Human Rights

Melanie Phillips reports British courts ruled, on human rights grounds, that terrorists could neither be thrown out of the country nor locked up pending their potentially being thrown out of the country. Having eventually had to settle for a system of house arrest, watered down from the original proposals for such 'house arrest', again on the insistence of 'human rights' lobbyists, it would appear that the 'restraints' have been broken. Of those subjected to restraint apparently 15 actively engaged in terrorists activities, in one form or another. Likewise she also reports that of the Guantanamo Bay suspects, 61 are reported to have either definitely returned to terrorist activities, or are suspected of having done so. The response of Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch, is that of a typical lawyer, namely: until its proved we must treat such statements with a certain amount of caution.

My cynicism where the legal profession is concerned is on a par with that for politicians; both being governed by the lure of money. (and my apologies to those members of those professions - and there are some - who may feel 'hard done by').

However one can but be reminded of the phrase 'as you sow, so shall you reap'. In other words, if someone wishes to engage in terrorism and carry out terrorist acts then, having been caught, please understand you may not be treated in accordance with the law or expect to receive the human rights which you so obviously don't care about. This also underlines yet another 'rule' which human rights activists conveniently forget and that is if someone breaks the rules of society, then they must surely accept that they cannot expect those same rules and benefits of society to be applied to them. This can be applied to anyone, not just terrorists, who break the laws of society. In the case of criminals - petty or otherwise - in this country, having broken the laws of society, why should a prisoner receive the benefits of society such as tv, newspapers, special meals, etc?

Harsh, I know and readily accept, but...............................

Question Time - Friday 5th February

The panel for the above includes Geoff Hoon, Theresa May, Shami Chakrabarti, Nigel Farage, and Will Young.

Profiles of the speakers can be found here.

May be worth watching, if only for what I hope will be a good, entertaining fireworks display with Geoff Hoon on top of the bonfire!

The Statist Society And Its Costs

Raedwald has a very good post on our statist society and the lessening of our ability to be allowed to control ourselves and it is well worth a read. Thinking of holding a street party - think again!

"In 1976 we were encouraged to organise street parties. Today there would be a hurricane of official discouragement; all adults would have to undergo CRB checks, £5m public liability insurance would need to be in place, and no-one would be allowed to bake a cake or make a sandwich for the party unless they had undergone food hygeine training and the environmental health had certified their fridge. There would need to be a risk assessment, a health and safety policy in place, an application to the council to stop-up the highway complete with traffic management plan, and if anyone wanted to sing, a temporary events licence, entertainments licence and police licence would be needed. If the street party involved a rum punch for the adults, then a whole spectrum of liquer licences would be needed. The licence conditions would specify bouncers, fire marshals and first aid and fire fighting equipment to be on hand; there would also need to be temporary toilets (with a sewer connection licence) as popping indoors for a pee wouldn't satisfy the statutory requirements. In short, in the space of thirty years the State has erected barriers of such formidable complexity that it has robbed the nation of any trust in ourselves."

In the Financial Times Sue Cameron has an interesting article on graduate applications to join the Civil Service, yet another article well worth a read and it includes a simple plan to obtain a nice pay-off.

On the same topic, we find that a quarter of all council tax payments "goes to meet the soaring cost of the gold-plated pensions of town hall workers."

Maybe this is what Gordon Brown meant by his infamous statement 'British Jobs For British Workers' - Get all the workers working for the state and therefore dependent on it. On the basis that 'turkeys don't vote for Christmas', his phrase could well be subtitled 'New Labour's plan to ensure it gets re-elected'.

A British Stasi-Like State?

Ambush Predator has an interesting post on something that is being proposed by our government, something which in effect asks us to spy on our neighbours and report any suspicions to the 'authorities' and which was a practice used in East Germany and other communist countries.

The Mail reports that "The Somebody Else's Child campaign has been organised by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, with funding from the Department for Children, Schools and Families"; a campaign which is "designed to persuade the public to tell social workers about 'private fostering' arrangements, in which children are given by their parents or carers to other people to look after".

