What was it Gordon Brown said at the time of his 'inauguration'? Oh yes - "the shared British value of........fairness to all".
Fairness to all?
See this story, via The Taxpayers Alliance, about disposal of needles which states that if one is a heroin addict free needle replacement and disposal of used needles is available at no cost, but if one is a diabetic then there is a cost involved. So why the difference where one need is through choice and one not?
Also on the subject of the NHS Mark Wallace of The Taxpayers Alliance highlights yet another 'unfairness' caused by the criticism that there are more 'back-room' staff than 'front-line staff such as nurses and doctors. Do go read the list - be warned, it is very long. So it is 'fair' for the public to have to foot the bill for this whilst suffering delays at hospitals because there are no nurses or doctors to see them?
MPs 'a class apart'? It would seem so in that, again as Mark Wallace of The Taxpayers Alliance points out,, if you owe money to the Inland Revenue an interest charge is made. Yet the MP, Caroline Spelman who has to repay nearly £10,000 for an offence committed years ago, does not have to pay any interest on misused public funds.
In the words of an old song, Life Gets Tedious - 'something cockeyed somewhere'!
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Justice - Westminster Style
So Caroline Spelman, Conservative shadow minister, has been found guilty of 'inadvertently' breaking the rules on expenses.
Quoted in the Telegraph Caroline Spelman says "I fully accept the findings of this inquiry which I sought because I wanted the opportunity to clear my name..........."
So, in the 'Westminster Bubble', you can 'break the rules' and yet still 'clear your name'.
Funny Old World - isn't it?
Quoted in the Telegraph Caroline Spelman says "I fully accept the findings of this inquiry which I sought because I wanted the opportunity to clear my name..........."
So, in the 'Westminster Bubble', you can 'break the rules' and yet still 'clear your name'.
Funny Old World - isn't it?
More Blue 'Waffle'
Daniel Kawczynski., Conservative MP for Shdrewsbury and Atcham, has an article on ConHome today bemoaning the fact that English MPs have no voice and that due to the inequalities of constituency size some constituents stand little chance of speaking to their MP. He also raises the small matter regarding the representation of England at Parliament and repeats the point that the Conservatives would create a Grand Committee at which English MPs would have the opportunity of voting on English matters and thereby make Westminster more accountable to the English electorate.
Mr. Kawczynski, if you wish to make Westminster more accountable to the English electorate, why don't you adopt the policies of the UK Independence Party on the subject of how we are governed, which can be found here. What you and the other two main political parties propose is a fudge of the question of what may be termed 'direct democracy. Why for instance can not all that has been devolved to Scotland, not be devolved to local authorities? It has to be said also Mr. Kawczynski that your party's views on democracy are a sham - yes a sham - in view of your avowed wish to remain a member of the European Union.
Come the day when the electorate finally wakes up to the fact that the one thing that MPs are supposed to do - and for which the electorate pays vast sums - represent their constituents, does not exist will be the day that a great number of your kind will be looking for alternative employment. If true representation did exist Mr. Kawzcynski, then you and your kind would not have given away the right of this country to govern itself; something that happened without any permission of the electorate!
It would also greatly help the electorate of this country if Daniel Kawczynski and his compatriots had an original thought. Some time ago I posted on the apparent inability of his Leader to run his office efficiently. It would seem that he and Dominic Grieve suffer the same problem as their leader; or that they copy content from an 'approved hymn sheet'.
In his article Daniel Kawczynski states:
"I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke’s proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state."
From Little Man in a Togue we get the following:
Mr. Kawczynski, if you wish to make Westminster more accountable to the English electorate, why don't you adopt the policies of the UK Independence Party on the subject of how we are governed, which can be found here. What you and the other two main political parties propose is a fudge of the question of what may be termed 'direct democracy. Why for instance can not all that has been devolved to Scotland, not be devolved to local authorities? It has to be said also Mr. Kawczynski that your party's views on democracy are a sham - yes a sham - in view of your avowed wish to remain a member of the European Union.
Come the day when the electorate finally wakes up to the fact that the one thing that MPs are supposed to do - and for which the electorate pays vast sums - represent their constituents, does not exist will be the day that a great number of your kind will be looking for alternative employment. If true representation did exist Mr. Kawzcynski, then you and your kind would not have given away the right of this country to govern itself; something that happened without any permission of the electorate!
