Hypocrisy

Whilst I can see the need for someone to be the conscience of a nation, I really do not think that at the moment the church is in a position to do such a thing. Too many scandals, too much support for unworthy causes and too much pandering to other religions does not help.
BBC.

Four churches have joined forces to accuse the government of welfare payment cuts they say are unjust and target society's most vulnerable.
The Easter criticism has come from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, and the Church of Scotland.
They also want to see a change to "a false picture" of the poor as "lazy".
The government said society suffered when people were paid more to be unemployed than to work.
A series of changes to benefits are being made in April - including capping rises on working-age benefits at 1% - which will affect hundreds of thousands of households across the UK.

Looks like a case of other people's money syndrome being played out on the BBC, though one can't help but wonder if it would have been a major headline if as i were the Labour Party facing such criticism. What is particularly galling is that those calling upon the government to give to those who do not contribute are multi billion pound organisations themselves.
The Church of England for instance holds investments in industrial estates, leisure parks, shopping centres, parking facilities in the city of London and European property. As an established religious organisation, the Various churches are also exempt paying VAT on the costs of maintaining their property, and therefore not contributing to the tax revenue required to run the country, yet they expect us to pay more.
The other three are not so wealthy yet they are clearly in breach of several biblical (New Testament) commands...

Matthew 19:21... Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

Matthew 6.1... Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of people in order to be noticed by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So whenever you give to the poor, do not blow a trumpet before you, like the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they will be praised by people. Truly I tell you, they have their full reward! But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be done in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6.5... And when you pray, you should not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. But you, when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and your Father which sees you in secret shall reward you openly.

Mark 6.7... And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.


In other words people in glass houses should not throw bricks. If you're going to criticise someone for not spending money on the poor, it's best not to do it from the position of a multi-billion pound organisation.
This is hypocrisy in the extreme, the church would do well to look at the teachings of its founder and not be gathering the fruits of Mammon to spend upon maintaining itself nor using the donations of its followers to keep 44 Bishops on a salary of circa £40,000 to £80,000 a year, who all live rent free in one of the Church’s lavish, historic, houses/palaces/castles.
Note, this isn't an attack on Christians or Christianity, but upon the organisations that have grown up to support themselves by their means. Until or unless Christians go back to basics and shed the bishops and the wealth accumulated then such criticism of the government for not helping the poor simply looks like posturing...

Marginalised

I did have a bit of a snigger at an ex arch druid of Canterbury's attack on David Cameron accusing him of feeding the fear of Christian persecution. This being the same guy who sat silent when Labour invited in all those militant islamists who really have it in for Christians (and pretty much everyone else)
BBC.

The former archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has accused David Cameron of making Christians feel marginalised.
He said it was a "bit rich" for the prime minister to tell religious leaders to oppose secularisation.
This follows comments made by the PM at a pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders.
A Downing Street spokesman rejected the criticism, saying Mr Cameron valued "the profound contribution" Christianity had made to UK life.
But Lord Carey wrote in the Daily Mail that the government seemed to be "aiding and abetting" aggressive secularisation.

One wonders why he kept so silent when Labour allowed a foreign creed to establish deep roots in the UK. Why he didn't speak out against shariah courts and grooming of young girls by islamists. Nor why he didn't speak out against Labours clearly hostile stance towards Christians with their secular attacks on bed and breakfast owners who refuse to allow gays into their establishment, people who wore crosses and registrars who were sacked owing to their Christian beliefs.
No, as ever he goes for an easy target rather than the party really responsible for taking Christianity to the edge in the UK.
That's always been the problem for the C of E, it was once known as the Tory party at prayer, but lately a series of ambitious left wing arch Bishops has driven the church itself further into the wilderness as it mistook social justice for actual Christian ethics.
The C of E only has itself to blame for the position it finds itself in, they sat and said nothing whilst Labour pulled the rug from underneath them, mostly because the previous two Bishops were Labour supporters rather than actual Christians.
You reap what you sow and for all Cameron is supporting Gay marriage, he wasn't the one who started the persecution...

Missing the point

Seems some of our MP's believe that a total ban on immigration 'should' be available to the government with regard to the EU. Which as an exercise in wishful thinking is a bit of a corker, you have to wonder if our MP's are really that stupid.
Telegraph.

Britain should be able to block immigration from other EU countries during the current period of high unemployment, according to a group of influential MPs.
In an article for The Telegraph, the joint chairmen of the cross party group on balanced migration, Frank Field, a former Labour minister, and Nicholas Soames, a former Conservative minister, say that David Cameron must do more to tackle “the elephant in the room” by restricting European immigration. The MPs, two of the most influential politicians in the immigration debate, suggest that draconian action should now be considered “during periods of high unemployment” — such as now — to protect low-skilled British workers struggling to compete with foreigners for jobs. One in five young British workers is currently unemployed, with about one million people aged 18 to 24 out of work. The MPs say that Britain is still facing an influx of people at an “unsustainable level” despite Coalition action to reduce immigration. They add that the expected wave of immigration from Bulgaria and Romania — which could lead to 50,000 people a year moving to this country from next year — means that the need to tackle the issue “could not be more stark.”

One wonders a just which bit of the supposed guarantee the free movement of people, (part of the EU's 'four freedoms - goods, capital, services, and people) they are struggling with. It does come to something when the EUsceptics actually know more about how the damned thing is supposed to work than the people who handed us over to the bloody thing in the first place.
And this is exactly what I said it was, an exercise in wishful thinking as the various treaties we have with the EU mean that we cannot block internal immigration, nor put extra tariffs on EU goods (minimum pricing) because 'gasp' it's against the rules!
The only way we can protect our borders and people from such immigration would be to leave the EU entirely.
Has this been suggested by the committee?
Hell no.
Just more bloody words and no deeds, typical politicians...

Inevitable

One of the more inevitable problems facing any sort of non Labour government is that sooner or later they have a major confrontation with the unions. Thatcher had it with the miners and now it rather looks like Cameron will face the teaching unions. The why of it is simple, the unions pay Labour's wages, Labour gives in to the unions (mostly) when in power, the unions themselves have a tendency to behave too as they wish to keep Labour in power. With the Tories, different rules apply...
Telegraph.

The row between Michael Gove and major classroom unions escalated today when the Education Secretary refused to bow to activists’ demands over pay and pensions.
In a move that makes school strike action almost inevitable, Mr Gove insisted that the Government’s stance on both fronts was “now fixed”. The comments were made after Britain’s two biggest teaching unions – the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT – threatened to stage a series of regional and national walk-outs unless the Government suspended controversial reforms to the profession. Mr Gove’s intervention promises to stoke tensions between the two sides on the eve of both unions’ annual conferences this weekend and paves the way for a series of strikes later this year. The NUT and NASUWT have been angered by the introduction of a new system of performance-related pay in English state schools combined with changes to teachers’ pensions.

