Kneejerk measures

The stabbing of teacher Ann Maguire is a tragedy, I'm pretty sure we'll end up with weeks or even months of investigation and inane commentary by those who have a vested interest in turning her death into their advantage by pushing their agenda, some rightly so, others because they see an opportunity to get more control over us. Unlike the Lee Rigby case, there seems no need for the government and special interest groups to go into defensive mode and excuse the killers or absolve their cause, which means of course they'll try to push for some illiberal measures to further control what we can say or do...
Telegraph.

Downing Street has said that it will do everything possible to prevent a repeat of the murder of Ann Maguire, as it emerged that the teenager accused of stabbing her is a fan of a violent video game marketed with the slogan “prepare to die”.
A 15-year-old boy was still being held on suspicion of murder on Tuesday night as police said questioning him “may take some time”.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that “of course” the Government would look at any “lessons to learn” from the murder at a school in Leeds.
The boy is known to have become withdrawn after his parents, a civil servant and a human resources director, separated 10 years ago.
He is said to have turned up at school with gin, Jack Daniels whiskey and beer in his bag on various occasions.

Wow, talk about a golden opportunity to insist schools have metal detectors installed at their gates along with cctv, or a ban on video games and joy of joy for the anti-alcohol brigade to propose increasing booze prices way above what ordinary folk could afford. There's even the opportunity to blame rising divorce rates for a cycle of violence in society too.
Whilst I'm not saying any of this will happen, you can bet your bottom dollar that some hysterics out there will already have their prepared spiel about why xxxx was responsible for Ann Maguire's death and why we should do xxxx to prevent it happening again increasing the surveillance and/or increasing the sheer bloody misery of society where just about anything we can say or do is monitored or covered by legislation and there's always someone out there who believes we need more, more control, more surveillance, more taxation penalties, more censorship, along with less rights, less freedom, and less knowledge of what's actually going on.
There was a recent survey done which found out that we were amongst one of the unhappiest societies in modern times, our happiness index was quite low and politicians etc were scratching their heads as to why.
Perhaps it's because they have removed or restricted our basic freedoms by law or taxation including the ability to resolve situations ourselves by speaking our minds that we're so unhappy, it's quite the thought isn't it?
What happened to Ann Maguire was a tragedy, let's hope that those with agendas don't end up making it worse...

Is this a 'cast iron' promise Dave?

Apparently Cameron has promised to resign if we don't get a referendum on the EU, well we all know the strength of a Cameron promise don't we? He certainly reneged over Lisbon and I'm pretty sure now that he's only offering one now because he suspects he'll win and we'll remain in the EU, certainly the poll's would suggest that there's a slight majority of deluded voters out there who can't see what the EU actually is...
BBC.

David Cameron has said he would not serve as prime minister after the 2015 general election if he could not deliver a referendum on Europe.
The prime minister said he would not "barter or give away" his pledge to hold a vote on EU membership in 2017.
He made the "really clear promise" in a phone call with Tory activists ahead of next month's European elections.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have said they oppose a referendum unless more powers are transferred to Europe.
The Conservatives' commitment to hold a referendum on Europe is likely to be a "red line" in any negotiations with other parties about a potential coalition should next year's election not produce an outright winner and there is another Hung Parliament.

Nice to see that the BBC are prepared to give the game away on Labour and the Lib Dems desire to give Brussels even more powers, I guess they figure it will leave them more time to enrich themselves at our expense or cover up their perverted crimes, not that the Tories are saints themselves.
The problem is, I don't believe Cameron can deliver such a promise, I rather suspect he's not going to be in power after 2015 anyway and so this is just words to firm up support in the mildly EUskeptic ranks of the Tories so they don't stick the knife in early. Nor do I believe he can legislate for a referendum in advance as the next Parliament can't be bound by the decisions of the previous one.
I simply can't, considering Cameron's previous record, see how he'll convince anyone of his desire to have a referendum after the next election, his past record isn't impressive and the suspicion remains that he'll renege if the results in poll's suggest that he might lose.
The only way we'll ever get a referendum is if the government thinks it will win, it's as simple as that and that's why Cameron for the minute is offering one.

Arrested for quoting Churchill

Truly the UK is doomed if you can be arrested for quoting Winston Churchill. You'd think it almost impossible, however you'd be wrong, it can and has happened to Paul Weston the Liberty GB candidate for the South-East in the EU elections...
Liberty GB

Today Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB and candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, has been arrested in Winchester.
At around 2pm Mr Weston was standing on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, addressing the passers-by in the street with a megaphone. He quoted the following excerpt about Islam from the book The River War by Winston Churchill:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Reportedly a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him "It's disgusting!" and then called the police.
Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes.
At about 3pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

Now granted Churchill's message would be granted as beyond the pale in today's climate of political correctness, particularly by the likes of the political classes who have sought to emasculate the indigenous populations right to have opinions they deem subversive and frankly there's few more subversive than Churchill who was decidedly anti-establishment until they discovered they needed him after the establishment totally misjudged Hitler.
That said, giving a direct quote of Winston Churchill and finding yourself under arrest is likely to cause those who arrested you and complained about you to strongly backfire in their faces as I simply cannot see any judge or magistrate wanting to touch this one with a bargepole. Nor would I expect if it did go further any jury save one stuffed with muslims to convict.
Liberty GB are of course the same party whose member Tim Burton was arrested (and then found not guilty) of offending the Tell Mama organisations leader when he called him a ‘mendacious grievance-mongering Taqiyya artist’ and who do appear to be able to upset the authorities and get away with it simply by keeping to just this side of the law unlike some muslim preachers and demonstrators who hold sign up to behead anyone disrespecting islam and get away with it.
Still, it remains to be seen if charges will be brought, as it is if they aren't then the police have broken up a lawful and legitimate political gathering on the say so of someone who was offended by a Churchill quote. If charges are brought, it appears that quoting a great wartime leader of the UK is no longer legal in the eyes of the authorities or powers that be.
Freedom of speech? When it comes to quoting Churchill, apparently not...

And the smears go on

I suppose it was a given that since Ukip surged in the poll's they would come under increasing scrutiny. And so it came to pass with other parties and the MSM trawling through Ukip candidate tweets to look for controversy, 'revealing' they used actors in their adverts (like the other parties do oddly enough) and wheeling out ex Ukip members to criticise them.
BBC.

A UKIP candidate has defended tweets in which he said comedian Lenny Henry should emigrate to a "black country" and compared Islam to the Third Reich.
William Henwood, who is standing in a council election, said he did not think the messages were offensive.
He tweeted after Henry said there should be more black and ethnic minority people in creative industries.
UKIP said it was a "non-racist, non-sectarian party whose members are expected to uphold these values".
Mr Henwood told BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins: "I think if black people come to this country and don't like mixing with white people why are they here? If he (Henry) wants a lot of blacks around go and live in a black country."
On another occasion Mr Henwood tweeted: "Islam reminds me of the 3rd Reich Strength through violence against the citizens."

Oddly enough a lot of ordinary people might just agree with what Mr Henwood said, believing that merit rather than the colour of your skin should be a factor as to whether you should be able to find employment in an industry. He's right about if you want to work with black people you should go where they are in a majority too. Personally I would have no problems with there being more black and ethnic minority people in the creative industries, but only if they got there by merit, not because of their colour or ancestry.
Ukip clearly have a lot of people worried if this is the sort of thing that is coming up in the MSM and I expect more of the same, probably each day as it gets closer to the EU elections.
Thing is though, I don't think these scandals are putting ordinary people off, if anything the accusations and the evidence produced seem to be pretty much in line with what ordinary people think, which is not what the political class do.
Ukip are of course required to remove their odd-balls, which is a pity, they seem to be people I meet in pubs and let off steam as the world is put to rights.
Still at least they remove their odd-balls.