"Posters in the campaign, which was launched last month, ask baldly: 'Do you know someone who is caring for somebody else's child? If it's for more than 28 days they must notify their local council. Failure to do so is a criminal offence.' They do not mention that there is no legal bar to relatives bringing up children.......A spokesman for the BAAF said that grandparents should clear up any misunderstanding by contacting social workers themselves." and "It also calls for children to put pressure on their friends to tell teachers if they are living with people who are not their parents."

Do the government not wish families to gel? Who has forced parents to ask relatives to look after their children so that those parents can earn yet more money to pay the ever-increasing taxes that are due? Is it not insidious that children are being asked to act as 'informers' - and not incidentally for the first time?

It is obvious that the 'its for the children' line' is being adopted so that yet another aspect of private lifestyle can be monitored by an ever-increasing dictatorial government. It is also instilling in us, the people, that we should report ourselves before someone else reports us!

Yet again it would appear that we have a 'charity' being funded by a government department to promote yet more interference into our lives. It is interesting that, having accessed the website of the BAAF to view their annual accounts these are not available due to 'redesigning their website'  - what a surprise!

One basic principle of democracy has been forgotten by this government and its bureaucratic arm and that is that the state is here to serve the people, not that the people are here to serve the state. Sometime in the near future the 'day of reckoning' will come when that lesson will be learned and that day is the day when the next General Election is held.

Update: For another view on this read Musings on Liberty.

Self -Justification

My attention was drawn - by An Englishman's Castle -  to a posting on the BBC website, under the section 'Viewpoint', by one Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis on the subject of why we need more 'nannying'.

If ever there was a case of a bureaucrat justifying his own and that of his organisation's existence, then surely this is but a prime example.

"I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves."

The 'increasing acceptance' that you see is not what you believe it to be. It is an acceptance due to the fact we, the people, are resigned to the dictatorial attitudes of this government and people like you and are just waiting the democratic opportunity we have to 'change' your views.

"We are happy to see bans on tobacco advertising and the selling of alcohol and tobacco to minors because we understand the dangers for young people."

Oh, here we go again - using the 'its for the children' reasoning again. Who said 'we' are happy to see bans on tobacco advertising - no-one asked me.

"And to my mind the really shining example of how far the public have come in accepting laws to help protect us from self-harm is the huge support for smoke-free public spaces and workplaces throughout the UK."

Perhaps the good doctor would supply statistics to support this 'huge support'? Once again, when was I asked whether this is what I wanted?

"But it was ordinary people who really tipped the balance to change the law. It was the steady shift in public opinion that gave legislators the courage. It proved that we, the people, can have a powerful influence on the way laws can be made on our behalf. I strongly believe we should exercise that influence much more."

No sir, it was not ordinary people who 'tipped the balance', it was so-called charities like ASH, a fake-charity that derives most of its income from the Government, that through the use of false statistics founded on unproven 'scientific' facts, dictated this policy.

"We need a big stick to curb the worst excesses of the various commercial interests who shape our lifestyle."

The one sentence in this post with which I agree is this last quotation in that yes, we do need a big stick to curb the worst excesses of the various interests who shape our lives. However, the good doctor fails to recognise one rather important fact and that is our, the people's stick, is a damn sight bigger than his, or that of the government. and that it will, in the fullness of time, be exercised! As a result another point on which he can rest assured is that there is a lamp post and length of hemp with his name already on them!

"What next? I would like to see a ban on smoking in cars with a child on board and a ban on displays of cigarettes in shops. I would like to see a real hike in tax on alcohol and a ban on deep price-cuts for booze. I would like to see a wider ban on junk-food adverts around TV programmes watched largely by children.

I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health. This is not 'nannying'. This is responsible government acting on behalf of a consenting public."

What you, Doctor, would like to see is nothing more than a form of 'social dictatorship', a form of society in which your power increases along with your own personal publicity and thereby your own importance, whilst that of the people decreases. What happened to the idea of 'personal choice of lifestyle' that is surely one of the freedoms of a free society - mind you, that is a silly question to put to someone who obviously does not accept the idea of freedom of choice.

As you have had the opportunity to express what you would like to see, perhaps I may have the same opportunity - in the interests of fairness?

What I would like to see Doctor is for you to disappear from my life!