In the private sector performance related pay is generally welcome, plus the ability to move from job to job until you find something to suit helps as well. With teaching though, it doesn't matter how good you are, you get exactly the same as the person who couldn't teach to save their life but the schools can't get rid of as they are the union rep/barely managing. In the private sector if your face doesn't fit, you go (Cruel but true enough) in the public sector if your face doesn't fit, chances are you're the union rep. The problem with the NUT/NASUWT is that the decisions they reach aren't generally that of the ordinary teacher in the classroom, the one who is worth a lot more than the union rep as they can actually teach and get the best out of the kids, rather than get paid by the school simply to go to meetings and stir things. Yes the problem with the teaching unions is as ever the left/socialists. The ones who believe that everyone should get more money whether they deserve it or not and who expect the bad along with the good should get top dollar.
In the make believe world of socialist economics, the money is always there because it grows on magic money trees. They never seem to realise just who tips up the cash to pay for their little sinecures and they don't realise the resentment that this causes, particularly when it's obvious that some of them aren't up to a reasonable standard and can't be got rid of easily.
Personally I think Gove should have gone the extra mile and made all teachers self employed and subject too fixed contracts. That would soon sort the wheat from the chaff, those who are worth keeping would be kept, others would have to up their game at the next school to employ them.
Yes I know unions have their place, but meddling in politics isn't one of them...

Told?

There's a marked difference between telling someone something and enforcing a decision. One assumes the maturity to act upon a request the other presumes that without a big heavy stick, such a request will fall upon deaf ears.
BBC.

The NHS will have a legal duty to be honest about mistakes as part of an overhaul of the system in the wake of the Stafford Hospital scandal.
The move is part of a package of measures in England to put patients at the heart of the NHS, ministers said.
There will also be a new ratings system for hospitals and care homes, while changes to nurse training will be piloted.
It comes after the public inquiry claimed patients had been "betrayed".
The harrowing neglect and abuse at the hospital between 2005 to 2008 which led to needless deaths has already been well documented.

Fine, they have a legal duty, now who is going to make them do it? Who is going to be responsible for inculating a culture of honesty rather than the one where everyone covers everyone else's arse? I rather suspect it's going to be the managerial staff whose target culture led to the scandal in the first place.
Yes, you can make it a criminal offence to cover up after a colleague, but it only becomes a criminal offence if the mistake is noticed, or that someone decides to act upon it.
The problem with the NHS... (Scratch that I could be here all week and not even make a dent in that)
One of the problems with the NHS is the culture of the staff. Frequently it's an us vs them attitude in which the staff working under pressure lose sight of who is supposed to be at the pointy end. Mistakes get made and instead of honest appraisals, the tendency is to either ignore, or cover up the error. After all, get it wrong and people sue, or get sued. Yes the injury lawyers r us culture that the last government set away has not helped, that factor is always going to be in the back of managers minds if or when they learn of mistakes, errors and malpractice.
Hospitals and health naturally became a target of choice for a lot of people in the something for nothing culture that we now appear to have. This led to an increasing culture within the NHS for covering up mistakes simply to avoid being sued, such a culture already being there to an extent in the struck off list of doctors who had to be some sort of mass murderer to even be summoned to an enquiry, never mind lose a job.
So, I don't believe that anything will change even with a new code of practice. The culture itself has to change, the same applies to the likes of the police, fire brigade and ambulance services to name but a few. How this could be achieved i do not know, but telling them won't work, it never has.

Talking bollocks

Cameron was banging on today about immigration, a subject he knows very little about judging by what he had to say. Mind you, he's only going off polls which say it's of concern to voters, he doesn't (and hasn't) had to live with the effects of it.
Telegraph.

A major crackdown by David Cameron on immigration was unravelling rapidly today after it emerged that it would only affect a small minority of foreigners in Britain.
Government figures showed that some of the measures unveiled by the Prime Minister at a speech in Ipswich were likely only to affect a small proportion of people from within the European Union who are living in the UK. Mr Cameron set out a series of measures in a major speech to cut down on people from within the European Union coming to Britain to use the health service, live in council houses or claim work-related benefits. Mr Cameron restated the aim of the Conservatives - but not the Coalition - of bringing net migration down to the tens of thousands by 2015, and said he wanted to ensure that those who do come to the UK are "the brightest and the best", who can contribute to the country's economy.

The problem is the EU, anything we do for our own populace has to be done for EU immigrants, they do the same for immigrants from us. However as their systems tend to be rudimentary (and cheaper) it means that UK immigrants usually find that private care is the only way to do things anyway.
As for the rest, well I'm afraid the damage is done, Labour have wrecked any chance of us putting things right with immigrants of an islamic nature unless we're prepared to go down the route of a civil war.
Immigration should only have been for skills we desperately wanted, not cheap labour. It should never have been open to third world nations unless they had something to offer in return (and I don't mean grooming young girls) Hindu Indians and the Chinese are examples of a successful immigrant group that should have been encouraged. Nothing wrong with Poles either, though they should not have been here to do the minimum wage stuff, problem being the minimum wage was still better than what they could get at home even for the better paid jobs. Thing is, they integrate, they blend in and make a difference, the mass immigration from the state of Pakistan and Bangladesh didn't, they refused to integrate and were allowed to ghettoise the areas they settled in eventually driving all others out.
Cameron can't stop this happening now as it's already happened.
The problem is here, already.

Human wrongs

Once again the utter imbecility of this countries signing up to the human rights act has come to the fore. What we have is a mass murderer living off taxpayers income who has been found guilty of crimes against humanity but we won't deport him back to face the results of his crimes.
Mail.

A war criminal who took part in attacks in which countless civilians were killed is living rent-free at taxpayers’ expense in a large house in the West Midlands.
Mohamed Salim, 27, claimed he was in a militia that ‘wiped out entire villages’ in his native Sudan.
But despite being found guilty of crimes against humanity last year, he was allowed to stay in Britain indefinitely under human rights law because sending him home might put his life in danger.
The former fighter in the Janjaweed militia, which killed around 300,000 people during the war in Darfur, is living off benefits in a semi-detached house surrounded by family homes on a tree-lined street in Handsworth, Birmingham.
He is given £160 a month of taxpayers’ money and spends his days watching football in nearby bars.
Despite claiming that he shot so many people dead in Darfur that he lost count, he is under minimal supervision and does not have to report to the police.
Salim voluntarily gave anonymous media interviews after arriving in Britain in 2006, boasting about burning and looting 30 villages where men, women and children were killed.
He said at the time: ‘Whenever we go into a village and find resistance we kill everyone. Sometimes they said “wipe out an entire village”. And we shoot to kill. Most were civilians.
'Most were women. Innocent people running out and being killed, including children. There are many rapes.’

And yet because of the HRA we cannot send him back because his life might be in danger.
They really cannot grasp the fact that most of us do not give a flying fuck what happens to him if we send him back, that's his problem, not ours. If either side want to take him out and shoot him or worse, then that isn't the problem of the UK, he wasn't born here and his crimes are self confessed.
This country is seen as a soft touch for anyone who has committed some atrocious crimes and fled the country they committed them in. Though only it appears if they are not white. We're overcrowded enough without taking in mass murderers from elsewhere. No doubt if it does look likely he will be asked to leave he'll claim the right to stay due to the fact that he has the right to a family life too. Not exactly hard to claim that, plenty of girls who are willing daft enough to get pregnant out there.
We are storing up a terrible harvest of grief for ourselves for when (or if) the people of this land finally decide to clear house, I do believe it's coming, but allowing people like Mohamed Salim to stay here only makes it harder in the long run as he'll definitely be on the other side, the one with the monsters...