This is a revelation?

The Daily Mail has revealed that Labours £118 billion 'stealth' raid on the pension companies turned a once thriving business into one which could not sustain its promised outgoings and had to re-adapt to the market.Mail.

The devastating impact of Labour’s infamous raid on pensions can be laid bare today.
Official figures reveal that the tax grab has saved the Treasury – and cost workers – £118billion since 1997.
In one of his first decisions as chancellor, Gordon Brown scrapped tax relief on pension firms’ dividends.
The move is blamed for wrecking a once thriving industry and fuelling the closure of many final salary schemes.
Analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility shows it has saved the Treasury almost £7billion a year – £2billion more than Mr Brown had expected.
The annual gain is expected to top £9.7billion this year with £117.9billion saved between 1997 and 2014.
The OBR quietly published the figures on its website this week.
Ros Altmann, a former Downing Street pension adviser, said Labour’s move marked ‘the beginning of the end of the gold standard pension that British workers could rely on from their boss’.
She added: ‘This is money that has come out of people’s pensions. It paved the way for the end of final salary schemes because it made them so much more expensive. They were suddenly unaffordable.’

Well it certainly wasn't news to me and I doubt it was news to anyone else who took an interest in Labours wrecking of the UK's economy by reckless spending and borrowing. Not that the present government have done anything to change this, although I rather suspect they now need that income to pay off Labours other debts. What happened was basically Labour saw spare cash and grabbed it, didn't care for the consequences as anyone who could afford one of those schemes obviously wasn't going to vote for them (probably) So being typically socialist they took from the rich and not so rich and squandered it on grandiose projects and wrecked the countries economy until at the end all was left was a note telling the next government that the money had run out.
Now they tell us that idiots out there might just vote them back in to form the next government. Truly some people must be utter morons.
The pensions industry has adapted of course, you can still get a reasonable deal if you shop around, but final pension schemes that would have kept many happy in their declining years have gone the journey save of course in the union dominated public services who use their muscle to keep the schemes they have at the expense of the taxpayer a sort of double whammy, thank you Labour.
This is one of the reasons I hate the left with a vengeance, they simply don't have a clue about economics, it's all take, take, take, spend, spend, spend and then leave someone else to clean up their mess whilst they bitch about the measures needed.
Yet people still vote for them, go figure...

The truth will out...

Actually the blog post title is a bit of a misnomer, there are I'm pretty sure elements of some truths that will possibly never be known (Kennedy assassination anyone?) and some where people won't believe the truth no matter what, because their god told them something else...
Still it comes as a surprise that the police are to publish a new set of figures telling us about rising violent crime after denying it was rising for years (mostly under the Labour government)
Telegraph.

After years of 'fiddled' crime figures, new data shows violent crime increased last year and could be set for a huge surge
Violent crime could be on the brink of a record rise in England and Wales after two police forces which adopted “open” and “ethical” crime recording policies showed a 25 per jump in violence last year.
The significant increases in recorded “violence against the person” offences in the two counties - Gwent, in south Wales, and Kent - are expected to foreshadow similar increases in other forces following widespread concern about police “fiddling” the figures.
Across England and Wales last year there was a surprise 1 per cent rise in violent crime recorded by the police to 614,400, or nearly 7,000 extra victims in the year.
The jump was partly attributable to the huge increases in Kent and Gwent, but another 20 forces also showed jumps in violence, including five with double-digit increases.
Because chief constables have come under massive pressure to ensure crime is recorded accurately, the rise is expected to continue in future statistics.

That's always been part of the problem for the police, they were saying one thing and yet people on the actual ground were saying something else. They said violent crime was falling, people knew otherwise and did not feel safe in some communities. So now a couple of forces who got their fingers burnt have produced other figures to suggest that far from falling, peoples perceptions of what's actually going on were fare more accurate than the police's use of statistics and the rather novel method of not recording certain crimes to make their figures look good.
The problem they have now is that once you're caught lying, there's always going to be the suspicion that you're lying in the future. It won't matter that they were following the politically correct dictates of their political masters, they lied, they are no doubt still lying. Their hubris in deciding they knew best by not recording or downgrading certain crimes has come back to bite them, they could tell us the sun will rise in the east now and we'd still be inclined to pop outside at dawn and check.
That's why truthfulness, or the appearance of it is always necessary in the public services, sadly most of them try to cover it up to make themselves look good and this is the result when they get found out, no one believes them ever again...

And who invited them here?

Tony Blair has a tendency to tell us things we already know when he isn't off jaunting with his faux job of bringing peace to the Middle East (nice work if you can get it, a bit like painting the Forth Bridge) Apparently radical islam is spreading and they pose a danger to western civilisation, something others said for years and got branded bigots and racists for mentioning...
Express.

TONY Blair has said the West must focus on tackling religious extremism, and called for further involvement in Syria and Libya.
Failure to shake off the legacy of Iraq and "take sides" with moderates in the Middle East and beyond could mean the 21st century is dominated by conflict rather than peaceful co-operation, the former Prime Minister warned in a speech today.
Mr Blair described a global crisis with its roots in "a radicalised and politicised view of Islam, an ideology that distorts and warps Islam's true message".
He said: "The threat of this radical Islam is not abating. It is growing. It is spreading across the world.
"It is destabilising communities and even nations. It is undermining the possibility of peaceful co-existence in an era of globalisation.

Now these sentiments might sit well with liberal leftards who are now only just realising that there is a problem more due to the headlines rather than having to live amongst it, but it shows an utter naivety about actual islam and what drives it... as ever.
First off, no one in the U.K. (apart from certain politicians,  leftards and libtards) wants any involvement in Syria or Libya other than to stop the buggers coming here, what's happening there is none of our business, so long as it stays there. The problems we have with islam all stem from inviting it in and it was mostly Blair's Labour who did so in order to get votes.
Secondly, whilst there may be moderates in the Middle East, they have a tendency not to survive and do not like to be associated with us as that makes them a target to the radicals, leave them alone and hopefully we can simply let them get on with things as every attempt to deal with the problems we face by direct action has foundered on the fact that those who replace who we displace inevitably are worse.
Thirdly, islam's true message is what the radical are preaching, not the moderates and its spreading across the world because of enablers like Tony Blair and other leftard politicians who didn't realise the threat until it had set deep roots amongst us and started to tell them what they were going to do.
Peaceful co-existance with islam is impossible, look at any state where there is a majority or significant minority of muslims and generally you find trouble, either in the way of terrorism or outright aggressin against their non muslim neighbours, hell the quran even tells them how to deal with a conquered people from wiping them out to making them pay protection money.
Blair like most politicians seems to have an idealised version of islam that only exists in his head, the evidence itself from those who live near or amongst them tells a far different story as to how peaceful and tolerant actual islam is... which is not at all.

Cry God for England and St George!