Cynical Puzzlement

Read a story in the print edition of the Daily Telegraph about a hospital being shelled, resulting in 9 people being killed and 20 wounded.

Knowing there was something odd about the story, puzzlement set in for about 10 minutes, before enlightenment dawned.

No mention of the word 'Israel'

Robertson Jam

It would seem that Carol Thatcher has upset Adrian Chiles, he of The One Show, leaving him "very shocked".

So the next time a member of the 'black brethren' calls me 'honky' I can complain, be "very shocked" and bring down the condemnation of all and sundry upon the person maligning me? Oh and possibly get awarded heaven knows how much for the affront to my feelings?

Yea - right on brother!

Afterthought: One wonders whether the fact the person uttering the term used had the surname Thatcher had anything to do with the story being 'aired' - no of course not - sorry, me being cynical again!

Who Governs Us?

England Expects has, in a post today, demonstrated exactly where the real power lies with regard to our membership of that odious body, the European Union.

Baroness Ashton replaced Peter Mandelson on the latter's return to serve in the present government, led by Gordon Brown (if you can call the collection of half-wits we have at the moment a government).

Previously, as a member of the government of the United Kingdom Baroness Ashton took the Privy Council Oath which states:

"You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates."

Yesterday the following event took place:

SOLEMN UNDERTAKING BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE BY A NEW MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Formal sitting of 2 February 2009

Following the resignation of Mr Peter Mandelson from his duties as a member of the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, by decision of 7 October 2008, acting in accordance with the Treaties, has decided to replace him for the remainder of his term of office. Baroness Catherine Ashton has been appointed a member of the European Commission for the period from 6 October 2008 to 31 October 2009.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities held a formal sitting at 12.30 today at which Baroness Catherine Ashton gave her solemn undertaking in accordance with the Treaties.

The solemn undertaking entails this:

"The Treaty articles on the Commission make special reference to the complete independence enjoyed by the Members of the Commission, who are required to discharge their duties in the general interest of the Community. In the performance of their duties they must neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body." (my emphasis)

We are told that, in our constitution, 'Parliament is Sovereign', but if a Member of the Commission must neither seek nor take instructions from any government then Parliament is no longer 'Sovereign' and contrary to what Heath (I refuse to give that man any recognition of title) told us - we have lost our sovereignty and therefore we may as well disband parliament resulting in the end of the facade that this country is a self-governing nation.

May all those MPs who have continuously voted in favour of this country's membership of the European Union hang their heads in shame and I trust they will not have the effrontery to seek re-election.

Its Just Not Cricket!

The news today that Middlesex Crusaders have changed their name to The Panthers has really got me annoyed.

"Vinny Codrington, Middlesex chief executive, confirmed that the club had received "one or two" complaints from Muslim and Jewish communities concerned that the name was a reference to the medieval Christian crusades against other faiths." and "He said some people found the name "rather upsetting" but denied that the change was being made for reasons of political correctness." (my emphasis)

Yes, Mr. Codrington, I believe you - of course I do. (not!)

The next thing we know, we shall be having complaints about that old, educational, toy from my childhood, Meccano, on the basis it is an 'insult' to use the letters 'Mecca' in another word and in an unrelated context.

To those Muslims, and any other ethnic minority, who are 'offended' by our country, the language we use and our general way of life, I say this - If anything we do or say causes 'offense' then just leave and go find some other nation to complain to - Please!

Mandelson (He Of Foy) Speak With Forked Tongue

Peter Mandelson (note the absence of title on the basis the use of the word 'Lord' denotes a certain mark of respect, a view I do not have and one which is not just due to the recent 'furore' about payments) wants to "Stop feeding this xenophobia".

Remembering that Peter Mandelson is in receipt of a pension from the European Union, a pension that is dependent on his not being critical of that body, one has to ask how he can 'stand up' for British interests;  something which he cannot do, also for another reason. As Janet Daley pointed out in her comment piece in the Daily Telegraph today, "......it is now illegal – illegal – for the government of an EU country to put the needs and concerns of its own population first."

It is obvious there are arguments in favour of the free movement of people and their right to work, but this can be arranged between governments and does not require membership of an authoritarian body to accomplish.

'Weather' To Comment Or Not

A tad late with postings today mainly due to depression about matters generally relating to the state of our country.

