So Keith Vaz is in trouble yet again - and this is news, not just where he is concerned but where his party is concerned?
If the reported facts are true then no only should he lose his position as Chair of the Select Committee, but also his position as a Member of Parliament.
In company with Time Yeo (see previous post), Keith Vaz is in the enviable position of belonging to a select club whose only requirement for membership is the belief that they are of some use to society, Parliament and their electorate.
Monday, 16 March 2009
Doing The Bidding Of Your Masters
The Daily Telegraph reports on the findings of an 'influential' commons committee which states that taxes must rise to pay for 'climate change' measures.
Adhering to its practice of a total lack of responsible journalism, the paper reports that "Last week, the world's leading climate change scientists, gathered in Copenhagen, issued a desperate plea to politicians to take urgent action on climate change or risk catastrophic global warming." yet do not mention the other conference held in New York, one that found the whole subject of climate change and global warming to be based on unproven scientific facts. So much for objective journalism!
Note also the 'authoritarian' attitude encapsulated in this statement: "Banks in receipt of public funds could be forced to invest in low-carbon firms" - 'forced'?
Also in the report: "There is clear evidence that investment in low carbon industries will lead to net job creation", so where is 'this evidence'?
Tim Yeo - influential? Never! A shining example of a 'self-important politician of great nonentity' most definitely!
But then he can be forgiven attempting to emulate the Leader of his party.
Adhering to its practice of a total lack of responsible journalism, the paper reports that "Last week, the world's leading climate change scientists, gathered in Copenhagen, issued a desperate plea to politicians to take urgent action on climate change or risk catastrophic global warming." yet do not mention the other conference held in New York, one that found the whole subject of climate change and global warming to be based on unproven scientific facts. So much for objective journalism!
Note also the 'authoritarian' attitude encapsulated in this statement: "Banks in receipt of public funds could be forced to invest in low-carbon firms" - 'forced'?
Also in the report: "There is clear evidence that investment in low carbon industries will lead to net job creation", so where is 'this evidence'?
Tim Yeo - influential? Never! A shining example of a 'self-important politician of great nonentity' most definitely!
But then he can be forgiven attempting to emulate the Leader of his party.
Mandelson's 'Conflict Of Interest'?
Shock! Horror! The Daily Telegraph has just learned, via The Taxpayers Alliance, that Mandelson would lose his EU pension were he to criticise the EU!
Questions have been asked in the House of Lords, the UK Independence Party have issued statements, the euroscreptics have been shooting this from the rooftops and the Telegraph and TPA have just found out? Why single out Mandelson - what about Kinnock and the rest of them?
What planet have they been living on? And the Telegraph calls itself a 'quality' newspaper?
Questions have been asked in the House of Lords, the UK Independence Party have issued statements, the euroscreptics have been shooting this from the rooftops and the Telegraph and TPA have just found out? Why single out Mandelson - what about Kinnock and the rest of them?
What planet have they been living on? And the Telegraph calls itself a 'quality' newspaper?
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Government 'Thought' When Instigating 'Policies
Having just had my local community magazine delivered which contains an article by my local LibDem councillor, an interesting fact emerges.
In discussing where our Council Tax 'goes' in West Oxfordshire, our councillor mentions the subject of concessionary bus passes and she says that, locally, a sum of £1million has had to be 'set aside' to cover the cost, of which central government only contributes around one hundredth!
Now what was that quote - oh yes ""of designing projects so badly that it was impossible for them to be properly evaluated"
So the next time Gordon Brown boasts his government has provided free bus passes we can all shout - "Oh no you didn't - 90% of us did!"
In discussing where our Council Tax 'goes' in West Oxfordshire, our councillor mentions the subject of concessionary bus passes and she says that, locally, a sum of £1million has had to be 'set aside' to cover the cost, of which central government only contributes around one hundredth!
Now what was that quote - oh yes ""of designing projects so badly that it was impossible for them to be properly evaluated"
So the next time Gordon Brown boasts his government has provided free bus passes we can all shout - "Oh no you didn't - 90% of us did!"
Drinking
In view of the lacklustre journalism exhibited by the Daily Telegraph of late, George Pilcher has a 'half-decent' article
in Monday's edition, albeit without mentioning that what 'The Fat Idiot' - Liam Donaldson (note lack of title and academic ranking!) is proposing is probably illegal under EU l|aw.