An epic mistake?

Finally someone on the left gets it about immigration, though naturally couches it in terms that excuse their actions as a mistake rather than a deliberate malevolent act.
Mail. (Usual Caveats)

Among Left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberals like me, there has long been what you might call a ‘discrimination assumption’ when it comes to the highly charged issue of immigration.
Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice.
And that view — echoed in Whitehall, Westminster and town halls around the country — has been the prevailing ideology, setting the tone for the immigration debate.

It led to the point and scream method of debate.
Talk about immigration = point and scream racist.
Talk about non integration = point and scream bigot. 
Talk about anything the left are uncomfortable about = point and scream.

Over 18 months of touring the country to talk to people about their lives for a new book, I have discovered minority Britons thriving more than many liberals suppose possible. But I also saw the mess of division and conflict we have got ourselves into in other places.
I am now convinced that public opinion is right and Britain has had too much immigration too quickly.
For 30 years, the Left has blinded itself with sentiment about diversity. But we got it wrong.
I still believe that large-scale immigration has made Britain livelier and more dynamic than it would otherwise have been. I believe, too, that this country is significantly less racist than it once was.

Clearly he didn't talk to many in high immigrant areas otherwise he'd have discovered racism is alive and well, the only people less 'racist' are the majority white society. Nor did all the left blind itself with sentiments about diversity, many of them knew exactly what they were doing, the Frankfurt school agenda was very clear on this.

One of the liberal elite’s myths is that we are a ‘mongrel nation’ that has always experienced high inflows of outsiders. But this isn’t true. From 1066 until 1950, immigration was almost non-existent (excluding Ireland) — a quarter of a million at the most, mainly Huguenots and Jews.

The truth would have made no difference to you, point and scream, remember?

Much of this happened by accident. When the 1948 Nationality Act was passed — giving all citizens of the Empire and Commonwealth the right to live and work in Britain — it was not expected that the ordinary people of poor former colonies would arrive in their hundreds of thousands.
Nor was it expected after 1997 that a combination of quite small decisions would lead to 1.5 million East Europeans arriving, about half to settle. But come they did, and a net immigration of around four million foreign-born citizens since 1997 has produced easily the most dramatic demographic revolution in British history.

1948? Labour government? Explains a lot.
The east Europeans aren't really a problem other than their criminal gangs. A lot of them have settled and started marrying into the indigenous culture, same with Hindu Indians and the Chinese settlers, that an area that's more or less working out ok.

But it has also resulted in too many areas in which ethnic minorities lead almost segregated lives — notably in the northern ‘mill towns’ and other declining industrial regions, which in the Sixties and Seventies attracted one of the most clannish minorities of modern times, rural Kashmiri Pakistanis.

Strangely enough, it's the rural Kashmiri males who have now been arrested in their hundreds for the current grooming scandal, though the MSM seem more interested in Savile, can't think why.

The problem with mass immigration is that, without integration, it damages the internal solidarity of a country such as ours.

Something ordinary people said for years only to be faced with the point and scream method of debate.
No, mass uncontrolled immigration wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate and it isn't the liberal intelligentsia who paid the price, well not yet. But it's coming, hence the apologies now begin...

Pretty silly

How does a national litter picking campaign deal with the results of its findings?
Well it blames the companies who made the packaging, not the people who actually dropped it...
Mail.

Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Walkers crisps have been named and shamed for generating more litter than any other brands.
A national litter-picking exercise found the junk food giants’ packaging in parks, on beaches and on river and canal banks.
More than 37,000 pieces of rubbish were collected across the country. The bottles, wrappers and packets were then sorted by 500 volunteers.

I'm pretty sure the companies involved aren't feeling ashamed at all, after all, it wasn't them who were dumping the litter. if anything it shows just how well they control the market in these things.
Oddly enough most of the commenter's in the mail have spotted the bleeding obvious too. Though it would appear that the campaign is actually getting money from the named companies too, perhaps they might stop the funding? Who knows.
Litter is a problem, however naming and shaming companies simply because their products are popular hardly seems likely to get the results this campaign is aiming for. Biodegradable packaging and heavy fines for littering (enforced if caught) might balance things too. Though I believe the key in the end might just be education, but that hardly does anything about those throwing away their packaging at the moment.

Spring has sprung

Spring has sprung,

The grass is riz
I wonder where the warming is
Some say the planet's gettin hotter.
But the planet ain't doing what they think it ought'er.

Express.

BRITAIN is set for a white weekend after forecasters predicted up to 6 inches of snow to cover most parts of the UK.
Much of the country will be bombarded by blizzards and strong winds which will dash any early springtime plans.The Met Office has issued a severe weather warning for snow across many parts, with predictions of 10-15cm (4-6 inches) possible in the north Midlands, north east Wales and north west England.
High areas could see 20-40cm (8-16 inches) of snow fall and strong and even gale force winds could lead to blizzard conditions, as the miserable March continues.

All doggerel aside, global warming (the original and best!) is still being promoted by certain 'scientists' and the environmental movement ably supported by the hard of thinking political left. They still appear to believe that if they point and scream long enough and loud enough that people will quietly go freezing into the still windless night in their efforts to save the planet (and the 'scientists' and the environmental movement ably supported by the hard of thinking political left) Never has so much been invested into producing nothing other than higher energy bills and useless bird mincers blotting dotting the landscape on their massive concrete pedestals (concrete is really environmentally unfriendly, trust me I've worked with the stuff)
All that's left now that the jig is well and truly up is to apportion the blame. It won't be those at the top of course, nor the Monbiot's or the Gore's. Nor any politicians one would suspect. No it will be the likes of the enviroloons who took some (though not the majority) of the money and howled at the moon that the planet was going to turn into a desert with whole countries swallowed up by the rising seas.
A pity really, I still believe we should hang them all, from top to bottom.

Sign here please...

Guido has a petition going to tell the Levesonites to go and take a flying one when it comes to censorship. If you value the freedom to read the opinions of bloggers (speculative or not) then the government needs to keep its hands off those of us who choose to air our opinions on current news.

Link...

Bit intrusive

Frankly the powers that be in the UK are far too intrusive in areas that really should be none of their business, in fact most of what they want to know is pretty much none of their business. My good lady uses the phrase as wanting to know the ins and outs of a ducks bottom (we have grandchildren it's affected our speech patterns) Still Birmingham council are really taking the mickey over this one...
Mail. (Usual caveats)

Town hall officials have quizzed residents about their sexuality – in a survey on wheelie bins.
The questionnaire, sent by Birmingham council to thousands of homes, posed a number of mundane questions relating to recycling reward schemes, the sizes of bins and whether respective properties had adequate space to store them.
But it had a bizarre sting in the tail. One of the questions in the ‘about you’ section asked: ‘Which of the following most accurately describes your sexual orientation?’
The options available were ‘bisexual, gay man, gay woman/lesbian, heterosexual/straight, other, or prefer not to say’.
The question has not gone down well with the citizens of Birmingham. One of them, Dave Dixon, 34, who was emailed the questionnaire, said: ‘It does not ask if residents want such bins but is very interested in their sexual orientation. Are we going to have different coloured bins dependent on one’s orientation?’