St George & England

• St Adomnán, the Abbot of Iona in Scotland, provides Britain’s earliest recorded reference to Saint George in the 7th Century. He details the story of the Saint’s exploits, which had been told to him by a French bishop named Arcuif who had travelled to Jerusalem with the crusaders
• St Bede the Venerable (c.a. 673-735) from Northern England, also made reference to St George in his writings
• As the Crusaders returned to England from foreign shores, they brought with them tales of St George, and his reputation grew
• A church in Fordington, Dorset, records the ‘miracle appearance’, where St George presented himself outside Jerusalem in 1099 and led the Crusaders into battle. The story is etched into stone over the southern door of the church which still stands today. It is the earliest known church in England to be dedicated to the patron Saint
• English soldiers wore a sign of St George on their chest and on their backs in the 14th century, as the Saint was regarded as a special protector of the English
• King Edward III (1312-1377) founded the Order of the Garter (1348), the premier order of chivalry or knighthood in England. The Order was put under Saint George’s patronage and the medal is awarded on the 23rd April by the reigning Monarch
• The King’s predecessors Edward IV & Henry VII, oversaw the construction of the beautiful St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, which presented itself as the chapel of the Order
• It was in the year 1415 AD that St. George became the Patron Saint of England when English Soldiers under Henry V when he won the battle of Agincourt
• In 1497, during the reign of Henry VIII, the pennant of the Cross of St. George was flown by John Cabot when he sailed to Newfoundland and it was also flown by Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh
• In 1620 it was the flag that was flown by the Mayflower when the Pilgrim Fathers arrived in Plymouth, Massachusetts. It is also the flag of the Church of England and as such is known throughout Christendom
• In the year 1728 AD Maximilian II Emanuel, the Elector of Bavaria, established by Papal Bull The Royal Military Order of St George, as a means of honouring distinguished military service for it was clear that by this time, his name had become associated with the purity of spirit, selfless devotion to duty and boundless courage and valour in the face of adversity
• In more recent times, St George was chosen as the patron saint of Scouting, because of the ideals that he represents and it is interesting to note that he is also the Patron Saint of Barcelona in Catalonia, Aragon, Russia, Bavaria, Beirut, Czechoslovakia, Portugal, Lithuania and Hungary, to name but a few. Virtually every country in Europe and the Commonwealth has a church dedicated to St. George
• During World War II King George VI established the George Cross for outstanding acts of Civilian Valour and one of the earliest recipients was the Island of Malta, for its outstanding courage in the face of the constant bombardment by the Italian and German Air forces. It is, coincidentally, the Island that was closely associated and governed by the Crusaders who arrived from the Island of Rhodes in the 14” Century, following their 200 year war with the Turks
• In the 13th Century, there was a Guild of St. George to which the Honourable Company of Pikemen were related before evolving into the Honourable Artillery Company. Many regiments of the Army still celebrate St. George’s Day with great ceremony

With thanks to stgeorgesday.com for the information.

The St Crispin's Day speech from Henry V from whence the blog post title stems...

Ah that 'must' word again

Must, could, should all often enough used by the media and politicians and in the end pretty much useless in the way of actions or results. There's a stark difference between you must obey the law and you will obey the law one implies the detail that you can ignore the request, the other implies a penalty for not acceding to it.
Mail.

Schools with large numbers of Muslim pupils must respect British values, former home secretary Jack Straw said yesterday.
He spoke as a Muslim MP said a radical ‘Trojan Horse’ plot to take over state schools was operating in Birmingham.
Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, claimed a ‘small group of individuals’ was trying to change the ethos of schools by stealth.
It was also claimed that roving 'morality squads' have been instituted at the affected schools, and would censor talk of non-Muslim festivals and smash pupils' Easter eggs.
Mr Straw said more and more schools were mostly or entirely comprised of Muslim pupils, adding: ‘We have to accept and the schools with a majority of Muslim parents have to accept – as they do if they are Hindu, Sikh, Jewish or Christian – that we also live within the United Kingdom.
‘Alongside values which are religiously based, there has to understanding that this is the UK and there is a set of values – some of which I would say are Christian based – which permeate our sense of citizenship.’

To which those doing the 'Trojan horse' will ignore because what Jack Straw is telling them can be ignored as they don't share his multicultural values at all save only in using and getting away with their little schemes because the enablers in the system viewed it as 'cultural'.
As far as these people are concerned they are doing the right thing by their religion and their culture and so the current furore simply confirms to them that the will of their deviant god is being opposed by the infidel and so they must be doing something right.
Words simply have no effect on these people, they have a plan, they'll do their best to implement it as to them it's the will of their god, telling them no has no effect, you need to get in there and remove them root and branch before they establish themselves. Simply going to the press and saying they must respect us will only make them laugh, they don't and never will respect us, the best we can hope for is that they will fear us and our wrath if they do anything other than talk about or think about trying to promote their religion and culture.

Of chalk and cheese

People often look to make comparisons to make a point and often choose the most ludicrous examples, the classic amongst which is comparing the Palestinian treatment by Israel to the holocaust or apartheid, when a quick examination proves that they are no such thing which is not to minimise the issues, but simply make the point that exaggeration does nothing for your cause except make you look silly to an outside observer.
Telegraph.

Church leaders renewed their stand-off with the Coalition over hunger in Britain using Easter sermons to speak of poverty and destitution, as one bishop claimed Government cuts were having “sinful consequences”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury the Most Rev Justin Welby singled out the experiences of people turning to food banks in the UK as an example of suffering in the world, alongside the crises in Syria and Ukraine.
He also said those who quietly man food banks were making a more powerful statement of the Christian message than figures such as himself who “shout” about religion on a national stage.
In his sermon, he spoke about sorrow and listed examples of people around the world shedding tears including bereaved mothers in Syria and people in Ukraine and Rwanda. He added: “In this country, even as the economy improves there is weeping in broken families, in people ashamed to seek help from food banks, or frightened by debt.
“Asylum seekers weep with loneliness and missing far away families.”

I'm sorry, but telling us the tears of families seeking help from foodbanks pale into comparison with what happened in Rwanda and what's happening in Syria. I'm also pretty sure that what's going on in the Ukraine doesn't really compare either.
The real trick about using comparison for effect is that you do not try and make yourself sound utterly ridiculous when you do it. The end result is to water down your point in a similar way the left watered down the terms fascist and racist to accuse anyone who didn't think like they did. By shutting down debate, they ensured that the problems got worse and people started to think about more extreme solutions.
Not that I think the Arch-Druid will shut down debate, just that he minimises the impact of his sermon by comparing chalk with cheese, I rather doubt anyone whose hobbyhorse isn't opposing benefits reform will take what he has to say seriously... assuming they even notice what he says anyway.
Telling us that those who shed tears of pride for using foodbanks in comparison to those who are losing or have lost their lives in Syria and Rwanda does himself and his cause no favours whatsoever...

Telling it like it is

It's often grimly amusing when the MSM discover what's actually going on with islamic extremism and seeks to present it as extreme rather than something that the quran actually advocates. The current 'Trojan Horse' scandal in Birmingham (and elsewhere) schools being a case in point where non-islamics are being forced out of majority muslim schools to make way for what the MSM and Ofsted call extremists or in my view actual muslims who believe what their paedophile prophet actually preached...
Mail.

A Muslim hardliner who says adulterers should be stoned to death and that gay men and fornicators should be lashed 100 times has set up an Islamic school that has received almost £1million of taxpayers’ money.
Ibrahim Hewitt, one of Britain’s most prominent Islamic firebrands – who also heads a charity branded a ‘terrorist’ organisation by the US – is the founder and chairman of trustees of the Al-Aqsa school in Leicester, which teaches 250 boys and girls aged between three and 11.
He has vilified homosexuals as paedophiles and said a man can take on a second wife if his first fails to satisfy him sexually. Mr Hewitt has published his views in a book on Islam, which he claims has sold more than 50,000 copies in Britain.
The preacher is the author of a book called What Does Islam Say?, which spells out his vision of ‘true Islam’. In it he advocates the killing of adulterers by stoning. The book says: ‘Any act that destabilises marriage will also destabilise society. Hence the Islamic punishments for such acts are severe… Married men and women found guilty of adultery are to be stoned to death.’
The book also advocates 100 lashes for fornication and sodomy with both men and women, and condemns homosexuality as a ‘grave sin’.
Mr Hewitt says in the book: ‘Islam, like most other major faiths of the world, categorically forbids homosexual practices (sexual relations between two men or between two women), regarding them as a great sin. In a society under Islamic law, such would be severely punished.’
He then compares homosexuals to paedophiles or those who commit incest. The book says: ‘If people have such desires [homosexuality], they should keep them to themselves, and control their desires to avoid forbidden practices.
‘The advice would be the same as, say, to someone who had sexual desires for minors or for close family: that having the desires does not legitimise realising them.’
The book also argues that men and women are not equal, and men have a right to assume leadership over women. ‘Islam recognises the leadership of men over women, but it does not recognise the domination of one over the other.’
He adds: ‘If a woman is unable to satisfy the sexual or other needs of her husband he may consider taking another wife, rather than the common Western practice of secretly taking a mistress.’
Mr Hewitt has in the past said that ‘political Zionism is a threat to world peace’ and has objected to the setting up of Holocaust Memorial Day.