It would also greatly help the electorate of this country if Daniel Kawczynski and his compatriots had an original thought. Some time ago I posted on the apparent inability of his Leader to run his office efficiently. It would seem that he and Dominic Grieve suffer the same problem as their leader; or that they copy content from an 'approved hymn sheet'.
In his article Daniel Kawczynski states:
"I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke’s proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state."
From Little Man in a Togue we get the following:
"In a letter to me, received yesterday, Dominic Grieve told me this:
I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke's proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state."
This demonstrates my long held belief that MPs only repeat their party's dogma rather than articulating their own beliefs - assuming of course they are capable of any!
Political Hot Air - The Blue Variety
ConHome are trailing a speech by Dominic Grieve, shadow Justice secretary, which calls for fresh thinking on multiculturalism and in which he condemns decades of political correctness.
It can be argued that politicians today speak at great length on various matters, not necessarily to any effect and possibly purely because they like the sound of their own voices. This latest 'offering' does nothing more than highlight what is wrong yet, in the extracts given , does nothing to provide solutions.
The last quoted extract on the ConHome website is an example of 'hot air' and brings Dominic Grieve and his party no credit.
"The lack of a credible response from the mainstream right to the current issues of multiculturalism has now left a gap, which is being filled by extremist voices. UKIP and the British National Party have taken advantage to suggest policies not based on a reasoned morality but which play on fear and encourage hatred."
Firstly to 'lump together' UKIP and BNP is akin to stating there is no difference between chalk and chesse and shows Dominic Greive's total lack of understanding about those two parties. Secondly, with regard to UKIP, to suggest that they are 'suggesting policies not based on reasoned morality but which play on fear and encourage hatred' again shows he has not studied the policies UKIP are advocating. Thirdly, whose fault is it, if not that of the Conservative Party - who are after all supposed to be Her Majesty's Official Opposition but who have, on recent evidence, been prepared to have the title but not actually to do much opposing - that there has not been a 'credible response' to the problems we have with multiculturism.
It is, to say the least, a tad rich for Dominic Grieve to opine that UKIP are 'playing on fear and encouraging hatred' when those policies are but addressing a problem that hundreds, if not thousands or hundreds of thousands, are saying and thinking. Politicians of the three main parties appear to have overlooked one basic fact and that is by allowing the introduction of an alien element, or elements, into a country profoundly affects that country's social structure.
Whilst immigration can and surely does improve a country, there is another factor which again has been overlooked by politicians of the past (with one notable exception, namely the late, great Enoch Powell) and that is the danger that has come to pass in that immigrants have, through the creed of diversity, been elevated into a privileged or special class.
To quote Enoch Powell in his infamous speech of April 1968 otherwise dubbed the 'Rivers of Blood':
"There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it 'against discrimination'......The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the imigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.".
The efforts of those trying to 'order society' is akin to throwing a match on gunpowder. To quote Enoch Powell once again:
"The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do........ But while to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they find themselves made strangers in their own country."
Another delusion to which those who are wilfully, or otherwise, blind to realities can be summed up in the word 'integration'. To be integrated into a population means to become, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from its other members. Whilst the majority may with to 'integrate', it is ridiculous to ignore the fact that there are those 'hotheads', religious zealots and/or 'activists' whose only intention is to impose their way of life on the host nation. In February 17th 1968 there appeared in the local press a statement by John Stonehouse, a Labour Member of Parliament and a member of the then government, who said (and whilst one ethnic group is mentioned, it does apply to all immigrants, whatever their ethnic origin):
"The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should that be 'rites') leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned."
In conclusion, 'waffle' such as that exhibited by Dominic Grieve serves no purpose. It is time for some plain speaking that spells out exactly what the problem is. One extremely basis point exists, one which I have covered previously, and that is the simple fact then when going to another country - whether that is to visit or live - one respects that country's laws, society and way of life. Until politicians accept that basic point they will, unfortunately, continue to spout 'waffle' and 'hot air'.
Of course, on the subject of immigration as in so many other matters, the ability of any of the three main parties to legislate and govern is constrained by their continued acceptance of membership of the European Union.
It can be argued that politicians today speak at great length on various matters, not necessarily to any effect and possibly purely because they like the sound of their own voices. This latest 'offering' does nothing more than highlight what is wrong yet, in the extracts given , does nothing to provide solutions.
The last quoted extract on the ConHome website is an example of 'hot air' and brings Dominic Grieve and his party no credit.
