I notice amongst the coverage in the Telegraph today is the fact that whilst David Mills and Tessa Jowell are separated they are still very much in love with each other.
Little seems to have been mentioned in the press, as far as I can see, how the incarceration of David Mills will benefit his fellow inmates. It must be a matter of great advantage to any inmates of a prison to learn that they will shortly have a lawyer in their midst to help them with resolving any problems experienced by, or as a result of, their imprisonment.
Therefore, for these particular inmates, this must be a case of 'Mills and Boon'!
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
David Mills' Italian Holiday
Following Mark Wadworth's post on the story in the Telegraph of David Mills' sentence by the Italian courts, for those who don't read Mark's blog (is there anyone - and if so why not?) I thought I would repeat the comment I left there earlier.
The 'rapid distancing act' by Mrs. Mills from Mr. Mills is an example of 'cheek by jowell'
The 'rapid distancing act' by Mrs. Mills from Mr. Mills is an example of 'cheek by jowell'
Reporting Facts
Apologies to all readers of this blog, but I am back on the subject of 'sloppy journalism yet again!
If anyone wishes to publish, in whatever form, a news service then it must follow that this is done objectively; and that the word 'objectively' encompasses the truth. The editorial of the Telegraph today has the 'headline' "MPs have a duty to protect our freedoms" and touches on subjects such as the photographing of police officers, 42 day detention and the comments of Dame Stella Rimington that we live 'in fear and under a police state'.
If, as stated, our politicians have a duty to protect our freedoms then how does the Telegraph not castigate them for having given away the most precious freedom we have; namely the right to choose how we are governed? Nowhere, in this editorial, is there any mention of 'the elephant in the room' - the European Union
Should MPs stir themselves from their self-imposed torpor and exercise that "duty to protect our freedoms", all that would be needed would be the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act - Job Done!
If anyone wishes to publish, in whatever form, a news service then it must follow that this is done objectively; and that the word 'objectively' encompasses the truth. The editorial of the Telegraph today has the 'headline' "MPs have a duty to protect our freedoms" and touches on subjects such as the photographing of police officers, 42 day detention and the comments of Dame Stella Rimington that we live 'in fear and under a police state'.
If, as stated, our politicians have a duty to protect our freedoms then how does the Telegraph not castigate them for having given away the most precious freedom we have; namely the right to choose how we are governed? Nowhere, in this editorial, is there any mention of 'the elephant in the room' - the European Union
Should MPs stir themselves from their self-imposed torpor and exercise that "duty to protect our freedoms", all that would be needed would be the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act - Job Done!
Nuclear Subs Collision
So two submarines have managed to collide in heaven knows how many square miles of ocean according to reports, one of which is in the Telegraph today. It is also reported that a French naval source has stated that the 'conservative' £50m repair figure would be met by the French and British taxpayer. So this has been settled on a 'knock for knock' basis thus allowing the French to retain their 'no claims'.
As anyone who has driven in France will know, the French are not renowned as being amongst the world's most careful drivers.
As a shareholder in the British 'insurance company' involved I feel slightly aggrieved!
As anyone who has driven in France will know, the French are not renowned as being amongst the world's most careful drivers.
As a shareholder in the British 'insurance company' involved I feel slightly aggrieved!
Bogus Individuals
In the print edition of the Telegraph today we are informed that
"A bogus countess, Elga Beguinua, who posed as the world's richest heiress to trick her victims out of their life savings was yesterday ordered to repay nearly £850,000."
Not in the print edition of any newspaper today:
"A bogus prime minister, Gordon Brown, who posed as the greatest chancellor who ever lived and the saviour of the world to trick his electorate out of their pension entitlements (amongst other things), was yesterday ordered to repay £...................." (I feel sure Mark Wadsworth can fill in the amount).
"A bogus countess, Elga Beguinua, who posed as the world's richest heiress to trick her victims out of their life savings was yesterday ordered to repay nearly £850,000."
Not in the print edition of any newspaper today:
"A bogus prime minister, Gordon Brown, who posed as the greatest chancellor who ever lived and the saviour of the world to trick his electorate out of their pension entitlements (amongst other things), was yesterday ordered to repay £...................." (I feel sure Mark Wadsworth can fill in the amount).
Censuring Preachers
According to a report in the Telegraph "A new counter-terrorism strategy will attempt to tackle preachers who do not advocate violence but tell their followers that democracy and Islam are not compatible." and "Such preachers are not breaking the law but are said to form the first in a series of steps to radicalism." The article also advises "The Home Office is currently spending £80m on community projects designed to stop young Muslims from being radicalised."