Anyway that last point is not the object of this post. It is to issue a Public Health Notice to Liam Donaldson. Taking a leaf out of Mark Wadsworth's post (last para), I am about to open a bottle of Rioja and enjoy as am now quite thirsty!
If Liam Donaldson,or one of his 'agents' calls during the next hour, or so, to check on the number of units consumed; not only are they likely to get 'crowned' with a bottle but also 'a bunched five' in their mouth!
in Monday's edition, albeit without mentioning that what 'The Fat Idiot' - Liam Donaldson (note lack of title and academic ranking!) is proposing is probably illegal under EU l|aw.
Anyway that last point is not the object of this post. It is to issue a Public Health Notice to Liam Donaldson. Taking a leaf out of Mark Wadsworth's post (last para), I am about to open a bottle of Rioja and enjoy as am now quite thirsty!
If Liam Donaldson,or one of his 'agents' calls during the next hour, or so, to check on the number of units consumed; not only are they likely to get 'crowned' with a bottle but also 'a bunched five' in their mouth!
Peter Hitchens - Mail On Sunday
In general I am not a lover of his writing, however I have to admit this extract from his column today rather 'hits the nail on the head'. Discussing the 'Muslim Problem' he says:
"We have rightly been told for many years not to refer to such people as ‘immigrants’ for the simple reason that they have been born and raised here.Why then do they not feel as we do? It is not because they are Muslims. Muslims served the British Crown with loyalty and distinction in the days of Empire, and would not then have dreamed of insulting this country’s flag or scorning its soldiers.
It is because we have encouraged them to think like this by ceaselessly attacking our own country.We teach our children to be ashamed of our past. We tell them our sailors at Trafalgar had weevils in their biscuits but not that by astonishing courage and endurance they saved Europe from endless tyranny. We act ashamed of the Christian religion that formed our laws and institutions. We encourage new arrivals to speak their own languages, to stay in isolated communities.
We never say that there are two sides to hospitality – a concept our Muslim citizens understand very well – and that those who are welcomed are expected to be loyal members of the society they have voluntarily joined. What do we expect these people and their children to think if we treat our own nation with contempt?
The reasons for this lie buried in the lost teenage years of our elite. Far more of them than are now ready to admit it were revolutionary Marxists at the time.They have not really changed the views they held then, just become cleverer at achieving their aims. Now we see the result.
Of course, if British Christians living in an Islamic country turned out to jeer at that country’s army, they would be torn to pieces by the crowd or hurled into prison.I am rather proud of the immense restraint shown by most of those who went there to cheer – because such restraint is very British. But how long will restraint be British, and the British be restrained? I cling to the idea that it is not too late to stop the disintegration of our society but, if so, then time is very short indeed." (Emphasis mine)
Exactly!
How True
Altruism: A regard for others as a principle for action. (OED)
Extracted from a posting by Richard North, on EUReferendum, on the subject of Ayn Rand and her book 'Atlas Shrugged', I quote the following:
"Finally we come to those well-meaning agents of altruism, the governments who take money away from those who work in order to impose what they see as a fair society, which just happens to be a society in which the elite has more and more entrenched privileges than the rest of us; the regulators who, in the spirit of pure altruism and paid for by the taxpayer, regulate our lives for our own good; and, finally and most importantly, the NGOs who demand more and more unaccountable power for themselves in order to run the world or various parts of it for what they see as other people’s benefits, destroying people’s lives and all hope in developing countries."
Yup - thats the Obamas, Browns, Merkels, Sarkozys, etc, etc and EU all told what we don't like about their 'system'!
Extracted from a posting by Richard North, on EUReferendum, on the subject of Ayn Rand and her book 'Atlas Shrugged', I quote the following:
"Finally we come to those well-meaning agents of altruism, the governments who take money away from those who work in order to impose what they see as a fair society, which just happens to be a society in which the elite has more and more entrenched privileges than the rest of us; the regulators who, in the spirit of pure altruism and paid for by the taxpayer, regulate our lives for our own good; and, finally and most importantly, the NGOs who demand more and more unaccountable power for themselves in order to run the world or various parts of it for what they see as other people’s benefits, destroying people’s lives and all hope in developing countries."
Yup - thats the Obamas, Browns, Merkels, Sarkozys, etc, etc and EU all told what we don't like about their 'system'!