"The lack of a credible response from the mainstream right to the current issues of multiculturalism has now left a gap, which is being filled by extremist voices. UKIP and the British National Party have taken advantage to suggest policies not based on a reasoned morality but which play on fear and encourage hatred."
Firstly to 'lump together' UKIP and BNP is akin to stating there is no difference between chalk and chesse and shows Dominic Greive's total lack of understanding about those two parties. Secondly, with regard to UKIP, to suggest that they are 'suggesting policies not based on reasoned morality but which play on fear and encourage hatred' again shows he has not studied the policies UKIP are advocating. Thirdly, whose fault is it, if not that of the Conservative Party - who are after all supposed to be Her Majesty's Official Opposition but who have, on recent evidence, been prepared to have the title but not actually to do much opposing - that there has not been a 'credible response' to the problems we have with multiculturism.
It is, to say the least, a tad rich for Dominic Grieve to opine that UKIP are 'playing on fear and encouraging hatred' when those policies are but addressing a problem that hundreds, if not thousands or hundreds of thousands, are saying and thinking. Politicians of the three main parties appear to have overlooked one basic fact and that is by allowing the introduction of an alien element, or elements, into a country profoundly affects that country's social structure.
Whilst immigration can and surely does improve a country, there is another factor which again has been overlooked by politicians of the past (with one notable exception, namely the late, great Enoch Powell) and that is the danger that has come to pass in that immigrants have, through the creed of diversity, been elevated into a privileged or special class.
To quote Enoch Powell in his infamous speech of April 1968 otherwise dubbed the 'Rivers of Blood':
"There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it 'against discrimination'......The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the imigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.".
The efforts of those trying to 'order society' is akin to throwing a match on gunpowder. To quote Enoch Powell once again:
"The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do........ But while to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they find themselves made strangers in their own country."
Another delusion to which those who are wilfully, or otherwise, blind to realities can be summed up in the word 'integration'. To be integrated into a population means to become, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from its other members. Whilst the majority may with to 'integrate', it is ridiculous to ignore the fact that there are those 'hotheads', religious zealots and/or 'activists' whose only intention is to impose their way of life on the host nation. In February 17th 1968 there appeared in the local press a statement by John Stonehouse, a Labour Member of Parliament and a member of the then government, who said (and whilst one ethnic group is mentioned, it does apply to all immigrants, whatever their ethnic origin):
"The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should that be 'rites') leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned."
In conclusion, 'waffle' such as that exhibited by Dominic Grieve serves no purpose. It is time for some plain speaking that spells out exactly what the problem is. One extremely basis point exists, one which I have covered previously, and that is the simple fact then when going to another country - whether that is to visit or live - one respects that country's laws, society and way of life. Until politicians accept that basic point they will, unfortunately, continue to spout 'waffle' and 'hot air'.
Of course, on the subject of immigration as in so many other matters, the ability of any of the three main parties to legislate and govern is constrained by their continued acceptance of membership of the European Union.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Logical Economics?
I always thought that the object of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) were intended as a means whereby the government could fund public sector projects over a long period (20 plus years?) whilst private finance funded the actual development upfront in return for state payments over time.
The following press release from the Treasury is therefore interesting, well to me it is - in that where financial matters are concerned they are akin to a foreign language!
However, is it not ironic that we seem to have a situation whereby a scheme which is supposed to save the government money as the private partners would be funding the immediate expenses, now requires the government to bail-out said partners? Or have I got this all wrong?
As PFI funding is 'off the books' and not included in the Brown inflation computations, one wonders whether the bail-out amounts will also be 'hidden'?
The following press release from the Treasury is therefore interesting, well to me it is - in that where financial matters are concerned they are akin to a foreign language!
However, is it not ironic that we seem to have a situation whereby a scheme which is supposed to save the government money as the private partners would be funding the immediate expenses, now requires the government to bail-out said partners? Or have I got this all wrong?
As PFI funding is 'off the books' and not included in the Brown inflation computations, one wonders whether the bail-out amounts will also be 'hidden'?
Dizzyly Obvous Really
Dizzy ponders the question why the shock and outrage at the knowledge of Fred Goodwin's pension.
Surely we all know what happens when the inmates get put in charge of the asylum?
Surely we all know what happens when the inmates get put in charge of the asylum?
Main Home/Second Home - Anyone 'At Home'?