Once again our country has a smattering of snow (lets be factual - where I am we have had approximately half an inch, if that. Schools shutting for H&S reasons etc, etc.) and the country grinds to a halt. Heaven help us if, due to all this global warming, we get the amount that Scandinavia and North America receive.

From what I can see at least it appears to have kept the Government quiet today - have they all joined their brethren and gone on strike?

Snow Business Like Government Business!

EU Costs - Open Europe February 2009 Report

A report just released by Open Europe is essential reading for everyone - and I mean everyone - even for this one fact alone:

Since the UK launched its ‘Regulatory Reform Agenda’ in 2005, the annual cost of regulation has gone from £16.5 billion in 2005 to £28.7 billion in 2008 – an enormous increase of 74%.

Meanwhile, the estimated cumulative cost of regulations introduced in the UK between 1998 and 2008 is £148.2 billion. This is the equivalent of 10% of GDP

For the same amount, the UK Government could abolish income tax for one year or cut the national debt by 24%.

Please, Please, PLEASE - Go read this report and then tell me you still wish to remain an inmate of this asylum.

EU Expenses

The Open Europe blog has an item on the above subject, in which it reports that the Conservative Party - bar one MEP, Weasely Beazely - has published full expense accounts for the last four months. It is to be hoped that every party will follow suit and that, in the case of one particular party, they will also include staff and salary costs too, in the spirit of total transparency!

From that blog, a few statistics:

"By our calculations, Conservative MEPs have on average cost the UK taxpayer £36,303 each for expenses, travel and allowances in 4 months alone. So over a year that is £108,910 each. It's a fair bet that this will be no different for all our MEPs.

If you times that by the number of members of the European Parliament (785) you're looking at costs per year of an eye-watering £85,494,350 for the whole of Europe.

And that's not allowing for the fact that many MEPs will be spending far more than British MEPs on travel between home and the European Parliament.

It also doesn't even begin to cover their salary and staff costs, of course."

No further comment!

Humiliation? - I Think So

A story in the Times today demonstrates just how low government of this country has sunk! In a story, headlined "Ministers seek to change European rules to head off protests against foreign workers" it reports that Gordon Brown is to "go to Europe to seek new legal safeguards for British workers in an attempt to head off the growing industrial unrest and the prospect of a fresh wave of strikes this week."

So a British Prime Minister (I repeat a British Prime Minister) has to go to Brussels to ask his masters whether he can have the law that governs us changed? A law to which he, with his 'Europe is good for jobs, good for the British people' flag waving over his head, surely could see was going to cause trouble for him, his party and our country.

On the basis he will be pleading that we have too much 'labour' over here, perhaps he could stay there - he seems to love Europe so much! It would also mean we, in this country, have a tad less 'labour'! Result!

Double Standards?

A story on the Mail on Sunday deals with the YouTube footage of the protest against Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip. Whilst this article is about the allegation that the police 'ran away' from the reported 3,000 demonstrators and the police denials that this was the case, one simple thought struck me.

Bearing in mind the demonstrators were chanting, amongst other phrases, 'Allah Akbar' and 'Fatwa' during a protest march lasting three hours, my question is this:

Would any member of the Met Police 'elite' please tell me how far into a three hour protest I would have got,as a white British male, shouting similar phrases, phrases which a Muslim might find 'offensive' and 'racist'?

Just asking (to coin a phrase).

PS - Here is the YouTube video, courtesy of Cranmer.

Out Of The Mouths Of Babes & Sucklings

It appears Gordon Brown has compared himself with Titian and is quoted as saying "Titian reached the age of 90, finished the last of his 100 great paintings, and said: 'I'm finally learning how to paint.' That is where we are"

In trying to wriggle out of his 'British Jobs For British Workers' sound-bite, again he is quoted as saying When I talked about British jobs, I was talking about giving people in Britain the skills, so that they have the ability to get jobs which were at present going to people from abroad......"

So the Greatest Chancellor That Ever Lived is now saying he is still learning the job? After 12 years? Does this man 'engage brain before opening mouth' - it would seem not - even when he does, for once, speak the truth!