That they believe it somehow helps them to know if they've got the balance right cities ethnic/make-up simply tells you that they have far too much time and money on their hands and that really the people who come up with this sort of thing ought to be sacked and/or banned from ever holding public office or working in public services ever again. It's the only way they'll ever learn to leave us alone, pour encourager les autres as the saying goes.
Some of the stuff they want to know really isn't any of their business, particularly when it comes to skin colour/nationality, religion or sexual orientation.
Still the cartoon made me smile...

Not going to happen

I suppose it was inevitable, an Argie Pope is visited by the head honcho of the (failing leftist) Argie regime in an attempt to try and get the British to ignore a referendum in which out of the thousand votes cast only three wanted to be part of Argentina.
BBC.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK.
Visiting the Vatican, Ms Fernandez said she had asked the Pope to promote dialogue between the two sides.
Argentine Pope Francis was elected last week and will be formally installed as pontiff at a Mass on Tuesday.
In the past he has said the Falkland Islands, a UK overseas territory, belong to Argentina.
Before Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected, the 76-year-old was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Relations between him, Ms Fernandez, and her late husband and predecessor as president, Nestor Kirchner, were tense.

One wonder just which bit of the 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum, on a turnout of more than 90%, in which 1,513 were in favour of remaining British, while just 3 votes were against, the damned woman is struggling with? No wonder their economy is going tits up if she has problems understanding basic maths.
But no, ever a one to try and 'use' a figure of power Kirchner is up to her old tricks in trying to divert attention  away from domestic problems. So quicker than you can say General Galtieri she's off to Rome to politic with a Pope who oddly enough despised her and her husband, despite being some sort of Argentinian nutter who believes an island 351 miles from Argentina (way outside the 200 mile coastal limit) belongs to a country who never owned it in the first place. One could even point out the delicious irony that Argentinians themselves have displaced the native populace in Argentina whereas the Falklander's have done no such thing. The other thing about claiming proximity is that it could set off all sorts of spurious claims, after all, the USA has invaded Cuba a few times and is only 80 miles away from it and so could claim some sort of 'ownership' too.

"We want a dialogue and that's why we asked the pope to intervene so that the dialogue is successful."

No, what you want is your own way, you simply cannot accept any other decision other than the Falklands being handed back to you, that's not dialogue that's a demand. Well we know how you view the wishes of the people, lets see just how the Pope sees the wishes of the people.

Parish Notice

(Another) New job starts tomorrow and I have no idea how the shift pattern will affect my blogging.
Hopefully it will all work out as there's still a lot of stuff out there that that interests, annoys and makes me angry at times.

Out thought, out fought and out played

Well the England grand Slam dream crashed and burned yesterday as Wales totally dominated the match to run away at 30 : 3.
It was a match where the Welsh showed that passion combined with experience is a very potent mix as they completely destroyed the England side in all aspects of the game. They also 'gamed' the referee beautifully over the scrum decisions and left England with an awful lot of questions to answer.
In the end I believe England will learn from this, that they will come back and that this is a lesson they badly needed in what it's like to play in a partisan atmosphere with a team carried on a wave of enthusiasm. They failed to close down the Welsh attack and their own initiatives looked clumsy and predictable. Gone were the last few matches of brilliant, competent defence as the Welsh were able to punch through with ease particularly in the second half.
Was there anything England could have done to turn things around?
Well they could have changed things around in the rucks and mauls when it became obvious that the Welsh had their lack of numbers sussed and were getting their in strength to keep the ball moving forward in a straight line. A little more disciple in the line outs (again we lost far too many)  and a lot more savvy in the scrum. Still that's what coaches are for and experience will bring. So long as the lessons really are learned...

Misleading

One of the most misleading words used by politicians and the MSM is the word 'could' as it's often used in a manner that many believe it to be 'will'
Mail.

A criminal offence could be created to punish doctors and health chiefs who manipulate hospital statistics, it emerged last night.
Jeremy Hunt is expected to announce the measure as part of an effort to reform NHS management in the wake of the Mid Staffordshire scandal.
Last night the Health Secretary said: ‘This is about a transparent, honest and accountable NHS.
‘Patients and the public should be confident they can trust information about how hospitals are performing and a culture of honesty and accuracy will help those organisations drive up standard of care.
‘If NHS trusts are caught deliberately manipulating that information, whether waiting times or death rates, they need to be held to account.’If approved, the move will mean trusts could be fined millions and managers jailed if they are found to have falsified data on waiting times or death rates.

For one thing fining a trust just means that the cost of a fine has to be found from the funding they get, so services will suffer, not the people generally who are to blame, just those in the frontline.
As for jailing them, good idea in principle, but I think we all know that this is unlikely as those in the system tend to look after and cover up after their own. We may get the odd bureaucrat thrown to the wolves, but it's unlikely to be the chief executive. Nor is it likely to change the way the system is played where increasing the budget inevitably means keeping the bureaucracy well paid whilst cutting costs to cleaning, nursing, drugs etc... basically anything not to do with the system itself. To an executive or management a surgeon is a cost, they are 'essential' they are 'needed' they keep things running and everyone else simply costs far more than they are worth.
It's probably time to scrap the NHS and build something fit for purpose from the ground up. That it will never happen is because the people here are so deluded that they think it's a good thing and free.
Anyone who has had treatment elsewhere though knows just how bad the NHS is.

The x factor

The BBC are telling us that owing to the rise in the birth rate in the UK a quarter of a million new school places will be needed by September 2014. The BBC coyly doesn't mention just where the high birthrates are coming from...
One cannot think why...
BBC.

A quarter of a million extra school places will be needed in England by autumn 2014 to meet rising demand, the National Audit Office (NAO) is warning.
The spending watchdog said one in five primary schools in England was full or near capacity and there were signs of "real strain" on places.
The demand for places has been driven by the birth rate rising more quickly than at any time since the 1950s.
Ministers say 80,000 extra places have been created and demand will be met.
Schools minister David Laws said the government was "reversing completely idiotic policies" followed under Labour that had seen 200,000 school places cut.
Labour has denied the claim and accuses the coalition of creating a "crisis".

Bit disingenuous of Labour as they're the ones who actually created the crisis, not the government as most of the rise is due to the number of immigrants having babies has doubled since 2001, largely driven by an influx of Polish, Pakistani and Indian mothers.

This has been the main reason behind an increase in the overall UK birth rate to its highest level in decades, with 800,000 births in 2011, compared with 670,000 in 2001.Take a wild stab in the dark as to which party was in power during those years...
Yes, Labours policy of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and the Indian sub-continent is now coming home to roost as the influx now makes itself felt in areas other than housing and jobs. Yet strangely the BBC fail to mention immigration or just who was in charge during the time the influx happened. Not that the coagulation have done much to cut the numbers, they talk a good game, but talk is cheap.
One could almost come to the conclusion that the BBC might have an institutional bias towards Labour, but that would be silly wouldn't it? You'll be telling me that they're stuffing the Question Time audience with Labour Activists next to try and get at anyone not toeing the BBC/Labour line...
Oh...