Guido Fawkes picks up on the story of Jonathan Lewis, Conservative MP, who is the latest to suffer the media spotlight on the question of allowances for 'second homes'
The News of the World story can be read here and Lewis' rebuttal on ConHome here.
I can understand from whence Douglas Carswell is coming in his post 'Iain is right to ask' but however remain convinced that MPs, or anyone, standing for public office should disclose their address. It is an unfortunate fact that whilst we have this 'grey' area of first/second home allowances the public will remain suspicious, regardless how much MPs protest their innocence and that they are 'sticking to the rules'.
Perhaps there is something to be said for providing blocks of flats, for which a rent should be charged, for any MP wishing to remain in London. Another aspect of this question of allowances is that if members of the public are supposed to travel to work - a journey possibly of circa 60/90 minutes, or more - and pay for the privilege too, then so should MPs. A situation whereby an MP lives half an hour from Westminster and yet still qualifies for a 'second home' is nothing but a joke!
The News of the World story can be read here and Lewis' rebuttal on ConHome here.
I can understand from whence Douglas Carswell is coming in his post 'Iain is right to ask' but however remain convinced that MPs, or anyone, standing for public office should disclose their address. It is an unfortunate fact that whilst we have this 'grey' area of first/second home allowances the public will remain suspicious, regardless how much MPs protest their innocence and that they are 'sticking to the rules'.
Perhaps there is something to be said for providing blocks of flats, for which a rent should be charged, for any MP wishing to remain in London. Another aspect of this question of allowances is that if members of the public are supposed to travel to work - a journey possibly of circa 60/90 minutes, or more - and pay for the privilege too, then so should MPs. A situation whereby an MP lives half an hour from Westminster and yet still qualifies for a 'second home' is nothing but a joke!
New Stasi Rules For Elections?
The Telegraph today reports that Michael Wills, Justice Minister, has announced the introduction of a new system of voter registration to combat electoral fraud.
He is quoted as saying:
"We will legislate to allow local authority electoral registration officers to collect personal identifiers – date of birth, signature and national insurance number – from electors alongside the existing process of household registration."
Initially provision of this additional information would be voluntary beginning at the autumn 2010 annual canvas.
The idea behind this latest 'scheme' is that there are, according to the Telegraph, 3 million people not on the electoral roll who should be.
Sorry - since when has it been compulsory to vote? It is just possible that those 3 million people have 'seen the light' and realised that whilst this present collection of f'wits are in situ there ain't much point in voting.
Perhaps Master Wills has missed his true vocation and should be 'treading the boards' as a stand-up comic? (When reading quotes and reported comments such as this, it is not mandatory to keep a straight face)
"We can't have this botched."
He insisted the release of data would be "carefully controlled" and "subject to a number of safeguards".
'Botched' and 'Labour Government' go together like Port & Stilton so the country is on a 'loser' there then! Also the present Labour government have no idea what the words 'careful', 'control' and 'safeguards' are, or mean.
In any event - autumn 2010? Listen sunshine, by then you and your fellow incompetents will be a memory - albeit a very painful one!
He is quoted as saying:
"We will legislate to allow local authority electoral registration officers to collect personal identifiers – date of birth, signature and national insurance number – from electors alongside the existing process of household registration."
Initially provision of this additional information would be voluntary beginning at the autumn 2010 annual canvas.
The idea behind this latest 'scheme' is that there are, according to the Telegraph, 3 million people not on the electoral roll who should be.
Sorry - since when has it been compulsory to vote? It is just possible that those 3 million people have 'seen the light' and realised that whilst this present collection of f'wits are in situ there ain't much point in voting.
Perhaps Master Wills has missed his true vocation and should be 'treading the boards' as a stand-up comic? (When reading quotes and reported comments such as this, it is not mandatory to keep a straight face)
"We can't have this botched."
He insisted the release of data would be "carefully controlled" and "subject to a number of safeguards".
'Botched' and 'Labour Government' go together like Port & Stilton so the country is on a 'loser' there then! Also the present Labour government have no idea what the words 'careful', 'control' and 'safeguards' are, or mean.
In any event - autumn 2010? Listen sunshine, by then you and your fellow incompetents will be a memory - albeit a very painful one!
A Very British Coup?
Have been rather busy this morning (domestics) so have not had time to post anything original. Consequently I must link to the redoubtable and productive Prodicus for another little snippet he has unearthed.
A post from which Prodicus quotes comes from Samizdata entitled as above. Bear in mind that the Samizdata post was written in 2004!