Thing is, he's absolutely correct in his book about what islam actually says, same as the barbarians who butchered Lee Rigby were doing exactly what islam said.
That is the problem we face with the powers that be in this country and their leftard enablers in local government and public services. They simply do not believe what islam say, you saw it with Cameron and his pronouncement that what the butchers of Lee Rigby did wasn't real islam when it bloody well was!
So what we have is a concerted attempt by islamists to infiltrate and take over certain schools and start teaching what the quran actually says and promote what the hadith's (interpretations of the quran) permit such as segregation, paedophilia, misogyny, murder, homophobia and hatred of Jews.
This isn't just in Birmingham though, it's anywhere in the UK we've allowed the blight of islam to thrive and multiply. Essentially we've allowed an intolerant, political, mind control, supremacist, expansionist, thugocracy masquerading as a religion to take root in towns and cities all over England and dictate to us via the morons in power how they are going to behave and only now do the morons in charge realise the problem they have on their hands even whilst trying to deny its there.
Thing is, we don't know what's being said in mosques, we don't know what's being said in schools they control, but we do know the results of seeing what happens to countries they control and people they don't like once they get into a majority.
There is no place for islam in a civilised country...

This is insane

What is it with public services that they now feel the need to share out our personal data, even with the proviso that it will be anonymous? You'd think they'd know that trust in them is at an all time low because of the low standards that they have maintained in recent years. Also there's the fear that with many things they do that this is the thin end of the wedge.
BBC.

Taxpayers' personal data could be shared with private firms under plans drawn up by Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
If given the go-ahead it would allow HMRC to release anonymous tax data to third parties including companies, researchers and public bodies.
But former Conservative minister David Davis told the Guardian the plans were "borderline insane".
An HMRC spokesman said "no final decisions" had been taken, and it was committed to "confidentiality".
The newspaper reported that "charging options" were being examined by officials, suggesting that firms could pay to access the data.
But concern has been raised over the plans in the wake of the Care.data initiative - a proposed anonymous sharing of NHS medical records - which is currently suspended after fears were raised as to exactly what information would remain anonymous.

I don't think that whoever came up with this insane scheme realises what can be done and extrapolated in an electronic environment and I rather suspect that it's money making on the part of those seeking such data rather than statistical analysis. I also believe that somehow or other the headline that actual names and addresses have been  'accidentally' released will crop up sooner or later.
Simply put, whenever I see a headline that some public body wants to release private data to interested parties I want to opt out straight away, same as I did with my doctor and the 'Care Data' fiasco. What's mine is mine and whilst I have allowed those public bodies to hold it, they have no right to offer it to anyone else, simply because I can't trust them or know just exactly what it is they are selling and whether they are going to change the rules and assume consent once its given to be a permanent thing.
The answer is and always must be no!

Protecting their own

There have been various hospital scandals around, North Stafford springs to mind, there was the MRSA scandal in my own neck of the woods and only the other day Maidstone Hospital who had the MRSA scandal shut down its gastro-keyhole surgery department because it couldn't guarantee the safety of its patients after the op.
In every case there's been some sort of attempt at a cover up and in the worst cases rather than clean up their act, they've a tendency to go after the whistleblower.
Mail.

A cardiologist sacked after blowing the whistle on shocking NHS failures was cleared of any wrongdoing yesterday – after a 13-year battle thought to have cost the taxpayer £10million.
Dr Raj Mattu, a leading heart surgeon, endured more than a decade of extraordinary bullying by his NHS bosses.
He was sacked after he exposed the fact that two patients had died in dangerously overcrowded bays at his hospital.
Instead of listening to his concerns over the shocking standards of care on the wards, bosses first suspended, then sacked him and then spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money pursuing him through an employment tribunal.
They also submitted more than 200 false allegations about him to the General Medical Council – all of which, he says, were rejected.
Dr Mattu wrote to the head of the NHS Sir David Nicholson – dubbed the Man with No Shame – about his treatment and the appalling care at the Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry, but received no reply.
Now, after the 13-year ‘David and Goliath’ battle, a tribunal yesterday found the surgeon had been unfairly dismissed.

This sadly is how things are done in the NHS, because managers back up managers and anyone rocking the boat is hounded out by the managerial clique running the place be they a doctor or a porter. They see it as faults = getting sued and in these days of no win no fee I sort of can see how the mentality developed. Though what I can;'t see is why they don't try to improve the problem rather than attempting to dismiss or sideline the whistleblower with false claims. Improving the bays would surely have cost a lot less than £10 million you'd think?
They very fact that they hounded this man through his career and into illness speaks volumes of the arrogance 'can do no wrong' attitude of the people running the HNS. Despite costing the NHS £10 million you can bet the next whistleblower will be treated in the exact same way in order to stop them lifting the lid on bad practices.
NHS the envy of the world? Don't make me laugh.

Convenient

How I am coming to loathe the Human Rights Act, it seems to contain a get out clause for any criminal looking to be deported and a license to make money for the legal establishment. Two cases caught my attention this morning, Haroon Aswat can't be deported to the USA on charges of setting up a terrorist training camp because he has paranoid schizophrenia and the court want to ensure he will be sent to a psychiatric facility, not a prison, paranoid schizophrenic being the default position for most jihadi's these days. And then there was this...
Mail.

An illegal immigrant who stabbed a 15-year-old schoolboy to death less than a year after arriving in Britain cannot be deported because he claims to be gay, judges ruled yesterday.
The 29-year-old Jamaican was jailed for life aged 16 when he and another schoolboy knifed Abdul Maye to death over a £10 debt outside his school in east London.
A judge at the Old Bailey ordered that he be kicked out of Britain once he had served a minimum of eight years.
Judge Paul Focke told the thug, who cannot not be named for legal reasons: ‘You are a Jamaican national and within months of coming to this country you committed murder.
‘I am of the view that your continued presence in this country will be detrimental to its citizens.’
But yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that he could not be sent back to Jamaica because he could face degrading treatment for being homosexual that would breach his human rights.
In an extraordinary judgement which has provoked outrage, Lord Justice Kay said he believed his mother’s evidence that he was gay – even though the Home Office said he ‘had made no mention of it’ until his first appeal against deportation failed.

 Well wasn't that bloody convenient, he hid the fact that he was gay until he was about to be deported and was only believed because his mum said so
What a joke the Human Rights Act is, it's supposed to protect our rights and yet all it seems to do is allow murderers, rapists and thieves to remain amongst us often illegally and most definitely unwelcome by the population as a whole.
Frankly I don't care what the Jamaicans do to him if he's returned, I have a sneaking suspicion that if he managed to hide the fact that he's gay this long, he would manage OK in Jamaica. If not, who cares? (well his mum obviously)
The HRA ought to be renamed the Criminal Rights Charter as all it seems to do is allow those who we don't want to remain amongst us posing a threat to the individuals of this country and the vast mass of law abiding people here.
The only way to rid ourselves of it would be to leave the EU, what's not to like?