The 'Jewish' conspiracy.

I'm sure we've all heard of the so called Jewish conspiracy so beloved of muslims and the left as well as the hard of thinking worldwide. Occasionally it's called Zionism, but at heart it's all about a group of people following a minor religion that somehow or other secretly controls the world. When I say 'secretly' I mean of course to everyone but muslims and the left as well as the hard of thinking worldwide. Apparently they run all the media, control all the worlds finances and they influence politicians as well as other powers that be. Oh don't be fooled by the lefts claims that somehow or other it's a right wing thing to hate Jews, it isn't, Nazism and fascism are not and never have been right wing creeds or politics.
Telegraph.

Labour has suspended a peer who is alleged to have blamed a Jewish conspiracy for the imprisonment he received over a fatal motorway crash. The Times has reported that Lord Ahmed, a Labour life peer, claimed that he received his prison sentenced because of pressure on the courts from Jews “who own newspapers and TV channels". Lord Ahmed, who in 1998 became the first Muslim life peer, is said to have claimed that the conspiracy was a result of his support for the Palestinians in Gaza. He is said to have made the comments in a TV interview in April last year while on a visit to Pakistan. Labour today suspended the peer "pending an investigation". 

Remember this is the muslim peer who mowed down a man in a parked car after using his mobile phone to send or receive texts. Anyone else would probably have gotten more than 16 days, but such is the (imaginary) sense of victimisation and grievance felt by muslims everywhere Lord Ahmed has convinced himself that he somehow is at the centre of a plot to shut him up or get rid of him. This is despite the fact that he's doing a pretty good job of it all by himself.
Still, well done the Labour party for stepping in to suspend the idiot, something the Lib Dems could take tips over David Ward who is also convinced that somehow or other the Jews are responsible for all that ails the world.
Does it not strike anyone else as odd that 19 or so million Jews cause so much fantasy phobia in the minds of so many? After all, there are 1.5 billion muslims worldwide who are actually a bigger nuisance backed in many cases by some of the richest countries on Earth (the Arab oil states). When was the last time you heard of a Jew setting off a bomb on a train or bus, flying a plane into a tall building, murdering tourists at a disco? Oh sure I've heard all the fairy stories about Gaza, most of which prove entirely false when scrutinised and I laugh at the assertions of Israel being an apartheid state (I've been to South Africa, now that was real apartheid)
Still, it's what Goebbels called the big lie, keep it loud, keep it going and soon enough 'everyone' knows it's true.
That in a nutshell is the real 'Jewish conspiracy' the one where they are said to be the problem as opposed to being the victim.

I`ll sthrceam and sthrceam till I`m thsick and I can too!

As intoned Violet Elizabeth Bott in the Just William novels when she couldn't get her own way. As do the so called health campaigners (aka killjoys) who believe that the UK government should ignore EU rules and voter preference on minimum alcohol pricing.
BBC.

Health campaigners have reacted angrily to reports that plans for minimum pricing of alcohol in England and Wales may be dropped.
Splits within the Conservatives have also emerged, with ministers who are said to no longer back the plans accused of "political manoeuvring".
The government had planned to introduce a 45p charge per unit, but this is said to be facing strong cabinet opposition.
The Home Office said it was considering responses to its 10-week consultation.

Political reality getting in the way of those who believe we should do as we are told and shut up in the process of being reamed.

Labour said dropping the plans would be a "humiliating climbdown" and accused the government of "weak leadership".

Because Labour have never met a repressive intrusive measure they didn't like.
If it is dropped it's good news for the majority of us who do drink responsibly and don't cause problems. It's also a poke in the eye for the authoritarian bansturbationists who believe that what they believe is good for us needs to be enforced by law and cost. These generally are the people who can easily afford to pay the extra, rather than those who can't but enjoy an occasional drink anyway to take their minds off what the health campaigners are up too now.
Most of us just want to be left alone, we don't like being badgered and hectored by people who don't live as we do and don't have to put up with the shit we have too. We don't like the government interfering in our lives and if pushed too far will vote them out for anyone who will reverse the change. We are also very aware that the government funds a lot of these so called  health campaigners from public funds to tell the government what they want to hear so they can tax us on it. Same process goes on with the environmental lobby too.
They keep pushing and pushing then wonder why people become divorced from the political process, sooner or later they'll keep pushing and we'll push back, though I don't think we've reached that stage yet. I don't think it will be drink either, more likely immigration.
Politicians would be much more popular if they learned the art of doing nothing and leaving us the hell alone.

One nation, one language

It has always struck me as odd and costly that local councils, public services and national government bureaus translate documents into various different languages for the people who live here in England (Scotland and Wales, different rules apply) Seems I'm not the only one who thinks this, though i suspect eric Pickles will find himself ignored by local government, it seems to be a habit of theirs.
Telegraph.

Councils must stop spending tens of millions of pounds pointlessly translating leaflets and documents into foreign languages, Eric Pickles has said.
The Communities and Local Government secretary said translating documents was a “very expensive and poor use of taxpayers’ money”. Mr Pickles told MPs in the House of Commons he was concerned that the costs were being driven by human rights and equality laws and actually served to divide communities rather than unite them. Independent figures show that local authorities spend nearly £20million a year translating documents into a variety of different languages. Mr Pickles issued a Written Ministerial Statement urging councils to stop spending the money on the translation services. The statement replaced existing guidance on translation services, issued by former Communities secretary Hazel Blears in December 2007. Mr Pickles said: “Some local authorities translate a range of documents and other materials into languages spoken by their residents, and provide interpretation services.
“Whilst there may be rare occasions in which this is entirely necessary – for instance in emergency situations.
“I am concerned that such services are in many cases being provided unnecessarily because of a misinterpretation of equality or human rights legislation.”

Ah yes, it's a human right innit.
Thing is if you live in England you should at least make the effort to speak English and we should be like France where if you want something from the state local or national you do it in French, or you get an interpreter at your own expense.
And that's the rub isn't it, translation services don't come at the expense of those who need them, they come from the pockets of the taxpayer both local and national. To me (and probably you) it's quite simple, to those in charge and have budgets to maintain it's a necessity, though they'll never convince anyone other than their own feckless types that it is.
What we have are ghettoised areas where instead of having to integrate, the state has made it unnecessary for them. So naturally they don't, after all if we went to a foreign country to settle and they insisted in dealing with us in English we'd never integrate, we'd have no reason too.
Translation services should only be provided by the state in the case of an emergency. All others, you want it in Urdu, Gujarati, Polska, Arabic, you pay for it yourself.
Simple really.

 

Viva Italia!