So £80m of taxpayer's money is being spent on the prevention of radicalisation in the name of 'diversity'. It could, perhaps, be argued that preaching democracy and Islam are not compatible is undermining our chosen system of government and that it is 'subversion of the state'. What is the difference between preaching that democracy and Islam are not compatible and preaching violence?
Answer - none, so can we please save £80m of our money?
So £80m of taxpayer's money is being spent on the prevention of radicalisation in the name of 'diversity'. It could, perhaps, be argued that preaching democracy and Islam are not compatible is undermining our chosen system of government and that it is 'subversion of the state'. What is the difference between preaching that democracy and Islam are not compatible and preaching violence?
Answer - none, so can we please save £80m of our money?
Local Government - Cameron Style
The Conservative Party have just published a Green Paper on how they intend to 'devolve' power back to the people. A pdf version is available via ConHome here.
Initially, let us look at the Foreward signed by David Cameron. In talking about the crisis of our broken society he cites as a fault "an imbalance of responsibility and power". In discussing how to tackle the effects of our broken society he considers one of the methods is "descentralising responsibility and power". In this same foreward he insists that "I am a strong localist". and that "Localism holds the key to economic, social and political success". He also states that "Britain became great when power was distributed and not centralised".
Interesting statements indeed Mr. Cameron! If these are to be taken at face value then perhaps he would explain how these equate with our membership of the European Union? The last two quotes are particularly relevant to this question, where "localism" relates to this country viz-a-viz the EU. If the statement "I am a strong localist" were true then he would not continue his support for said membership.
Admittedly having only 'skimmed' the contents of the Green Paper, it does not seem to contain any mention of abolition of Regional Development Agencies, Government Offices of the Regions or Local Area Agreements. But then again his 'hands are tied', are they not?
The Foreward, in itself, is but another example of obfuscation and a form of contempt for the electorate of this country that is constantly shown by David Cameron and the Conservative Party and which is no different to that of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
More will follow on this later.
Initially, let us look at the Foreward signed by David Cameron. In talking about the crisis of our broken society he cites as a fault "an imbalance of responsibility and power". In discussing how to tackle the effects of our broken society he considers one of the methods is "descentralising responsibility and power". In this same foreward he insists that "I am a strong localist". and that "Localism holds the key to economic, social and political success". He also states that "Britain became great when power was distributed and not centralised".
Interesting statements indeed Mr. Cameron! If these are to be taken at face value then perhaps he would explain how these equate with our membership of the European Union? The last two quotes are particularly relevant to this question, where "localism" relates to this country viz-a-viz the EU. If the statement "I am a strong localist" were true then he would not continue his support for said membership.
Admittedly having only 'skimmed' the contents of the Green Paper, it does not seem to contain any mention of abolition of Regional Development Agencies, Government Offices of the Regions or Local Area Agreements. But then again his 'hands are tied', are they not?
The Foreward, in itself, is but another example of obfuscation and a form of contempt for the electorate of this country that is constantly shown by David Cameron and the Conservative Party and which is no different to that of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
More will follow on this later.
Police State Risked - Dame Stella Rimington
The front page article in today's Telegraph is about the statement by the former head of MI5 that the fear of terrorism is being exploited by the government to erode civil liberties.
Readers of this blog will be aware I frequently make complaints about 'sloppy' journalism and this article is a case in point. Nowhere in the quoted remarks by Stella Rimington, David Davis and Arthur Chaskelson (Chairman of the International Commission of Jurists who have just issued a report criticising America and Britain for "actively undermining" the law through measures introduced to counter terrorism) is there any mention of 'the elephant in the room'.
In the Comment Is Free section of the Guardian, on 11th February 2009, Tony Bunyan writes that "The ECJ ruling on retention of our communications data shows that threats to our liberties are now originating in the EU" and that "People may be aware of the debate in the UK over access to communications data under the Regulation of Invwestigatory Powers Act 2000 but are less familiar with the role the UK government has played in the EU, where it first proposed mandatory data retention, backed by France, Ireland and Sweden, in April 2004."
Writing in Statewatch (in an article about America) Gene Ray states “There is a clear tendency among states, almost without exception, to criminalise established form of dissent and protest and to re-categorise forms of civil disobedience and direct action as “terrorism”
I am no lover of the Guardian, however words written by Henry Porter, in his blog, are worth repeating:
Readers of this blog will be aware I frequently make complaints about 'sloppy' journalism and this article is a case in point. Nowhere in the quoted remarks by Stella Rimington, David Davis and Arthur Chaskelson (Chairman of the International Commission of Jurists who have just issued a report criticising America and Britain for "actively undermining" the law through measures introduced to counter terrorism) is there any mention of 'the elephant in the room'.