Shocking?

Apparently there has been a shocking rise in the number of people who are using food banks, though why this is shocking I don't quite know.
BBC.

A food bank charity says it has handed out 913,000 food parcels in the last year, up from 347,000 the year before.
The Trussell Trust said a third were given to repeat visitors but that there was a "shocking" 51% rise in clients to established food banks. It said benefit payment delays were the main cause.
In a letter to ministers, more than 500 clergy say the increase is "terrible".
The government said there was no evidence of a link between welfare reforms and the use of food banks.
However, the Trussell Trust, the largest food bank provider in the UK, said benefits payments had been a particular problem since welfare changes were introduced just over a year ago.
Some 83% of food banks reported that benefits sanctions - when payments are temporarily stopped - had resulted in more people being referred for emergency food.
And more than 30% of visits were put down to a delay in welfare payments.
The second biggest reason, given by 20% of food bank users, was low income.

To paraphrase the film 'Field of Dreams' if you offer it, they will come.
I've been on benefits before, I've even had difficulties with the benefits office over missing payments, yet never has my family gone hungry, I've always managed to find a way and never been tempted by charities. Still, if someone were to offer free food then yes I'd take it, but I'd spend the money saved on something else because I'd have some spare cash after doing it, granted it might cover fuel costs to getting to an interview, but there would have been savings.
So when a charity giving away free food tells me that there's been a shocking rise in 'customers' I'm not surprised, people will use it if it's available and people have less pride these days in doing so, owing to benefits dependency lifestyles.
Fact is, these charities don't realise or factor in whose pockets the money to pay benefits comes from, they seem to think its the governments. We who pay taxes fund benefits and the benefits budget is far too high owing to government incompetency and the fact that some people will not work no matter what.
There are an awful lot of things wrong  with the country and benefits lifestyle is one of them and the government is right to tackle it. However offering free food and then bitching about the fact that people take it is not helping, if anything it's prolonging the problem...

Figures

I don't know what it is about western governments and their desire to appear good by spending taxpayers money on what they deem 'worthy' projects abroad. The evidence is out there that the majority of cash given is simply siphoned off into the pockets of kleptocrats and into their pension funds in various tax havens.
Telegraph.

Britain hiked its aid spending by more than any other country in Europe last year, figures show.
Foreign aid soared by 28 per cent last year, meaning the UK hit its target of spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on overseas development.
It left Britain with the second most generous aid budget in the world, outstripped only by the United States, and it came as a series of developed nations cut back on their aid spending.
The figures will reignite concerns among Tory MPs that the aid budget is ill-directed and has ballooned at the expense of other Whitehall departments.
Britain spent £10.6 billion on official development assistance in 2013, up from £8.3 billion in 2012, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – a hike of 27.8 per cent.

You'll note that the MP's appear to be more concerned that spending on their departments is lagging, rather than the taxpayer is being stiffed for the bar bill so to speak. Even if we weren't spending the cash abroad, it would still end up being wasted by the government in other words.
The problem is, the government have no control over what the aid is spent on, oh they can stipulate that it must be used for stuff, but once it's out of their hands, that's it and the begging bowl is back in place with little to see for what it's been used for save a marked increase in banking funds elsewhere.
Politicians and the state are not the best people to decide what money should be spent upon, the only people who are, are ourselves. If we wish to give to charity, we should pick the charity, it really ought to be that simple. I rather suspect the government and politicians would be surprised what we spent it on... or perhaps not which is why they do it their way.
Charity begins at home and we should decide who it goes too.

Closing ranks

One of the more noticeable things about the public services is their determination to to never admit to a problem, particularly in the NHS. Almost the first thing that happens is denial, followed by a cover up often enough followed by various professional bodies in that service letting the perpetrator of a mistake, error, or bad practice off with nary a slap on the wrist...
BBC.

Public services still need to learn lessons from the Stafford Hospital scandal on how to handle complaints, says a committee of MPs.
Concerns about failings at the hospital - expressed by patients and local doctors - were ignored.
The Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) wants changes including having a minister with responsibility for complaints handling.
It says there is a "culture of denial and failure" in public services.
The government said it was "committed to improving" services and the Stafford Hospital scandal had been a "turning point".
Committee chairman Bernard Jenkin said: "There needs to be a revolution in the way public services are run, and how the public perceives government.
"As things are, most people believe there is no point in complaining.

That's always been the perception when dealing with unelected officials wherever you go, even in some private companies where the company ethos seems to revolve around protecting the company no matter what and no matter who gets hurt or trampled upon. So you reach the point where you simply don't bother any more despite poor service because getting mired down in the system or being fobbed off just isn't worth your time save if it's very serious and then you get bogged down often waiting for years for it to be resolved and like as not, not getting an apology despite the failure of the service.
Indeed it does appear as if the rationale of the public services is to defend the public services no matter what.
The only way it will change is if the system allows transparency and we all know that simply will not happen as the culture of denial of blame goes right to the top.
Still, come the revolution, the list for stringing up grows ever longer...

Took their time didn't they?

The islamic republic of Tower Hamlets has been the centre of islamic extremism and electoral corruption in the UK for at least a decade now. Blogs like this and others have been repeating the allegations and news from the area for a number of years and even the MSM has disclosed a great deal of details on what's allegedly been going on.
As ever it seems to take a few years before the government and the political classes to catch on to what's going on with the concerns of the general public rather than back a losing horse in the name of multi-culturalism and diversity.
Telegraph.

A London council at the centre of an investigation into alleged fraud is also under scrutiny over its links to Islamic extremism, according to a classified government document leaked to The Telegraph.
Ministers sent inspectors to Tower Hamlets council, in east London, last week to investigate the alleged abuse of public resources to reward supporters of Lutfur Rahman, its controversial directly-elected mayor.
However, the leaked document, classified “restricted”, makes it clear there may be another, publicly unstated motive for the action — deep concern among ministers and the Prime Minister over the council’s alleged support for extremist-linked bodies.
As early as last year, the document shows, David Cameron’s task force tackling extremism and radicalisation secretly drew up a special “Tower Hamlets action plan” to address problems with the council.
MI5, police counter-terrorism command, a number of other agencies and “senior local officers” from the council itself have “discreetly” provided information about the authority, it says.
Three community centres owned by the council or its housing agency, Tower Hamlets Homes, are named as venues for extremist activity in the area’s “counter-terrorism local profile”, according to the document.
Two are used by al-Muhajiroun, a group linked to dozens of convicted terrorists. Another has been the venue for weekly meetings of the racist and separatist party Hizb ut-Tahrir, and “may still” be, the document says.

Isn't it nice to know that those who hate the UK are being given cash, facilities and support in our communities? Now granted what an individual believes is none of anyone's business, save only if it impinges harmfully on others, which islam tends to do in spades. Misogyny, homophobia, intolerance, corruption and separatism are not of course unique to islam, other religions have their moments too, but only islam does not play by civilised rules and insists that its way is the only way and anyone disagreeing either has to pay protection money (Jews and Christians only) or dies (everyone else) in its most basic form. That there are a lot of decent muslims out there appears to be despite their religion rather than because of it.
Yet why do I have the suspicion if say the BNP had won control over a council and had managed to persuade people to elect a BNP mayor that had they created a mess in proportion to the one in Tower Hamlets would never have gotten so far and that arrests would have been made and politicians and councillors disbarred from standing in elections? I mean I might be wrong, but somehow I doubt it as 'ol whitey' either tends not to be so corrupt or when they do, different rules apply, save only if they are politicians of course.
I rather expect the dog and pony show that is the islamic republic of Tower Hamlets to roll and roll as any arrests made will only be replaced by further corrupt individuals, either that or they'll get off by playing the race card.
It's what they do after all...