Conservatives (Amongst Others) Won't Face Facts
Following Christopher Booker's article last weekend, we have a rebuttal in 'letters' this weekend from Zac Goldsmith - the 'Greenie' Tory - referring readers to the Conservative Party's document, The Low Carbon Economy, which he describes as "a detailed policy programme on energy" and which he urges all to read.
Very well Mr. Goldsmith, lets do that thing.
The Foreward, penned by David Cameron, states "We have a vision of a different Britain"; and "It is a vision of a Britain which leads the world in new green technologies"; and "Is this vision shared across the political spectrum? In one sense, I believe it is. Today, all the major political parties agree that this is what we must seek to achieve".
As the subject of energy is an EU competence - ie, a subject on which only the EU can dictate policy - the vision of which David Cameron speaks is not his vision, but that of our real government in Brussels and one which he is duty bound to follow without question. He is,of course, correct in that this 'vision' is "shared across the political spectrum" and that "all the major political parties agree that this is what we must seek to achieve" because all the main political parties wish to remain a member of the EU and are therefore beholden to the EU's energy policy!
So immediately we have the classic example of politicians lying to their electorate by (a) stating that the 'vision' is theirs - when it is not - and (b) that 'all the major political parties agree on this' by omitting the fact that they have no other option.
David Cameron ends his foreward with the words "This is a blueprint for a better energy future". Wrong Mr. Cameron, it is a policy driven by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats over whom you have no control, based on ideas which have no foundation and which will 'cost the earth' - in more than one sense - to implement.
In the executive summary the document states "Britain is now in the grip of a full-blown recession and Labour’s Debt Crisis has put our public finances in chaos, with the worst budget deficit in the developed world."; and "First, it will strengthen our economy. Decarbonising Britain will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs...."; and "the reckless accumulation of debt in our economy means higher taxes for the next generation".
With Britain 'in the grip of a full-blown recession' and 'our public financies in chaos', the Conservatives plan to spend even more money on something that is costly, cannot be delivered in the time scale planned and which will not provide the energy that the country requires, Decarbonising Britain surely will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not for the 'average man in the street' but surely for those 'environmentalists' whose latest conference admitted that science was not the objective but that 'political pressure' was. Not only will 'the reckless accumulation of debt mean higher taxes for the next generation', so will this so-called policy that the Conservatives are forced to adopt by the EU.
On page 3 of the document it states "we can meet our target to reduce emissions by 80% over 1990 levels".
Another lie here, in that the targets are not theirs - ie, the Conservative Party - but those of the EU. In respect of 'meeting our targets' - fact: the present government plans to build 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020. There is not the remotest possibility that we could build the 10,000 giant turbines required, at the rate of two a day, when it takes weeks to install each vast machine. On top of which, of the giant barges needed for the work, there is but one in the world. (Christopher Booker - Sunday Telegraph 26./10/2008)
The document includes ideas such as "putting computing intelligence into electricity networks"; transform electricity networks with ‘smart grid’ and ‘smart meter’ technology so that the use of electricity for a wide range of household and workplace appliances, and the charging of electric and plug-in hybrid cars, can be tailored automatically to match the supply of electricity" (page 4); "vastly expand the amount of offshore wind.....power" (debunked above) (page 4); "electricity network operators to establish a new national recharging network" (page 5); "introduce a new entitlement for every home to be fitted immediately with up to £6,500 of approved energy efficiency improvements, the cost to be repaid through fuel bills over a period of up to 25 years" (page 6); "establish a new ‘top runner’ scheme to highlight the most energy-efficient household goods" (page 6): "fully implement the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive and require Display Energy Certificates for public and private non-domestic buildings over 1000 square metres" (page 6) (good heavens - actual mention of the EU Directive!) "immediately start work on establishing a new high speed rail network linking cities in the North and South" (page 6).
Initial question Mr. Cameron -and whose going to pay for all this? Let me guess - the taxpayer and consumer!
Page 7 of the document states "They buy us protection against the hazards of the future." What it does not say is that the hazards of the future are those imposed by our membership of the European Union and by God, were it possible to buy protection from that load of f'wits!
Under the heading of Social Justice (page 10) the document states "When families are being hit hard every time they pay their gas bill, fill up their cars or do the weekly shop, we can all see the advantage of moving to low carbon sources of energy and improving efficiency" - and who, Mr. Cameron, has been responsible for that? Not us consumers, that is for sure!