Well if England ever needed proof that there are no easy games in international Rugby nor that they are destined to win at the Millennium Stadium Cardiff because they beat the team that beat Wales previously then yesterdays match hopefully will have knocked that out of them. That's not to say England were awful, they weren't, they produced some very good play at times, though looked terribly flat in their lines and lacked ruthlessness at critical moments. A series of unforced errors in kicking and a lack of discipline in tackling and marking didn't help either as they allowed Italy to dominate play at various times. Indeed the only try of the match came from Italy, all England's points came from penalties harking back to the days of Johnny Wilkinson and the grinding tactics of the past.
Even so, as I alluded too, this may have been a good thing for England giving them pause for thought and improvement. It may (though this is more unlikely) make Wales more complacent at Cardiff as they will look at England's performance and think 'well they can be beaten easily'
That said, the England starting line up will not be the one that walked out against Italy and I think that this is the year of an English Grand Slam. I just hope yesterdays poor performance will have knocked the arrogance out of England, because if they go into Cardiff with the belief that they can beat anyone, they'll lose and probably lose badly.

Not really a punishment

There's a hospital trust near me who is about to get a massive fine for exceeding its C.difficile quota which has always struck me as a bit weird as surely there should be no quota at all for such infections. The problem of course is the fine, who is going to pay for it and where is the money coming from?
BBC.

An NHS trust in Kent is to be fined at least £1.5m after missing its target for controlling the gut infection Clostridium difficile.
Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust was set a yearly limit of 49 cases of the diarrhoea-inducing infection up to the end of March.
With three weeks to go, 52 cases of the superbug have already been recorded.
The trust runs hospitals at Pembury and Maidstone and said it was disappointed to have exceeded its target.

I may be wrong, but the only way I can see a trust paying such a fine is by reducing its services (closing wards and reducing staff) or looking at other areas of its budget which might increase the chances of more infections taking hold. There's also the feeling that any fine will simply hit the people using the NHS trust and not those who are actually responsible.
Perhaps a clause put into the contract of senior management responsible for maintaining standards could be put in place saying that if they exceed their 'quotas' they get sacked or fined themselves with a sacking meaning they can no longer (ever) hold a post in public services.
It does strike me as a bit harsh, but on the otherhand if they realise that there will be direct consequences to themselves perhaps they'll make damned sure that the people they supervise are doing their jobs properly.

At least 90 patients died at Maidstone Hospital between 2004 and 2006 in a C.difficile outbreak.

Remember that the chief executive of the NHS trust, Rose Gibb, left her post by 'mutual agreement' prior to publication of the investigation's findings into this incident. And that controversy arose when the Department of Health subsequently blocked a £175,000 severance payment to Ms Gibb after a public outcry. However following a protracted legal wrangle, the High Court upheld the Department of Health's decision and denied the payment.This decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal which re-awarded the payment. So there are no consequences at all for those responsible ultimately for killing people off due to neglect in the NHS.
There's too much of a culture of blame avoidance and not enough taking responsibility in public services, this needs to change, starting with a contractual severance clause with extreme prejudice if you get it wrong in a manner causing unnecessary deaths.
It's the only way they'll learn.

It's still our money, not yours!

Foreign aid under the Tories has always been an unfunny joke, especially as it was ringfenced to increase when some other budgets were cut. Most suspect that it was to avoid accusations of being the 'nasty' party, though God alone knows Labour and its socialist roots have caused far more misery to millions in the UK than the Tories have ever done.
Mail. (Usual caveats)

Foreign aid is to be diverted through British companies to prevent it falling into the hands of corrupt and wasteful regimes.
Firms will use the money to win infrastructure contracts and boost struggling economies in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
The radical move, to be announced by International Development Secretary Justine Greening next week, is being seen as a victory for common sense in the bitter controversy over the £11billion international development budget, which has been ringfenced while other departments face cuts.
It follows years of criticism that the nation’s ballooning aid budget is being squandered by Third World governments on ineffective projects, or lining the pockets of corrupt officials.
Prime Minister David Cameron was said to be ‘hugely enthusiastic’ about the shift of emphasis from simply fighting poverty with handouts to economic development.
In future, a significant portion of the aid budget – adding up to billions over the years – will be used to secure contracts for British firms to build roads, railways and key buildings such as schools and hospitals.

Thing is, there's only the hint of 'a significant portion' of the aid budget going into bribes to get UK firms to build stuff. Where's the rest of it going? And why is my/our money still going to line the pockets of kleptocracies worldwide and not being spent to pay off Labours years of ruinous debt?
Charity in hard times has to begin at home and giving our money away without it being of benefit to us is not something we should be doing. It's ok if it's voluntary, but taxation and government spending isn't they refuse to let us have a say other than at elections, yet wonder why they become increasingly unpopular when they do things like this.
Add to this the billions we give to French farmers via the Common Agricultural Policy and other EU boondoggles and it adds up to quite a bit of our money goes to some very unworthy causes.
It would be so good to just get one party into Parliament who would just say ENOUGH!

I wouldn't hold your breath though.

Not a surprise to me

I doubt it will be a surprise to anyone reading this blog either, though perhaps the odd few who come along to check just what the 'opposition' is thinking might. I have been saying here and on many different blogs and MSM outlets where comments are allowed that the EDL are not what most people think they are and that the media narrative was (and is) to paint them as football hooligans and violent racists. This is despite the evidence that most of the violence at an EDL demo comes from those who oppose them.
Telegraph.

Half the supporters of the far right English Defence League (EDL) are respectable managers and white collar workers, a report has revealed.

Usual prénom of far right tagged in there despite no evidence at all of the EDL being far anything.

The study found the image of young unemployed people alienated by tough economic times and turning to the anti-Muslim and anti-immigration group was a myth.
In fact half of sympathizers are in full time work, almost one in five is university educated and more than two thirds own their own home.
The report, by the think tank Chatham House, warns ministers and those combating extremism need to reassess who they target.
Its author, Dr Matthew Goodwin, also warns that the EDL is part of a new breed of far right extremism that is more “confrontational and unpredictable” and more likely to support violence on the streets.

The only people promoting violence on the streets are the left and occasionally islamic groups, but as the report was comprised by the left leaning 'Common Purpose' it's not too surprising that it is filled with their current buzzwords and designed to make the EDL appear to be the aggressors. Still it must have stuck in their craw to realise that half (at least) of the EDL support comes from people they did not think to be radicalised (their term not mine) As for supporting violence, well the EDL have never set off bombs on trains and buses, nor attempted to bring a pipe bomb to a demo. The EDL have never rioted in central London and indeed were castigated for attempting to defend their homes when other communities were praised. It wasn't the EDL who throw fire extinguishers off rooftops, nor do they burn poppies. Amazingly enough most of us pay our way and do not rely on the benefits system. Though you could never convince a leftard of that or get it mentioned in the MSM who were convinced the narrative of those who opposed the EDL had to be true despite coming from some very dodgy characters (google swp/uaf and rape)

Groups like the EDL also shun images such as “racial supremacism” and actively sought to recruit people from Jewish, Sikh, Pakistani, Christian and gay communities, the report said.

Very 'far right' indeed, doesn't fit with the racist narrative at all does it? Though the public who have come into contact with the EDL are aware that they aren't all white skinheads. I predict the next buzzword from the left will be xenophobic, more in the hope that no one will actually know what it means, but it sounds better than racist which the EDL clearly are not.

They “appear united by the expectation that the country will soon descend into communal violence and are more likely than their fellow citizens to view violence as a justifiable course of action to counter ‘extremists’”.