Nothing changes

Rochdale, the town where children of all genders were at risk because institutional blindness, corruption and fear of racism or the authorities had child abuse happening on almost an industrial scale.
Mail.

In May 2012, nine men were jailed for horrific abuse committed against teenage girls in the town. It made headlines all round the world.
When the father of one of the victims called me to tell me how his daughter’s cries for help had been ignored by the authorities I started to make my own enquiries. I spoke to the director of children’s services, Cheryl Eastwood, and was staggered by her attitude. She implied that young girls who were being systematically raped were making lifestyle choices and said that this kind of abuse was ‘a new phenomenon’ on which they [social services] hadn’t received guidance. You don’t need guidance from central government to know that when someone is reporting being raped it’s seriously wrong, I told her.
A few weeks earlier, a police officer had told me fellow officers had suggested the victims on council estates should have been drowned at birth. It also emerged that when one of the girls reported her abuse to a police officer, the officer yawned.
The cover-up of abuse by Cyril Smith (former Rochdale MP), the failed police investigations into his crimes, had ensured the public cry of outrage that needed to be heard was silenced.
For Smith’s young victims it was because they were bad boys from troublesome backgrounds who needed disciplining.
For the young girls who were victims of grooming gangs it was because they were bad girls from troublesome backgrounds who were making lifestyle choices.

This is what happens when the people in power decide that they know best, this is what happens when dogma trumps decency. When protecting the perpetrators because of their position or religion or colour of their skin became far more important than protecting the victims of their abuse.
Yet not one single prosecution will be brought against the council, its social services department, the Liberal Democrat Party who connived with the police to cover up Smith's crimes, the police or anyone else connected to the wholesale abuse who ignored it or actually hid it deliberately because to them the victims were lesser breeds and deserved (somehow) what was happening to them.
Even today Rochdale and those in power there are in denial of what happened, there has been no apologies and there are still ongoing attempts to sweep things under the carpet. Those who ignored the victims were even allowed to leave taking golden handshakes with them and are still at work elsewhere in the same business.
These people ruined kids lives as much as their abusers did, yet they've gotten away scot free, the next scandal comes along and they hope we forget. The corruption goes all the way to the top and won't stop until we hang them all.

So why allow them back?

The Syrian civil war is none of our business despite the attempta by governments in the West to try and get us involved. There is simply no desire amongst the UK people to fight for the barbarians of either side, civilian casualties or not. One of the problems we do have is that islamoloons from the UK are going over there to fight, which if they are killed is a good thing, the bad thing though is that they get even more radicalised and then want to come back...
Telegraph.

The crisis in Syria has emerged as the biggest threat to Britain’s security, The Telegraph can disclose.
The threat to the UK from returning fighters from the Syrian civil war is now the same as that from al-Qaeda terrorists in the borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The increased risk will refocus attention on the decision by David Cameron - backed by MPs in the House of Commons - not to intervene as the Syrian conflict worsened last August.
For the past two years, British jihadists have been able to gain access bomb and weapons training as well as further radicalisation.
There are fears that British men who have been radicalised there are also being encouraged to return to the UK to carry out attacks here rather than staying to fight.

You'll note the slight attempt to rewrite history there by claiming Cameron backed by his MP's not to intervene when it was actually a commons revolt against Cameron which forced him not to intervene as he was all gung ho about joining in.
But doesn't it strike you as odd that the government simply doesn't revoke the passports of these people? After all if they love Syria enough to fight for the place then it strikes me that they can bloody well stay there, it's not like they will be model citizens when they return. No doubt they'd scream 'human rights' if we blocked them, but frankly as non-citizens we don't have to care, let them be someone else's problem, we really do not want a spate of Lee Rigby style barbarism hitting the UK.
The civil war in Syria is none of our concern, the idiots who go from here to fight are, doing so ought to mean a revocation of their passports and no return allowed, save perhaps those who go to give medical aid. Bit those who go to fight? Keep them out, we don't need them or their radicalised religious views.

And whose fault was it in the first place?

Well gosh, Labour intend to do something about our addiction to cheap labour by immigrants. What they intend to actually do remains a bit of a mystery of course, the reason we have cheap labour via immigrants is because of EU laws, industrial need and Labour's ruinous policy of mass uncontrolled immigration from elsewhere.
Telegraph.

Britain risks becoming “dependent” on cheap migrant labour, Yvette Cooper will say today.
A Labour government would create laws to stop bosses using migrants to under-cut the wages of British workers, and the “serious exploitation” of migrants by businesses would be made a criminal offence, she will say.
Miss Cooper will also attack the Government for having a “worst of all worlds” stance, in which illegal immigration is getting worse while businesses are unable to find people with the skills they need.
Last month, James Brokenshire, the immigration minister, accused better-off families and big businesses of helping to support mass immigration by demanding cheap labour and services. Miss Cooper will say: “This kind of exploitation should be illegal. But the law isn’t working. We need change.
“The truth is that, for too long, exploitation in the labour market – a cause and effect of low-skilled immigration and illegal immigration – has gone unchecked.

Words, words, words... That's all they are, the only way to prevent immigration is to control our borders, to do that we need to leave the EU. Changing the law won't change a thing, particularly for EU citizens as it's illegal to treat other EU citizens as different to your own. Changing a law to prevent bosses from paying anything but the minimum wage just means the rest of us pay more as prices will rise and no doubt companies will still take on immigrants because they are prepared to do the work as our benefits culture means that a lot of people are quite comfy where they are.
This whole idea is simply ludicrous and won't/can't work, not unless we regain our sovereignty and can act in our best interests rather than the socialist wet dream of the EU and its insidious bureaucracy.
Cooper is just spouting the politicians mantra of saying what she thinks we want to hear, if she doesn't realise there's nothing we can do about it whilst being in the EU then she's either stupid or ignorant (possibly nay probably both)
Problem is there are some out there who will believe her... and vote for them...

It's a cultural thing

It may be me just living in a fantasy land, or I was brought up a little strange, but part of the good manners ingrained in me was that if you made a mistake, you admitted it and apologised. Unfortunately owing to the previous governments allowing the way to no win no fee legal attempts getting some people or organisations to apologise is difficult. Add the politicians into the mix and it becomes possible to see a trend of only apologising when you have no choice and only as a last resort.
Express.

VICTIMS of poor service and shoddy goods are usually happy with just an apology, new research reveals.
The findings suggest that Britain’s greedy “compensation culture” may not be quite so rampant after all.
Far from demanding compensation, almost half of disgruntled customers say they would be satisfied with a simple “sorry”.
The study by the Ombudsman Services’ Consumer Action Monitor comes as figures show there were 38 million complaints about poor service and sub-standard goods last year.
Energy firms are the worst offenders, mainly due to bills and poor customer service. Complaints to power suppliers rocketed by 224 per cent between January and March this year compared to the same period in 2013 – the largest leap ever recorded.
Retail outlets and internet telecom giants are the next biggest offenders.
More than a third of customers polled think large firms are only interested in profit and do not care when things goes wrong.
Chief Ombudsman Lewis Shand Smith said: “The research shows that consumers just want to be treated fairly and this includes admitting fault where necessary. Sometimes a simple apology is all it takes.