On page 10 of the document, the Conservative Party have the gall to quote "In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (usually regarded as the apostle of the free market)" - but we haven't got a 'free market' Mr. Cameron because by your blind adherence to the principle of membership of the European Union it imposes regulations which are acknowledged go be counter-productive and thereby extremely costly!
Page 31 of this document discusses the question of low energy light bulbs and states "Until and unless a new generation of LED bulbs comes to replace the existing mercury-based bulbs, we will continue to face the need for a national collection and disposal network that will enable users to dispose safely of the existing low energy bulbs in accordance with the WEEE Directive" (God, another mention of an EU Directive!) And who brought in this stupid rule about low energy light bulbs? That's right Mr. Cameron, your masters in Brussels so, as it is a requirement that they be 'disposed of safely' you have no option but to set up yet another 'industry'!
I really cannot be bothered continuing to pick holes in what is, basically, a laughable proposal. When will any of the three main political parties, in one of their manifestos, actually say the truth - something like 'Look Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Elector, because of our membership of the European Union, in respect of matter xxxxx this is what we have to comply with because of our membership of the EU and here is how we think is the best way to adhere to Directive/Regulation xxxx'?
Just tell us the truth you b******s, that where the EU has 'competence' you are no longer able to formulate policies
Very well Mr. Goldsmith, lets do that thing.
The Foreward, penned by David Cameron, states "We have a vision of a different Britain"; and "It is a vision of a Britain which leads the world in new green technologies"; and "Is this vision shared across the political spectrum? In one sense, I believe it is. Today, all the major political parties agree that this is what we must seek to achieve".
As the subject of energy is an EU competence - ie, a subject on which only the EU can dictate policy - the vision of which David Cameron speaks is not his vision, but that of our real government in Brussels and one which he is duty bound to follow without question. He is,of course, correct in that this 'vision' is "shared across the political spectrum" and that "all the major political parties agree that this is what we must seek to achieve" because all the main political parties wish to remain a member of the EU and are therefore beholden to the EU's energy policy!
So immediately we have the classic example of politicians lying to their electorate by (a) stating that the 'vision' is theirs - when it is not - and (b) that 'all the major political parties agree on this' by omitting the fact that they have no other option.
David Cameron ends his foreward with the words "This is a blueprint for a better energy future". Wrong Mr. Cameron, it is a policy driven by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats over whom you have no control, based on ideas which have no foundation and which will 'cost the earth' - in more than one sense - to implement.
In the executive summary the document states "Britain is now in the grip of a full-blown recession and Labour’s Debt Crisis has put our public finances in chaos, with the worst budget deficit in the developed world."; and "First, it will strengthen our economy. Decarbonising Britain will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs...."; and "the reckless accumulation of debt in our economy means higher taxes for the next generation".
With Britain 'in the grip of a full-blown recession' and 'our public financies in chaos', the Conservatives plan to spend even more money on something that is costly, cannot be delivered in the time scale planned and which will not provide the energy that the country requires, Decarbonising Britain surely will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not for the 'average man in the street' but surely for those 'environmentalists' whose latest conference admitted that science was not the objective but that 'political pressure' was. Not only will 'the reckless accumulation of debt mean higher taxes for the next generation', so will this so-called policy that the Conservatives are forced to adopt by the EU.
On page 3 of the document it states "we can meet our target to reduce emissions by 80% over 1990 levels".
Another lie here, in that the targets are not theirs - ie, the Conservative Party - but those of the EU. In respect of 'meeting our targets' - fact: the present government plans to build 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020. There is not the remotest possibility that we could build the 10,000 giant turbines required, at the rate of two a day, when it takes weeks to install each vast machine. On top of which, of the giant barges needed for the work, there is but one in the world. (Christopher Booker - Sunday Telegraph 26./10/2008)
The document includes ideas such as "putting computing intelligence into electricity networks"; transform electricity networks with ‘smart grid’ and ‘smart meter’ technology so that the use of electricity for a wide range of household and workplace appliances, and the charging of electric and plug-in hybrid cars, can be tailored automatically to match the supply of electricity" (page 4); "vastly expand the amount of offshore wind.....power" (debunked above) (page 4); "electricity network operators to establish a new national recharging network" (page 5); "introduce a new entitlement for every home to be fitted immediately with up to £6,500 of approved energy efficiency improvements, the cost to be repaid through fuel bills over a period of up to 25 years" (page 6); "establish a new ‘top runner’ scheme to highlight the most energy-efficient household goods" (page 6): "fully implement the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive and require Display Energy Certificates for public and private non-domestic buildings over 1000 square metres" (page 6) (good heavens - actual mention of the EU Directive!) "immediately start work on establishing a new high speed rail network linking cities in the North and South" (page 6).