And whose fault is that?
Who invited the problem in and who defends them despite the clear evidence that they hate us and abuse us?
Clue... It isn't the EDL.

Scaremongering

The government have accused Labour of scaremongering over the so called bedroom tax, I say so called as it isn't actually a tax, more a clawback of benefits to do with under occupancy (as the government see it)
Problem being, Labour don't actually have to do much in the way of scaremongering as anyone who has come into contact with the benefits system will tell you...
Telegraph.

The Work and Pensions Secretary has attacked Labour for scaremongering with claims of a new “bedroom tax” on social housing tenants. Under Government welfare reforms that will take effect in April, tenants in council houses and social housing will have their housing benefit reduced if they have empty rooms in their homes. Ministers say the “under occupancy penalty” is intended to ensure that the best use is made of social housing and reduce the housing benefit bill, currently more than £20 billion a year.
The DWP estimates that the change will save taxpayers £480 million a year and affect around 600,000 people. The average loss for a single empty bedroom will be £14 per week, the department says.

Thing is, it doesn't just affect those in social housing, it affects anyone paying rent or receiving council tax benefits including those who own their own property yet have become unemployed. As for the average loss, well that's just an average, the clawback will be 14% for a single room and 25% for two or more. The government hope it will make people consider downgrading into properties with fewer rooms thus freeing up under occupied houses for those with families where there's a shortage. It's one of the consequences of mass immigration and the selling off of social housing in the Thatcher years without building anything to replace the sold off stock. What it means is there are simply not enough houses to go around, well houses for growing families that is. So what will happen is that anyone who hasn't got enough income will be forced to move out to something smaller, possibly to somewhere they don't want to be and the place they considered their home (not just a house) that they've cared for will go to someone else, possibly more deserving, possibly not.
I can't think of a better plan to lose votes assuming those losing their homes choose to vote, other than forced evictions that is.
Thing is, for all Labour are making a fuss over this can anyone see them rescinding it? I have my doubts as whatever comes in tends to remain, it just gets replaced, not axed.
What we need is to stop mass immigration and start a program of social housing building. Sadly that's not going to happen, well, not any time soon, the government would far rather waste our money on foreign aid, foreign wars, subsidising bird mincers and keeping ministers and civil servants in gold plated pensions.
It strikes me that who ever gets in, they all have their priorities totally wrong. We need a better system of checks and balances (referism) to stop governments both national and local from simply wasting taxpayers money and we need it to force them to do what we want them to do rather than the idiocy that is party policy and dogma.
Politicians are meant to represent us, not their party and not some failed economic or social dogma.
Until that happens, this is what we end up with, attempted savings in all the wrong areas...

I can see a possible flaw in this one...

Volvo have apparently come up with a radar gadget that can apply the brakes if you approach a cyclist (or pedestrian) too closely. This is supposedly a last resort after the car lights up light a Christmas tree inside and sounds an aggravating buzzer to get a drivers attention. They claim it will save lives...
Mail.

Volvo has launched a revolutionary safety device that scans for cyclists and automatically brakes if a collision is imminent.
The Swedish car firm says the camera and radar-guided technology, which is being introduced into cars from May, could save hundreds of lives.
The system comprises a radar scanner in the grille, a camera fitted in front of the rear-view mirror, and an onboard computer. It allows the car to identify cyclists who swerve into its path and reacts by slamming on the brakes.

Can anyone imagine the insurance fiasco that will erupt when someone blames the automatic braking system for a tail end smash? Or a claim that said they were distracted by "a loud audible warning and a visible warning of a row of red lights flashing up on the windscreen?" Modern cars are actually a lot safer for drivers as well as pedestrians and cyclists as they contain many features designed to crumple and absorb impacts as well as smoothed surfaces. What they can't do is account for a pedestrian or cyclist doing something stupid and I suspect this device may just cause more problems than it purports to resolve. It's pointless having the car brake to avoid the cyclist in front if a cyclist behind runs into you nor would I expect any distractions flashing up on the windscreen be anything other than a serious distraction for the driver. they may actually be illegal.
Still I do wonder if this is the first step in nanny statism for drivers to be removed from the process of actually doing any driving at all. Self steering? Sat Nav auto drive? Just sit in the back and let the machine do it all for you...
Why is life becoming so terribly joyless?

Goosestepping into tyranny

The so called guardians of our society railroaded legislation through last night removing a key element to the justice system namely that of open trial.
Ignoring the utter scandal of the family courts which have been kidnapping children for a generation now, the authoritarian bastards in parliament appear to have taken that template as the basis for further removals of our liberties.
Mail.

Plans for secret courts were railroaded through the House of Commons last night despite angry opposition from all sides.
The move to hear cases judged to involve national security behind closed doors saw ministers accused of sacrificing British values and traditions.
Senior Conservatives – including Treasury committee chairman Andrew Tyrie and former leadership contender David Davis – led protests in last night’s debate of the final stages of the Justice and Security Bill.
Cabinet veteran Kenneth Clarke admitted he did not know how many closed hearings would be ordered under the legislation he has championed.
Mr Tyrie warned the Government was undermining ‘legal safeguards which we’ve had for generations’, adding: ‘These amendments may look technical but they are really about the kind of society we want to live in.
‘They are about whether people can get to hear the case that has been made against them… and above all they are about what values we are seeking as a country to espouse and export.’
Mr Davis suggested at least 15 cases a year would be held in secret, warning: ‘We have to live up to standards of accountability. That means open justice.’

You can pretty much guess as to what might be considered national security, though as for hearing about any trials involving it, well the bastards have made sure that you never will know. it means you may not even appeal to the public for support as that would be contempt of court.
Judgement should be open to scrutiny, you may not like the way a case has been presented, you may believe an injustice has been done, but at least you'll know and can protest. Now in certain trials you never will, people may end up in prison and no one will know why outside a small group, even then they won't be able to appeal for further witnesses as that would be contempt too.
This bill should never have been passed and all credit to those who tried to stop it. as for the rest, well I do hope that you'll get yours one day you utter bastards. But rest assured it won't be in a secret trial, I'd want the world to know exactly what you were and what you did.

Fracking idiots

Yes, we're talking about Greenpeace the enviroloons who believe that people should freeze to death in silence when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine and who have taken upon themselves to build an artificial fracking rig on a village green outside George Osborne's constituency offices.
BBC.

Greenpeace campaigners have erected mock drilling rigs on a village green outside George Osborne's constituency office in protest at fracking.
The group has climbed on to the first floor balcony of the Conservative MPs Tatton office in Cheshire, and renamed it the headquarters of "Frack & Go".
They said a new poll found the majority of the chancellor's constituents oppose shale gas extraction.
Tatton has been earmarked as a potential area for drilling.