This links to what I touched on yesterday in Conspiracy Theory Or Fact?
Again a brilliant spot by Prodicus - do go read!
A post from which Prodicus quotes comes from Samizdata entitled as above. Bear in mind that the Samizdata post was written in 2004!
This links to what I touched on yesterday in Conspiracy Theory Or Fact?
Again a brilliant spot by Prodicus - do go read!
The Forbidding Of England
Prodicus links to and quotes from an article by Roger Scruton in the American Spectator.
Do go read - brilliant article!
H/T Prodicus for the picture
Monday, 2 March 2009
Open Mouth And ........Oops!
James Purnell, amongst others, appears to have committed the cardinal sin of 'opening mouth and putting in foot', as reported in the Daily Mail (link via the TPA). In this article the Mail reports that "Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell announced a controversial drive to ensure ethnic minority workers are not 'left behind'." He is also quoted as saying:
"'Just think of the waste of human potential. Whole communities were abandoned, families where no one then worked for generations."
Thats right Master James, the only difference is that your Leader has probably condemned one hell of a lot of people to not working for the rest of their lifetime!
Shipley MP Philip Davies drops a 'pc' clanger with this quote:
'The Government should be colour blind when it comes to looking who needs help." (my emphasis). Rather an unfortunate choice of word when discussing the ethnic minority - or is that majority now?
But back to Master Purnell - another quote when talking about the Tory 'legacy':
"We still bear the scars of those decisions in so many communities and households today."
As we will bear the scars of all your government's stupid, ill-thought out and mindless decisions for years to come.
Yet another quote:
"In this recession evidence so far is that its effects, however painful, are being spread across the population more evenly."
Well thats one socialist dogma you got right - equality for all!
And they were touting you, Mr. Purnell, as a future leader of your party? Understandable really, it must be difficult to select someone to lead - from such a pool of mediocrity!
"'Just think of the waste of human potential. Whole communities were abandoned, families where no one then worked for generations."
Thats right Master James, the only difference is that your Leader has probably condemned one hell of a lot of people to not working for the rest of their lifetime!
Shipley MP Philip Davies drops a 'pc' clanger with this quote:
'The Government should be colour blind when it comes to looking who needs help." (my emphasis). Rather an unfortunate choice of word when discussing the ethnic minority - or is that majority now?
But back to Master Purnell - another quote when talking about the Tory 'legacy':
"We still bear the scars of those decisions in so many communities and households today."
As we will bear the scars of all your government's stupid, ill-thought out and mindless decisions for years to come.
Yet another quote:
"In this recession evidence so far is that its effects, however painful, are being spread across the population more evenly."
Well thats one socialist dogma you got right - equality for all!
And they were touting you, Mr. Purnell, as a future leader of your party? Understandable really, it must be difficult to select someone to lead - from such a pool of mediocrity!
Harperson - We Are The Masters!
Courtesy of Grumpier Old Men, I reproduce the following (typos corrected):
"On Marr's programme Harpy said, apropos Fred's wedge.
'The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion ..
But surely Hattie no such court exists.
If it did we would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty
The Home secretary would be guilty of corruption
Two Pies would have been sanctioned for bonking his secretary in office hours
Derek Conway would have gone to jail
The gitmo bloke with the beard would not be here
Greg Dyke would still have his job
Tony Blair would be tried for war crimes
Mandy would never have been ennobled
You, as a prominent Human Rights lawyer should know that you cannot have it both ways (no - but she would probably like to - Ed,), if Fred has a contract then that is that. He is entitled to the protection of the HRA which you mentioned earlier."
"On Marr's programme Harpy said, apropos Fred's wedge.
'The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion ..
But surely Hattie no such court exists.
If it did we would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty
The Home secretary would be guilty of corruption
Two Pies would have been sanctioned for bonking his secretary in office hours
Derek Conway would have gone to jail
The gitmo bloke with the beard would not be here
Greg Dyke would still have his job
Tony Blair would be tried for war crimes
Mandy would never have been ennobled
You, as a prominent Human Rights lawyer should know that you cannot have it both ways (no - but she would probably like to - Ed,), if Fred has a contract then that is that. He is entitled to the protection of the HRA which you mentioned earlier."
Where's Jacqui Smith?
We don't seem to have heard much from Jacqui Smith, 'Second Home' Secretary, of late.
Has her SavNav got confused as to which home it is supposed to direct her?