Naturally with politicians, having a sorry dragged out of them Maria Miller style having stolen taxpayers funds even if paid back means they should go, that they don't speaks volumes about politicians. Yet at core I believe that for many when dealing with a mistake, an apology at the beginning would have settled things. Not everyone of course and sometimes things go way too far for an apology, but for minor mistakes, people aren't too bothered and simply want the company to play fair rather than obfuscate or deny.
We seem to have become a very much money oriented society, companies want our cash and people want cash back sometimes for the most minor of things, you only have to read the MSM to see some of the stupid things judges will allow a payout for.
Perhaps simply a demand that the company apologises whilst all costs are given to them if they are in the wrong would suffice...
Might stop some from persuing frivolous claims and get the company to apologise a lot more quickly.
As for politicians, well hanging is still far too god for a lot of them...

Giving to your own

Labour have announced their intentions to allow English cities more power over transport, housing and employment should they win the next UK election. On the surface this looks like a good idea, however, anyone who knows how voting demographics work will realise that all Labour are doing is handing cash over to be wasted by mostly Labour Councils and away from government scrutiny.
BBC.

Labour is to promise English cities more powers over transport, housing and employment to help close the "productivity gap" with London.
If elected, the party will commit to handing £20bn to councils to spend on skills, back-to-work schemes and infrastructure, leader Ed Miliband is expected to say in a speech on Tuesday.
Local authorities will have to bid for cash and put private sector jobs first.
The Labour leader will say the UK needs to "build prosperity" outside London.

This is pretty much on a par with the BBC moving to Manchester and racking up massive transport bills as staff commute from there to London or the big civil servant projects to build large departments outside of the capital. London simply got bigger as more and more people moved there for the range of services it provides in various categories. Yes Labour look like they'll insist on private sector priority, but the private sector will only go where there are skilled workers and Government interference with education has already turned out masses of failed students into the UK. Capital cities always attract both services and industry unless they are simply administrative places. Reversing the tide with the likes of London will simply not work by throwing money at (mostly) Labour local government, it's not like they have a great track record with taxpayers cash now is it? We'll end up with make-work grandiose projects such as tram systems but precious few jobs at the end of them, oh and probably obscenely paid chief executives too as jobs for the political class drones.
I doubt this has been thought out more than simply a good idea to thrill the voters and Labour supporters in the rest of England. It can't work the way they think it will and most of the money will no doubt be wasted.

It's supposed to be a safety net

Far too many out there have chosen benefits dependency as a lifestyle choice, they've never had a job, don't want one and don't see why they should as they can play the system and pretty much have a decent life without ever needing to work. It becomes worse when some decide that they are going to have as many children as they want and then use the system to get larger houses and even more benefits, particularly when those who do work can't and then have to pay taxation to support those people's progeny.
Express.

HARD-working taxpayers are subsidising the rents of big jobless families to the tune of almost £1billion a year.
The full price of paying for unemployed parents who choose to have large broods but cannot meet the cost is laid bare in new statistics.
The Department for Work and Pensions figures reveal that keeping 140,000 households with four or more children in homes many workers would struggle to afford is costing the public purse £916million a year. And eight households are still getting an astonishing £1,100 a week to cover their rent despite the coalition Government phasing in a £500-a-week cap last year.

Benefits should be a safety net for the able, a necessity to the sick and disabled and a  comfort to the elderly in their twilight years, not a means to support those who want large families but not work to keep them. It should not be down to the state via the taxpayer to pay out to those who haven't paid in. If you have as the rest of the news article claims, eleven children then that's your problem if you don't work to support them, not mine. I'll grit my teeth and help support the first two (for population maintenance) but after that you're on your own if you choose to have any more, you can hand them over for adoption if you can't manage or get a job and get ancillary benefits by working to assist you that way (again only for your first two)
Being on basic benefits if you haven't paid in ought to be an incentive to get off them by working, if you've paid in, you should get more for the first six months then it's back to basic. Same for a pansioner who has never worked, they should get a basic pension whilst someone who has worked all their life gets the enhanced one.
Common sense would dictate that if you do pay in you get more and better, sadly when it comes to common sense, those at the top who lumbered us with the system don't ever appear to have had it.

Give me the child...

"Give me the child, and I will mould the man." 

"Give me the child for seven years, 

and I will give you the man." 

"Give me the child until he is 

seven and I care not who has him thereafter." 

"Give me the child till the age of seven 

and I will show you the man."

There are moves afoot by radicals in the religion of perpetual offence to take over certain academies with a majority of muslim children in them and radicalise the children by ousting the current heads and leadership. It's not supposed to happen of course but the idiotic libtards and leftards who infest government and education sowed the seeds for such things years ago by assuming that western civilisation was bad and anyone who had white skin was a racist bigot and part neanderthal... besides it's cultural for islamists and we musn't criticise cultural, though it's perfectly OK for them to criticise our own.

Telegraph.

Mohammed Zabar, whose daughter attends Oldknow Academy, has spoken out after the head, Bhupinder Kondal, was driven out
Children at one of the state schools taken over by hardline Muslims are being “programmed” and have been “drilled” by their teachers to lie to Ofsted inspectors investigating the plot, according to a parent.
Mohammed Zabar, the father of a 10-year-old girl attending Oldknow Academy in Birmingham, today becomes the first person to speak openly about events at his daughter’s school.
Mr Zabar, 44, decided to break his silence after The Sunday Telegraphdescribed how teachers at the supposedly secular school led children in anti-Christian chanting, stopped them from celebrating Christmas, organised subsidised trips to Mecca and required all pupils to learn Arabic.

Naturally if the shoe was on the other foot and we were allowing white supremacists to brainwash kids there would be hell to pay and the perpetrators would have been yanked the day after they opened their mouths. But as it's not whites but others and it's their religion, then they've been allowed to get away with it as it would be deemed racist and bigoted to stop it. Indeed if it hadn't been for Mohammed Zabar speaking out, the whole thing would have been brushed under the carpet by the authorities, bit like the grooming scandals now coming to light in many towns and cities where for over a decade lives were ruined because those in power deemed it racist to act on the evidence and assumed the girls because they were white and often enough from broken homes deserved it!
The powers that be and their massed ranks of braindead leftardists in positions of power in this country are storing up the seeds of a vicious civil war in future years because they presume that the problem is us, ol whitey and not the barbarians whose behaviour they excuse be cause its cultural.
There is no place for islam in a civilised society, not now, not ever.

You will give us your money

The BBC, that bastion of leftard thinking and waste under pressure due to its costs and a review of its charter has come up with a wizard wheeze to fund itself from our pockets...
Telegraph.

Householders could be required to pay the television licence fee even if they do not own a television, under proposals being discussed by the BBC.
Lord Hall, the BBC’s director-general, wants to extend the £145.50 annual fee in response to the growing popularity of iPlayer, which enables viewers to watch programmes on home computers, mobile phones and tablet devices.
The news came as the BBC announced it will make programmes available to view on iPlayer for 30 days after they are first broadcast, instead of seven, later this year.
Executives at the broadcaster have suggested that reforms, which are due to be agreed with ministers in 2016, could include a new “universal charge” on all households, regardless of whether they own a television.
Such a tax has already been introduced in Germany and Sweden and is being considered in Ireland and Switzerland, the executives said in a report to MPs on the Commons media select committee.

