late 19th century, opened by teetotal Methodists advocating abstinence from alcohol and often asking their patrons to sign a no-alcohol pledge.

Thing is, the temperance movement seems to have survived within the NHS and  the imaginary 'units' scheme someone plucked from thin air which decides whether you're a good or bad risk depending on which side of the line you're on. Doesn't matter that you're fit and healthy and have a greater tolerance for alcohol, nor that imbibing occasionally is good for you. No, if you drink, you're 'evil' and cost the NHS money, even when you don't.
I'm rapidly coming to the belief that only those who take out from the NHS in that they don't contribute to it via taxation should have to face any sort of questioning as to their lifestyle, the rest of us who do pay in ought to have the right to tell them to bugger off with the lifestyle questioning and just repair the damage. After all, whose money is it anyway?
What happens though is that these people never give up, even when proven time and time again that their guesses are just that, guesses. If they can find a way to interfere they'll grasp it with both hands and if necessary wrap their thighs around it too and simply will not let go no matter what. Not because they want to help, but because it means control, it justifies their petty existence and allows them to make someone's life a misery to boot.
In the end it's all about control and it won't stop until we put them up against the wall and shoot them.
Chances are though that will just clear the decks for the next generation of prodnoses.

'Might'

There are some jobs where getting it wrong does not have grave consequences, comedians and tv presenters etc. There are other jobs where getting it wrong does, firemen, police, armed forces etc. As a consequence we expect that those doing those jobs where getting it wrong have a higher commensurate reward and that mistakes are kept to a minimum. We accept that occasionally mistake will be made, however there are mistakes and mistakes...
Mail.

A 999 control room supervisor is facing gross misconduct proceedings after he told a woman 'you don’t need the police' shortly before she was raped.
The victim suffered a harrowing two-hour ordeal while her terrified children were listening in the next room.
She dialled 999 but abandoned the call after the 19-year-old attacker grabbed her around the throat. The operator heard a struggle and a man arguing.
Fifteen minutes later a supervisor called her back and asked a series of ‘closed’ ­questions before concluding: 'You don’t need the police.'
But the man could be heard whispering in the background forcing her to say everything was fine before hanging up and committing the rape in Southampton in February. He was later jailed for eight years.

That was not a mistake, that was incompetence, the report goes on to say that the supervisor 'might' lose his job. MIGHT?
Of course, silly me I wasn't thinking straight, after all this is a world where a psychopath in a police uniform can basically murder someone walking past and get away with it. A police force which can arrest 176 peaceful people on the suspicion they 'might' cause a crime.
So it clearly is a case that the supervisor 'might' be sacked, but judging from what has happened elsewhere, he 'might' even be promoted.