Initial question Mr. Cameron -and whose going to pay for all this? Let me guess - the taxpayer and consumer!
Page 7 of the document states "They buy us protection against the hazards of the future." What it does not say is that the hazards of the future are those imposed by our membership of the European Union and by God, were it possible to buy protection from that load of f'wits!
Under the heading of Social Justice (page 10) the document states "When families are being hit hard every time they pay their gas bill, fill up their cars or do the weekly shop, we can all see the advantage of moving to low carbon sources of energy and improving efficiency" - and who, Mr. Cameron, has been responsible for that? Not us consumers, that is for sure!
On page 10 of the document, the Conservative Party have the gall to quote "In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (usually regarded as the apostle of the free market)" - but we haven't got a 'free market' Mr. Cameron because by your blind adherence to the principle of membership of the European Union it imposes regulations which are acknowledged go be counter-productive and thereby extremely costly!
Page 31 of this document discusses the question of low energy light bulbs and states "Until and unless a new generation of LED bulbs comes to replace the existing mercury-based bulbs, we will continue to face the need for a national collection and disposal network that will enable users to dispose safely of the existing low energy bulbs in accordance with the WEEE Directive" (God, another mention of an EU Directive!) And who brought in this stupid rule about low energy light bulbs? That's right Mr. Cameron, your masters in Brussels so, as it is a requirement that they be 'disposed of safely' you have no option but to set up yet another 'industry'!
I really cannot be bothered continuing to pick holes in what is, basically, a laughable proposal. When will any of the three main political parties, in one of their manifestos, actually say the truth - something like 'Look Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Elector, because of our membership of the European Union, in respect of matter xxxxx this is what we have to comply with because of our membership of the EU and here is how we think is the best way to adhere to Directive/Regulation xxxx'?
Just tell us the truth you b******s, that where the EU has 'competence' you are no longer able to formulate policies
Nobody Listens - Christopher Booker
In his column in the Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker laments on the level of press coverage the two recent 'climate conferences' received.
The one in Copenhagen, billed as "an emergency summit on climate change" was in fact, as one of the organisers put it ".... not a regular scientific conference: this is a deliberate attempt to influence policy".
The second conference in New York billed as "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really A Crisis?" sums up which was the more important.
As Booker says "the scare over global warming has been deliberately stoked up for political reasons and has long since parted company with proper scientific evidence."
It is obvious that some scientists are not really interested in 'proper scientific evidence' - just the 'Gorey facts'!
The one in Copenhagen, billed as "an emergency summit on climate change" was in fact, as one of the organisers put it ".... not a regular scientific conference: this is a deliberate attempt to influence policy".
The second conference in New York billed as "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really A Crisis?" sums up which was the more important.
As Booker says "the scare over global warming has been deliberately stoked up for political reasons and has long since parted company with proper scientific evidence."
It is obvious that some scientists are not really interested in 'proper scientific evidence' - just the 'Gorey facts'!
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Government Wasted Millions & Billions
So says the Sunday Telegraph - Millions & Billions wasted!
The picture of Jack Straw, with what can only be described as a 'supercilious smirk' on his face, sums up the general attitude of this government! The caption underneath the photograph should have read: 'Whats £75million? In anycase, its not our money.'
Methinks, Mr. Straw, that you have reached your 'cell by date'!
The government stands accused
"of failing to make "even basic calculations" about how much money they have spent on mass public health programmes intended to improve the health of those with the lowest incomes";
"failure to collect any meaningful evidence about whether dozens of schemes to promote healthy habits made any difference before they were introduced across the nation";
"of designing projects so badly that it was impossible for them to be properly evaluated";
And these incompetents think they can run an ID card scheme?
Meanwhile Dawn Primarolo, Public Health Minister, prattles ".......life expectancy in England had reached an all-time high."
Yes woman and do you know why? We are all making sure we live long enough to see f'wits like you get your comeuppance, at the next General Election!
Don't the Labour Party ever, ever come back to the electorate of this country and tell us you are competent to run anything! Ever!