Just a thought................
Has her SavNav got confused as to which home it is supposed to direct her?
Just a thought................
Its Been Done Before
A short article in World Bulletin of today's Telegraph is headlined 'Twins born from different wombs'.
This is presented as if it is a 'first' with doctors saying such twin births are rare - sorry Docs, read your history.
Stalin - Brown?
This is presented as if it is a 'first' with doctors saying such twin births are rare - sorry Docs, read your history.
Stalin - Brown?
Conspiracy Theory Or Fact?
Gawain Towler over on England Expects picks up on a post by Ian Parker-Joseph, leader of the Libertarian Party UK and which, if true, is extremely worrying indeed.
Add into the 'mix' this post by Richard North on EUReferendum and the recent uttering by Supt. David Hartshorn and it becomes even more worrying. Then stir in the possible membership of Turkey (with a population of, I believe, something in the region of 79 million) and the potential 'intake'.
If we are to follow the 'conspiracy theory' scenario, then also add this idea IPJ raises, that the Government is looking for a confrontion with the people in order to invoke the Civil Contingencies Act, which would then result in a true 'democratic dictatorship' situation.
The scenario is almost a 'work of fiction' in its plot and possible outcomes. In fact, years ago I did read a book (fiction) about Europe and although the EU was not mentioned by name, the scenario and story contained therein could well turn out to be true. For the life of me I can't recall the title or author of this book but will keep searching.
Starting to think now..............
Add into the 'mix' this post by Richard North on EUReferendum and the recent uttering by Supt. David Hartshorn and it becomes even more worrying. Then stir in the possible membership of Turkey (with a population of, I believe, something in the region of 79 million) and the potential 'intake'.
If we are to follow the 'conspiracy theory' scenario, then also add this idea IPJ raises, that the Government is looking for a confrontion with the people in order to invoke the Civil Contingencies Act, which would then result in a true 'democratic dictatorship' situation.
The scenario is almost a 'work of fiction' in its plot and possible outcomes. In fact, years ago I did read a book (fiction) about Europe and although the EU was not mentioned by name, the scenario and story contained therein could well turn out to be true. For the life of me I can't recall the title or author of this book but will keep searching.
Starting to think now..............
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Labour And 'Rocks'
What is the problem that the Labour government has with 'Rocks'? We have had the northern 'Rock', the opinion polls showing 'rocks in the waters ahead' for Labour in their attempts to get re-elected - now we have another 'Rock' rearing its head and one which I do not recall seeing reported in the British press. The latest 'rock' that would appear likely to cause Labour a small problem or two lies slightly further away; to be precise - Gibraltar. What is even more annoying is this latest 'rock', that might 'sink the Labour boat', has 'sprouted' from Brussels!
It would appear that Spain has laid claim to all waters around the Rock of Gibraltar up to the harbour, a claim which the Gibraltar Chronicle says caught the British government totally unawares, even though this claim had been accepted by the European Commission. The newspaper also states that "In doing so, the Commission ignored the fact that Britain has jurisdiction over these waters and had already designated part of them as a European protected site in 2006."
One has to ask whether Milibland (D), the Foreign Office and the Government were asleep at the time this took place? It is, understandably, possible to assume that as the British Government didn’t know the size of the toxic debt it was inheriting when it nationalized certain banks or the terms of the pay-offs of failed directors, it is hardly surprising that it wasn’t aware that the EU had given Spain responsibility for Gibraltar’s waters.
Further reporting and comment from Gibraltar.gi can be found here and here. and background to the 'sovereignty' of waters around Gibraltar, here. It would also appear to be quite amusing that the seriousness of this situation was actually sounded by the Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society.
It is also predictable that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will 'ape' (hows that for a delightful, non-pc term?) the Labour Government and 'wring their hands' whilst showing their inability to 'over-rule' our true government!
Send for the gunboats! (or is that bumboats - it gets so confusing when considering members of the Cabinet!).
Update: Prodicus also has something to say on this subject - and with far more wit than I - do go read!
It would appear that Spain has laid claim to all waters around the Rock of Gibraltar up to the harbour, a claim which the Gibraltar Chronicle says caught the British government totally unawares, even though this claim had been accepted by the European Commission. The newspaper also states that "In doing so, the Commission ignored the fact that Britain has jurisdiction over these waters and had already designated part of them as a European protected site in 2006."