In the Comment Is Free section of the Guardian, on 11th February 2009, Tony Bunyan writes that "The ECJ ruling on retention of our communications data shows that threats to our liberties are now originating in the EU" and that "People may be aware of the debate in the UK over access to communications data under the Regulation of Invwestigatory Powers Act 2000 but are less familiar with the role the UK government has played in the EU, where it first proposed mandatory data retention, backed by France, Ireland and Sweden, in April 2004."
Writing in Statewatch (in an article about America) Gene Ray states “There is a clear tendency among states, almost without exception, to criminalise established form of dissent and protest and to re-categorise forms of civil disobedience and direct action as “terrorism”
I am no lover of the Guardian, however words written by Henry Porter, in his blog, are worth repeating:
"Labour is committed to its course of eroding the traditions, procedures and respect on which our free society is based. It will not rest until all its costly systems are in place and its legacy of control and disrespect is assured. This report is a grave warning to us all, especially to an opposition that has been so feeble in defending our privacy and rights."
As the three main parties are all committed to membership of the European Union, their reluctance to highlight the origins of our laws, even their complicity in framing EU laws, is understandable. Unfortunately it shows a contempt by politicians for their electorate, compounded by what is laughably called a 'free press' with its failure to report all the facts.
Amongst the letters in the Telegraph today is one in which the writer predicts the person best placed to assume leadership of the Labour Party, following their defeat at the next election, is Yvette Cooper.
Thats Balls!
Thats Balls!
Monday, 16 February 2009
How Much Is 'Much'?
A report I missed from yesterday's Times details that the Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that
proposals which are part of the government's welfare reform bill will mean "people who lose their jobs could be denied unemployment benefit if they refuse to tell the government how much they drink."
Another worrying aspect of this article is "Officials will also be able to check the truth of applicants’ answers through other agencies, such as the police."
So the state can dictate our habits, and have them checked, on the arbitrary whim of some bureaucrat?
Fine, then we the people demand the right to dictate how MPs live their lives, what expenses and allowances they can claim, the prices charged for food and drink in Parliament, which MPs are eligible for second homes, together with the right to inspect their household expenses in order to cut out 'unhealthy' and 'wasteful' items.
proposals which are part of the government's welfare reform bill will mean "people who lose their jobs could be denied unemployment benefit if they refuse to tell the government how much they drink."
Another worrying aspect of this article is "Officials will also be able to check the truth of applicants’ answers through other agencies, such as the police."
So the state can dictate our habits, and have them checked, on the arbitrary whim of some bureaucrat?
Fine, then we the people demand the right to dictate how MPs live their lives, what expenses and allowances they can claim, the prices charged for food and drink in Parliament, which MPs are eligible for second homes, together with the right to inspect their household expenses in order to cut out 'unhealthy' and 'wasteful' items.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Was Geert Wilders Exclusion Legal?
Bankrupted Financially & Morally
Have just been wading through the report by Malcolm Offord, 'Bankrupt Britain' and do not doubt the fact that, for me, I should have said 'struggling through'. For those interested, the report can be found here. This set me thinking - besides financially, is not the country bankrupt morally too?
To what level has our society sunk that parents allow children, in or approaching their teens, of differing sexes to sleep in the same bed and then wonder and 'tut tut' when babies are born as a result? What has happened to our society when the public have to walk through a minefield of 'banned' words so 'offence' is not caused to homosexuals, lesbians, ethnic immigrants and a whole host of other 'protected' members of our society? What has happened to our society to reach the nadir whereby even our polticians are 'on the fiddle' by their strict adherence to badly drafted 'rules'. 'Rules', such as those for smoking in the workplace and subsidised alcohol, drafted for their own benefit and to which the public is exluded from enjoying is not acceptable; especially from a group that considers themselves 'elite'.
What has happend to our society when I am berated for asking that immigrants adhere to our way of life, respect our values and point out that no-one forced them to come here so therefore, if they feel 'uncomfortable', they are free to leave? Are we no longer able to have debates on subjects? As an example, we are told we cannot criticise Islam - you mean to tell me that a religion purporting to have been around for ages is unable to justify its existence and its beliefs? Neither does it need to be wrapped in cotton wool by politicians of all parties in their attempts to curry favour with the Muslim vote.