On the point of his second quote - does this idiot (sorry, typo - unfair to idiots) not, even now, understand that even if he reached a situation whereby British workers were the most skilled on earth; if a foreign company won a contract for work in this country, that company has the right to use their own employees. Does he understand the present laws of the European Union? Has he actually read any of the treaties? Also, bear in mind that on enlargement of the EU, to take in the eastern European countries, the EU (for once showing a tad of common sense) told governments they could put temporary restrictions on entry to their labour forces!

Possibly the reason why we never got a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is because Gordon Brown did not wish to have to debate the issues purely because he does not understand them himself!

And this man believes he can 'lead our country'? All I can say is, bearing in mind the financial state of this country, I can but hope, for his sake, Sarah handles the housekeeping!

Labour Spinning - Again

The cost of keeping teenagers at school until the age of 18 has soared to over £1billion, according to the Sunday Telegraph. The scheme, running since 2004 costs taxpayers £300million a year according to this report and which details incidents where students turn up, claim the allowance and then do little work after which they go home, where teachers have been verbally abused for non-authorisation of the allowance, etc.

The interesting point in the report is that the paper states 'Ministers claim the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) has been a success, raising the staying-on rate by almost 4 percent.

Call me a cynic if you wish, but of course it has been a success - it saves heaven knows how much (difference between JSA and EMA) plus more importantly these 'students' do not need to be counted in the jobless totals!

OK, so I am a cynic!

Taking (Lordly) Liberties

Further to the story detailing 'alleged' 'cash for amendments' in the House of Lords, the Times has published extracts from a transcript of conversations with Lords Taylor, Truscott, Moonie and Snape.

Quite enlightening.

Public Sector Pensions - Again!

Apologies for posting on this subject yet again, but the Times is reporting that the costs of public sector pensions has increased by £11.2billion in one year - a 33 percent increase.

The most interesting quote in the story comes from Nick Silver, chief actuary at Callund Consulting, who said: “The cost of paying the pensions of current civil servants has gone up by £1 billion in a single year and it’s not obvious why - government accounts do not give a proper explanation of why.” (my emphasis) and “Civil servants do make contributions, but their contributions do not count for anything like the true cost of their pension – the bulk of which will be paid for by generations of future taxpayers,” 

And politicians of all parties, but especially Gordon Brown, berate banks for not having been 'open' with their accounts?

The words 'black', 'kettle' and 'pot' spring to mind.

Causing offense

It is reported in the Sunday Telegraph today that a community nurse, Caroline Petrie, has been suspended from her employment for having caused offense to a female patient by offering to pray for her.

Caroline Petrie had, apparently, been warned previously about her practice of offering to pray for her patients and this previous warning reminded her of her Nursing Midwifery Code (NMC) which states that "you must demonstrate a personal and profession commitment to equality and diversity" and "you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health".

I have to admit to an 'interest' in this story in that firstly, I am not religious and also that I have an elderly mother who is religious. What I find disquieting about this story is (a) the idea that anyone would feel 'offended' by an offer of prayer and (b) can it not be argued that anything that improves someone's health, be that physical or psychological, is surely to the benefit of the patient. 

How can 'offense' be caused by an offer of help - it is an 'offer' and 'offers' can be accepted or refused.  On the second point,  I am sure we can all think of an incident, when not being well, where an offer of something of a non-medical nature has made us 'feel better'.

In a another incident, reported in the article, an offer to leave a prayer card with an elderly male patient was accepted however the man's carer lodged a complaint. It has to be made clear that the article has not given any details of this man's soundness of mind and therefore whether he was able to make such a judgement. If he was then the carer, in my opinion, had no right to make a 'secondhand' complaint. If the male patient did not have soundness of mind and the carer did not have Power of Attorney, again I do not see grounds for interference.

Readers of this blog will know that I have in the past complained of 'sloppy' journalism and without wishing to cause any offense to the journalist concerned, Andrew Alderson, it could be argued that this article is 'slanted' in favour of Caroline Petrie, with a view to 'catching the public mood'. Not all the facts are known and it will be interesting to hear the result of the pending disciplinary investigation, where Caroline Petrie is being backed by the Christian Legal Centre who have instructed a leading religious rights lawyer, Paul Diamond.