One has to ask whether Milibland (D), the Foreign Office and the Government were asleep at the time this took place? It is, understandably, possible to assume that as the British Government didn’t know the size of the toxic debt it was inheriting when it nationalized certain banks or the terms of the pay-offs of failed directors, it is hardly surprising that it wasn’t aware that the EU had given Spain responsibility for Gibraltar’s waters.
Further reporting and comment from Gibraltar.gi can be found here and here. and background to the 'sovereignty' of waters around Gibraltar, here. It would also appear to be quite amusing that the seriousness of this situation was actually sounded by the Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society.
It is also predictable that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will 'ape' (hows that for a delightful, non-pc term?) the Labour Government and 'wring their hands' whilst showing their inability to 'over-rule' our true government!
Send for the gunboats! (or is that bumboats - it gets so confusing when considering members of the Cabinet!).
Update: Prodicus also has something to say on this subject - and with far more wit than I - do go read!
Brown Misquoted?
In an article with the headline 'Royal Mail rebels spurn Brown's concessions' (for which I seem unable to find a link), Melissa Kite and Rebecca Castle quote Gordon Brown saying:
"I think we all recognise that the Royal Mail, which is part of the fabric of our country, faces huge challenges."
Every newspaper, now and again, misquotes and/or misprints and this is surely a case in point. Should not this quote have read:
"I think we all recognise that the whole fabric of our country faces huge challenges."
Ah, that is better - and nearer the truth.
Yes Gordon and you caused them - you and Blair.
We managed, unfortunately not through our own endeavours, to get rid of Blair, so that just leaves you!
"I think we all recognise that the Royal Mail, which is part of the fabric of our country, faces huge challenges."
Every newspaper, now and again, misquotes and/or misprints and this is surely a case in point. Should not this quote have read:
"I think we all recognise that the whole fabric of our country faces huge challenges."
Ah, that is better - and nearer the truth.
Yes Gordon and you caused them - you and Blair.
We managed, unfortunately not through our own endeavours, to get rid of Blair, so that just leaves you!
Wogan Sense
It has, in days of old, been an on-going joke about the lucidity of the Irish - one which Wogan - he of 'Sir Terry' fame - promptly debunks.
In his column today, in the Sunday Telegraph, he recounts the following:
"I'll only say that any Government which thinks that it is blinding us with fiscal flummery is sorely mistaken. The public can see the blindingly obvious when it's in front of them.
For some months we've been told that since our privately owned banks have got into trouble the only way for the Government to save them is to buy a big slice of the banks and put it into public ownership.
And now, since the publicly owned Post Office has run into difficulties, the only way it can be saved from rack and ruin is to sell off a big slice and put it into private ownership.
Anyone spot the deliberate error there?"
Gordon? Alistair? Peter? Anyone?
In his column today, in the Sunday Telegraph, he recounts the following:
"I'll only say that any Government which thinks that it is blinding us with fiscal flummery is sorely mistaken. The public can see the blindingly obvious when it's in front of them.
For some months we've been told that since our privately owned banks have got into trouble the only way for the Government to save them is to buy a big slice of the banks and put it into public ownership.
And now, since the publicly owned Post Office has run into difficulties, the only way it can be saved from rack and ruin is to sell off a big slice and put it into private ownership.
Anyone spot the deliberate error there?"
Gordon? Alistair? Peter? Anyone?
Mandelson Really Is A Duplitious Individual (2)
Yet another verbal gaffe by 'him of the queer title', aka The Foy Boy. Andrew Alderson and Louise Armitstead, writing in today's Sunday Telegraph, in an article entitled 'Who's telling the truth about THAT Pension?', quote Mandelson as saying:
"I think in a sense he's in a state of self-denial about the state of public opinion".
Why single out Goodwin? Does not that statement apply to Gordon Brown and Mandelson himself; applicable to the former on the question of this country's economy and the latter on the question of the reasons for the
'part-privatisaton' of Royal Mail?
Academic really I know, as when was the state of public opinion ever a matter of concern to Gordon Brown or Peter Mandelson?
"I think in a sense he's in a state of self-denial about the state of public opinion".
Why single out Goodwin? Does not that statement apply to Gordon Brown and Mandelson himself; applicable to the former on the question of this country's economy and the latter on the question of the reasons for the
'part-privatisaton' of Royal Mail?
Academic really I know, as when was the state of public opinion ever a matter of concern to Gordon Brown or Peter Mandelson?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