Jeremy Clarkson is berated by the 'high & mighty' for using the phrase "One-eyed Scottish idiot" when describing our unelected leader. The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) complain about the slur of people with a disabiity; Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray and Gordon Banks, Labour MP for Ochil and South Perthshire brand Clarkson's comments as "unforgivable". (As an aside, I don't recall anyone complaining about the 'idiot' bit though - or did I blink and miss it?).
It can be argued that choosing one's words carefully in order not to cause 'offence' is not proof of 'sensitivity' but is, in fact, condescending. Have we lost the ability to call a spade a spade, or do we now have to use the term 'a manually operated tool for moving solid matter'? (surprised I haven't heard that term used by one of our 'pc' local authorities - or have I missed that too?). I, for one, will continue to speak my mind and if that causes 'offence' to someone - too bad! Just don't come whining to me, quoting some idiotic law that this bunch of misfits (aka our government) has passed or try to have me 'gagged'. Debate with me or suffer the indignity of disdain and being ignored.
To what level has our society sunk that parents allow children, in or approaching their teens, of differing sexes to sleep in the same bed and then wonder and 'tut tut' when babies are born as a result? What has happened to our society when the public have to walk through a minefield of 'banned' words so 'offence' is not caused to homosexuals, lesbians, ethnic immigrants and a whole host of other 'protected' members of our society? What has happened to our society to reach the nadir whereby even our polticians are 'on the fiddle' by their strict adherence to badly drafted 'rules'. 'Rules', such as those for smoking in the workplace and subsidised alcohol, drafted for their own benefit and to which the public is exluded from enjoying is not acceptable; especially from a group that considers themselves 'elite'.
What has happend to our society when I am berated for asking that immigrants adhere to our way of life, respect our values and point out that no-one forced them to come here so therefore, if they feel 'uncomfortable', they are free to leave? Are we no longer able to have debates on subjects? As an example, we are told we cannot criticise Islam - you mean to tell me that a religion purporting to have been around for ages is unable to justify its existence and its beliefs? Neither does it need to be wrapped in cotton wool by politicians of all parties in their attempts to curry favour with the Muslim vote.
Jeremy Clarkson is berated by the 'high & mighty' for using the phrase "One-eyed Scottish idiot" when describing our unelected leader. The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) complain about the slur of people with a disabiity; Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray and Gordon Banks, Labour MP for Ochil and South Perthshire brand Clarkson's comments as "unforgivable". (As an aside, I don't recall anyone complaining about the 'idiot' bit though - or did I blink and miss it?).
It can be argued that choosing one's words carefully in order not to cause 'offence' is not proof of 'sensitivity' but is, in fact, condescending. Have we lost the ability to call a spade a spade, or do we now have to use the term 'a manually operated tool for moving solid matter'? (surprised I haven't heard that term used by one of our 'pc' local authorities - or have I missed that too?). I, for one, will continue to speak my mind and if that causes 'offence' to someone - too bad! Just don't come whining to me, quoting some idiotic law that this bunch of misfits (aka our government) has passed or try to have me 'gagged'. Debate with me or suffer the indignity of disdain and being ignored.
Is Little Alfie To Blame?
Reported in the Sunday Telegraph is the fact that two other boys are claiming 'parental rights'.
Oh dear - has poor little Alfie been 'shafted' then?
Just a thought.
Oh dear - has poor little Alfie been 'shafted' then?
Just a thought.
Raging Bulls
Intrigued by the headline to this article in the Sunday Telegraph, which begins:
"They are the scourge of rural communities.....marauding through the countryside and charging anything that crosses their path."
We desperately need a recording of the call so we can play it to Gordon.
Sarah?
Anyone?
"They are the scourge of rural communities.....marauding through the countryside and charging anything that crosses their path."
We desperately need a recording of the call so we can play it to Gordon.
Sarah?
Anyone?
Labour Politicians & Bankers
On the subject of the How Brown Obliviously Shafted/Lloyds problem and the latest fall in the share price on Friday, the statement by Alastair Darling, in respnse to Kirsty Walk's question on Newsnight whether 'due diligence' had been applied to Lloyds' absorption of HBOS, was a classic example of 'Political Waffle'
Whilst Brown's 'Darling Chancellor' muttered the excuse that "We only had days to do something", surely any accountant 'worth his salt' would have,within 24/48 hours, smelled 'the proverbial rat'?
Just asking (to coin MW's phrase).
Whilst Brown's 'Darling Chancellor' muttered the excuse that "We only had days to do something", surely any accountant 'worth his salt' would have,within 24/48 hours, smelled 'the proverbial rat'?
Just asking (to coin MW's phrase).
Consequences Of Children Becoming Parents
From Inspector Gadget an observation on the above.