Yep a universal charge whether you watch it or not, rather than the current poll tax whether you watch it or not.
Now the BBC do put out quite a bit of content, and the lack of commercial adverts is nice(ish) even if it is heavily into self advertising of its services. Some of that content is admirable and  entertaining, though its ideas particularly when it comes to news and politics is hardly balanced or unbiased, or rather is what your average leftard thinks is balanced and unbiased in regards to only giving their point of view no criticism.
This is typical of public organisations with regards to other peoples money, they see it as theirs and the service it provides as essential. It's the same with any public service from the NHS to the benefits system, they are often good ideas in principle, yet have a shambolic structure, are inefficiently run for the benefit of their employees (at the top) are not cost efficient and demand ever more of our cash every year, often enough to pay the salaries and pensions of drones they employ over and above what's actually necessary.
The likes of the BBC may have a place in society to produce media that the private sector can't or won't do, but it needs to be gutted of the excess and unnecessary first, starting right at the top...
That's before we pay anything at all...

The fear factor

The cosy club of those who like to believe they rule over us has had a bit of a shaking recently with the rise of Ukip and its showing in the polls. They've tried (and will continue to try) smears only for Ukip to get rid of any dodgy candidates far far more quickly than their own thieves and scoundrels. Now they are trying to prevent a party with higher poll ratings than one of the big three from taking part in the leaders debate before a general election...
Mail.

Ed Miliband last night demanded that Nigel Farage is barred from the leaders’ debates at next year’s General Election.
His call came the day after Ukip leader Mr Farage trounced Nick Clegg in a second debate on Europe.
A senior Tory source indicated that the Conservatives would also seek to block Mr Farage – even though the anti-EU party has been ahead of the Liberal Democrats in the opinion polls for months.
Mr Farage last night accused the two main parties of ‘running scared’.

Yep can't have the upstarts being given airtime and let loose in the cosy club at the top now can we? Farage may not be everyone's cup of tea but he made Clegg look bad (not too difficult) and Clegg made Brown and Cameron look bad so there's a definite fear factor here. Nor are Ukip despite the others claims a one track pony, they do publish a manifesto and it does have domestic and international policies they intend to carry out, not just leave the EU.
Millipede E has only said what all the big three are thinking, I do expect unless something dire happens that he'll get his way, but the publicity they'll give Ukip can only help that party.
Truly I believe those at the top are beginning to feel the tremors of fear that Ukip and their polling are beginning to produce and that possibly, just possibly someone is about to come along and upset the applecart...

Farage 2 Clegg Nil

I rather suspect the boy Clegg is regretting his decision to go head to head with Nigel Farage. I really expected Clegg to do better after the first encounter but frankly Farage wiped the floor with him in a far more personal and bitter exchange of views.
Express.

A SNAP poll last night crowned Nigel Farage the winner of his showdowns with Nick Clegg after he triumphed in the second of their live broadcast clashes over Europe.
Voters were even more impressed this week than last week by the anti-Brussels UK Independence Party leader.
After their first joust a week ago on LBC radio, 57 per cent of people surveyed by YouGov thought Mr Farage won with 36 per cent of voters thinking Mr Clegg came out on top.
But after last night’s BBC2 TV clash, YouGov found a massive 68 per cent thought the Ukip man bested his opponent compared to just 27 per cent who thought the Lib Dems Deputy Prime Minister won. Pollsters at ICM found Mr Farage had won by 69 per cent to 31 per cent.
The result was a blow for Mr Clegg as he had instigated the clashes.

Clegg had all the advantages, briefed by civil servants and seemingly given an own goal by Farage's admiration of Putin's statesmanship Iin the Ukraine despite a poll suggesting a good few in the UK agreed with Farage. Yet in the end Clegg's inner weasel won out, he simply does not get what ordinary people are thinking because unlike Farage he doesn't meet them on a day to day basis. Against Caneron  and Milliband he may be fine, but they are political class and inhabit his world whereas Farage does not and it showed when the insults began and the accusations of lies began. In the end people believed Farage if only because we regard him as one of us, though whether that will translate into votes remains to be seen. Still it was nice to see the EUphile cause torn apart by a man of passion.

Always someone else's fault

There's a stupid game out there which involves necking down a strong drink in one gulp whilst on webcam on a dare from friends. It's called Neknominate and as with over indulgence with a lot of things can lead to problems for those doing it, sometimes lethal ones...
Mail.

The mother of one of the girls involved in a drinking game that left a nine-year-old in hospital has blamed Facebook for the shocking incident.
She said the three girls, aged eight, nine and 11, stole drinks from her cabinet after watching videos of so-called Neknominate stunts on Facebook.
They then went to a shed where Rhiannon Scully downed a dangerous mix of vodka, whisky and orange juice.
The woman, who is the mother of the 11-year-old girl and gave her name only as Mrs Leader, called for Facebook to ban videos of Neknominations. Three people have died taking part in the drinking craze.
‘The NekNomination videos should be banned to protect the children,' she said.
‘It is not appropriate for Facebook to have these videos on the site when children can access them, especially if people have died as a result. I think it is ridiculous.
‘In reality children as young as eight are on Facebook and they can see these videos which inspire them. Facebook should stop allowing them from being shared. As a parent it does worry us that they can see these things so easily.
‘While I try and monitor my daughter’s Facebook I can only delete things my daughter writes, not what she sees.’
She said she allowed her daughter on Facebook, where users should be at least 13, to keep in touch with friends after moving to County Durham from Portsmouth.

So the woman allowed her daughter to use facebook despite being 11 and the girl egged on a friend who was 9 and also using facebook and this is facebook's fault somehow? From what I can tell the girls were also unsupervised at the time too and clearly had free access to the internet at the time. You'd think anyone with even a modicum of sense could spot that this was a disaster waiting to happen? Granted there will be youngsters about on facebook, but you'd hope at least that a responsible parent would only allow them access when they are in the same room?
Naturally there are calls for facebook to do something about it, deal with a problem for those who shouldn't be on facebook in the first place.
Naturally there are no calls to actually deal with the parents who allowed the situation to develop in the first place...

Sorry, but this is why we have a government

I keep out of the debate for Scottish independence, mostly because I'm not being given a vote as to keep them or not, therefore it's irrelevant as to what they do as it's unlikely to affect me or indeed England too much at all. However a statement by a former Labour chancellor caught my eye...
Mail.

The English should have a vote on whether a separate Scotland could keep the pound, former Chancellor Alistair Darling has said.
Mr Darling - who leads the pro-union Better Together campaign - suggested that residents in the rest of the United Kingdom could seal the fate of whether an independent Scotland is part of a currency union.
Scottish separatists were given a boost last weekend when an unnamed minister said that ‘of course’ Scotland could keep sterling as part of negotiations.
But that claim - made by an anonymous minister to the Guardian - was slapped down by George Osborne, the Chancellor, and his Treasury deputy Danny Alexander.
Until then, the threat of an independent Scotland losing the pound had been a key argument for the Better Together campaign, which has warned Scots of the economic consequences of quitting the UK.
Only Scots will have a say on whether they get to stay as part of the UK in the September 18 referendum.

Now whilst I'm totally against unnecessary government interference in peoples lives, I do believe that in certain decisions it's up to our elected representatives to deal with them and this would appear to be one. I know a good many reasons for or against Scotland keeping the pound as a unit of their currency. It would certainly simplify any independence moves for one, at least in the short term. However tying yourself to another countries currency without having a say in certain factors like interest rates or indeed spending and borrowing which affects the level of that currency in the worlds market for you can bring problems on over which you will have no control at all because you won't be consulted and your needs won't be discussed.
In saying there should be a referendum though Darling is trying to cost the English taxpayer money to make a decision they won't have all the information to make.
Deciding on whether the Scots have a say in keeping the pound is up to the government. Certainly the Scots could keep on using it anyway, but as to having a say in how our economy is run with regards to their independence if they go for it, no, they won't get to do that.
Besides if Salmond gets his way they'll all be using Euro's anyway, assuming the EU let them in.