Definitely smaller than a birdmincer

Apart from being smaller than a bloody bird mincer I can't imagine for one second that village greens the country over are going to have fracking rigs set upon them. We also know just how Greenpeace come up with their market research too. They either lie or they get the pollster (ComRes) to load the question to give them the answer they want, something along the lines of...
"Do you want a massive industrial fracking rig which also acts as a gateway to hell built in your back garden?" "Or do you want clean green energy from alternative sources?"
Exaggerated for effect of course but only slightly one suspects as we know how the enviroloon mindset works. They are so determined to bring about a new dark ages with us proles ruled over by an (environmentally friendly) elite with a massive die off in population because there's far too many of us and only the enviroloons deserve to live.
sadly they are being manipulated by the politicians for their own purposes, one of which is to make money via shares in birdmincer producers, the other is to use any scam to make money and if anyone's going to survive, it will be the politicians and not the environmentalists as they'll be dropped like a hot turd as soon as they become too inconvenient (I give it five years perhaps less if the lights start going out)
So all Greenpeace are doing is annoying people, by building something which wouldn't be in that place at all. It's certainly not as ugly or as expensive as a birdmincer and gives us cheap energy.
I can't really see what their point was/is.
The fact that there have been recorded earthquakes in areas suitable for fracking way before fracking was even tested seems to have escaped their attention too (or perhaps simply ignored)
Then again I can't really see the point of politicians either.

When an innocent picture can go horribly wrong

Sometimes words just aren't enough

She'll not live this one down easily

Promises, promises, always promises...

Here we go again, Theresa May the Home secretary is 'threatening' to take us out of the European Court of Human Rights. Just not right now and with no indication as to whether she can actually do it or find the necessary support in Parliament to actually withdraw.
Mail.

Britain is set to pull out of the discredited European Convention on Human Rights that has allowed dangerous criminals and hate preachers to remain in the UK.
It marks a triumph for The Mail on Sunday’s campaign against the ludicrous abuses of justice carried out in the name of human rights.
The historic move, to be announced soon by Home Secretary Theresa May, would mean foreign courts could no longer meddle in British justice.
The European Convention has led to such hugely controversial decisions as banning the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada and giving British prisoners the right to vote.
Mrs May’s bold proposals to include the move in the next Tory Election manifesto reflect the party’s growing hostility towards Europe. If enacted, her policy would leave British judges free to interpret the law without interference from the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Mrs May wants to withdraw from the convention before the next Election in 2015, but Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a keen pro-European, has made it clear he will veto the initiative.
As a result, it is set to be a manifesto promise to be put into action if David Cameron wins an overall majority. Together with the Prime Minister’s vow to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, it will give the Tory manifesto a strong anti-European theme to combat the increasing appeal of UKIP.

Yes, the boy Clegg and his anti-UK party do not want us to leave the ECHR, nor I suspect do the (We've never met a terrorist we don't like) Labour Party who dropped us in it signed up to the damned thing in the first place. So what we have is a party looking likely to lose the next general election making rash promise to do something they are unlikely to be able to do anyway. Not that the Tories are responsible for the mess we are in, the blame foe that lies squarely at the feet of Labour who put the country in hock for the next few generations because they've never learned how to actually balance a budget and believe in the magic money tree of economics where loans can be taken out and the tax payer can be fleeced to pay for them ad infinitum.
No, what we have are signs of panic in the Tories who have realised just what ordinary people are thinking and that they don't have a set of policies to match. They are not being helped by their idiot leader who believes the centre ground rather than what people want is the place to be. Besides, the man can't be trusted to keep his (cast iron) word, which is why despite an open goal left by the most unpopular labour government in living memory they couldn't actually win the last election and ended up being saddled with Cleggy's pseudo socialist EUphiles.
What people want is that foreign criminals are deported so quick that their feet won't even touch the ground, that they might be killed or tortured when they are deported is not our problem.
We don't want 'the right to a family life' to be an excuse to stay, if their families love them that much they can go with them.
The claim that 'Europe' (actually the EU) is low on most peoples priorities is true, but that doesn't mean the majority don't want out, just that getting screwed over by the government and criminals matters more. It may be a low priority, but it isn't unimportant and most of the Westminster political bubble have failed to notice this.
"We're tired of mass uncontrolled immigration, we're tolerant, but the diabolical solution to rub the rights nose in multiculturalism has done nothing but stir up anger amongst ordinary people who have to live with alien hostile communities in their midst. Again something the Westminster bubble do not have to do.
We want the government and the authorities to stop pandering to islam, shariah law is barbaric and has no place in a moder civilisation, or indeed any civilisation. If muslims want to practice it, fine, they can practice it back in the shitholes that call themselves islamic republics, they shouldn't be allowed to practice it here, nor use it as an excuse for barbarism, grooming or other vile acts.
We're sick of being told about climate change, we're sick of paying through the nose for 'renewable' energy scams schemes that don't work and cost the bloody earth to maintain or supply not anything like enough energy. We're sitting on coal and shale gas, we can keep the lights on for hundreds of years by using those resources, but no, too many politicians are on the take via the 'green' energy supply scam, so we'll freeze and the lights will go out.
The problem Theresa May and politicians really face is politicians, they are the ones who have wrecked this country and allowed an evil festering cancer to grow amongst its people. They are the ones responsible for the lights going out. They must be the ones to pay...
Anyone who votes for the big three is letting this country down, I don't care who you vote for, but if you love this country, do not let it be the Lib/Lab/Con.

The right and what's right.

I always find it strange how people characterise the so called 'right' mostly because as far as I can see there are no real right wing parties in the UK. I suppose UKIP are the closest, but again it depends on how you characterise right wing.
The problem is that the term right wing has been re-characterised by those on the left as to mean something which it actually isn't. Right wing now is assumed to be either racist or fascists or uncaring throw another baby on the fire type of person who wants to destroy the NHS.
Whereas a true right winger simply wants market forces and the free market to work things out without artificial interference from government.
We might wish to destroy the NHS, but that's more because the NHS as it stands simply doesn't work too well, there are cheaper and better alternatives around, though few appear to know this.
As for racist, well considering some of the endeavours of the left at home and abroad, the right as such have an absolutely pristine record when it comes to racism, people think differently because parties like the BNP are called right wing when a quick check of their policies will tell you otherwise. nationalism of key industries as the BNP are calling for is not a right wing policy and never will be.
As for fascism, well a quick check will soon tell you that it's an authoritarian left wing type of political movement, but again the narrative has been stolen and fascist seems to be synonymous with right wing, same as Nazi, which was never of the right either.
Telegraph.

David Cameron has insisted that the Eastleigh result will not prompt him to steer the party further to the right to combat the threat from Ukip.
Despite admitting that the by-election result was “disappointing” the Prime Minister said he would reject calls by some backbenchers to lurch further to the right. He said the Tories will not be blown off course by the defeat in Eastleigh and called on the party to “remain true to our principles”. His comments came after Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said it would be “wrong” to abandon the centre ground.

I very much doubt that Cameron or Gove have any idea of where the centre ground is, it's not that mysterious place between the two main parties, but more or less defined by just how much the state interferes in our lives coupled with economic policies. So Cameron and Gove's centre ground would put them closer to the Labour party rather than move into so called clear blue water by actually allowing the market to work and stop trying to interfere by spending taxpayers money in unnecessary areas of the economy or indeed our lives.
No, what the Lib/Lab/Con are, are social democrat parties and social democrats are of the left with all the idiotic economic baggage that entails. That Cameron and Gove wish to remain there tells you all you need to know about politics in the UK...