The last thing on my mind, aged 12, was to get involved with the opposite sex.
Having reached the age of 67,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, !
The last thing on my mind, aged 12, was to get involved with the opposite sex.
Having reached the age of 67,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, !
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Lord Ahmed To Sue?
Charles Moore, writing in the Telegraph today, states that "Lord Ahmed has denied reports that he warned that 10,000 would hit the streets."
In view of this, we can therefore expect Lord Ahmed to seek redress through our English courts?
In the belief that Lord Ahmed has integrated fully into his adopted country and understands the nuances of the English language, perhaps he would like to 'put up or shut up'?
In view of this, we can therefore expect Lord Ahmed to seek redress through our English courts?
In the belief that Lord Ahmed has integrated fully into his adopted country and understands the nuances of the English language, perhaps he would like to 'put up or shut up'?
What Is A Tree?
A judge has taken 12,000 words to provide a ruling in answer to the above question, as reported in the Telegraph today.
In his ruling he concludes "with tree preservation orders there are no limitations in terms of size for what is to be treated as a tree. In other words, saplings are trees".
So the remaining 11,973 other words were not really necessary then?
When accusations are made that recourse to the law is over-used, might this particular instance be a case where the ruling could have been 'trunkated' and the whole question basically 'leafed' alone, to be settled by the use of common sense?
In his ruling he concludes "with tree preservation orders there are no limitations in terms of size for what is to be treated as a tree. In other words, saplings are trees".
So the remaining 11,973 other words were not really necessary then?
When accusations are made that recourse to the law is over-used, might this particular instance be a case where the ruling could have been 'trunkated' and the whole question basically 'leafed' alone, to be settled by the use of common sense?
Pay Your Own Way
Part of a headline in the Telegraph (yet again no link!) detailing the plight of Normandy veterans who are finding the cost of traveling to the 65th anniversary of the event financially difficult.
A spokesman for the MOD has stated that public money is only available for the 25th, 50th, 60th and 100th anniversaries of public events.
Maybe the government could find some money by cutting out costly IT programmes that have been proven will not work, maybe local authorities could cut out money wasted on 'Diversity' officials, or 'Quit Smoking' advisers to fund these veterans and thus fund such trips?
If American and Canadian governments can reportedly fund their veterans, can not this government fund the veterans who wish to pay tribute to their fallen comrades? After all, these fallen comrades paid with their lives to ensure that this country has been able to continue its slide into the current state of degradation of political corruptness, political correctness and statist control over our lives, that now exists.
Update: Apologies, just found the link
A spokesman for the MOD has stated that public money is only available for the 25th, 50th, 60th and 100th anniversaries of public events.
Maybe the government could find some money by cutting out costly IT programmes that have been proven will not work, maybe local authorities could cut out money wasted on 'Diversity' officials, or 'Quit Smoking' advisers to fund these veterans and thus fund such trips?
If American and Canadian governments can reportedly fund their veterans, can not this government fund the veterans who wish to pay tribute to their fallen comrades? After all, these fallen comrades paid with their lives to ensure that this country has been able to continue its slide into the current state of degradation of political corruptness, political correctness and statist control over our lives, that now exists.
Update: Apologies, just found the link
Role Reversals
A story in the Telegraph today (no link) deals with the 'case study' of children having to care for elderly parents, who whilst strong mentally are weak physically and have trouble with everyday 'chores'.
The daughter in question is quoted as saying that whilst the time she has to spend with her mother conflicts with time she wishes to spend with her husband and son she is nonetheless "happy to do this"
Two points arise with this story, the first being the manner in which it is written. If the facts are correct, what did the daughter expect would be the case and who does she think will care for her when she reaches the age that her mother is, namely 80. The second point is whether this story has been written with a view to eliciting some form of sympathy for daughter who has to 'give up time' to take her mother to the doctors for example, ensuring all household bills are paid etc, or whether it is yet another case of 'sloppy journalism'.
Either way, it seems a waste of newsprint.
The daughter in question is quoted as saying that whilst the time she has to spend with her mother conflicts with time she wishes to spend with her husband and son she is nonetheless "happy to do this"
Two points arise with this story, the first being the manner in which it is written. If the facts are correct, what did the daughter expect would be the case and who does she think will care for her when she reaches the age that her mother is, namely 80. The second point is whether this story has been written with a view to eliciting some form of sympathy for daughter who has to 'give up time' to take her mother to the doctors for example, ensuring all household bills are paid etc, or whether it is yet another case of 'sloppy journalism'.
Either way, it seems a waste of newsprint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