The picture of Jack Straw, with what can only be described as a 'supercilious smirk' on his face, sums up the general attitude of this government! The caption underneath the photograph should have read: 'Whats £75million? In anycase, its not our money.'
Methinks, Mr. Straw, that you have reached your 'cell by date'!
The government stands accused
"of failing to make "even basic calculations" about how much money they have spent on mass public health programmes intended to improve the health of those with the lowest incomes";
"failure to collect any meaningful evidence about whether dozens of schemes to promote healthy habits made any difference before they were introduced across the nation";
"of designing projects so badly that it was impossible for them to be properly evaluated";
And these incompetents think they can run an ID card scheme?
Meanwhile Dawn Primarolo, Public Health Minister, prattles ".......life expectancy in England had reached an all-time high."
Yes woman and do you know why? We are all making sure we live long enough to see f'wits like you get your comeuppance, at the next General Election!
Don't the Labour Party ever, ever come back to the electorate of this country and tell us you are competent to run anything! Ever!
And They Wonder Why
Referring to my earlier post today - Revised Opinion Of Bolton & Derby - this has now been amply underlined by two articles in the Sunday Telegraph, here and here.
When one reads:
"I don't feel any loyalty to this country...."
When one reads:
"I don't feel any loyalty to this country...."
"I would like the UK to be an Islamic state.
"The British people would benefit from Sharia law."
Is it any wonder why they stir up mistrust, dislike and bad feeling?
Then we have:
"They can always leave the Army if they don't agree with the war."
Yes and by the same reasoning - as I have said previously - if you don't like it here, don't like our policies, don't like our laws and don't feel any loyalty to your adopted country - LEAVE!!
David Cameron Apologises
According to the Telegraph, David Cameron has apologised for "Not holding Labour to account"
I am sure that, being an 'Honourable' Member of Parliament, he meant to say that he was sorry for not holding Labour and the European Union to account?
Of course, in keeping up the traditions of politicians, David Cameron was fulfilling his obligation - as defined by Alan Clarke - of being 'Economical With The Actualite'.
Thought for the day: Should not all three main political parties apologise for subverting the democracy of this country by their complicity in agreeing to this country's membership of the European Union?
I am sure that, being an 'Honourable' Member of Parliament, he meant to say that he was sorry for not holding Labour and the European Union to account?
Of course, in keeping up the traditions of politicians, David Cameron was fulfilling his obligation - as defined by Alan Clarke - of being 'Economical With The Actualite'.
Thought for the day: Should not all three main political parties apologise for subverting the democracy of this country by their complicity in agreeing to this country's membership of the European Union?
Unknown Life Form Found In Torbay
The Telegraph is reporting that an 'unknown life-form' has been discovered in Torbay.
Comment: Funny, I was not aware that the Government had held a Cabinet meeting there?
Although - It must have been Gordon Brown et All as Geologist Kevin Page from Plymouth University, said they had been unable to find any known animal, alive or extinct,
Comment: You just haven't looked in No 10 Downing Street and they are definitely on another planet!
Other quotes from Kevin Page include: "If it was something like a worm, it was a very big worm."
Comment: Had to be the Government - they are the biggest worms of all!
And: "It must have been some strange creature....."
Comment: Yup Kevin - definitely Labour politicians!
Comment: Funny, I was not aware that the Government had held a Cabinet meeting there?
Although - It must have been Gordon Brown et All as Geologist Kevin Page from Plymouth University, said they had been unable to find any known animal, alive or extinct,
Comment: You just haven't looked in No 10 Downing Street and they are definitely on another planet!
Other quotes from Kevin Page include: "If it was something like a worm, it was a very big worm."
Comment: Had to be the Government - they are the biggest worms of all!
And: "It must have been some strange creature....."
Comment: Yup Kevin - definitely Labour politicians!
Darling: We Will 'Do Whatever Necessary'
The Telegraph, reporting on the G20 Summit (Finance Ministers), quotes Alistair Darling as saying "the G20 had a "clear sense of direction" ahead of its leaders' summit in April and would take "whatever action necessary" to boost the world economy.
Not caring too much about the rest of the world and only wishing to concentrate on the well-being of my own country; also on the assumption and knowledge that Alistair Darling is but the mouthpiece of his Master, can we assume that the phrase "whatever action necessary" includes the word 'resignation'?
Having said that Dear Reader, one should remember that 'promised action' does not actually equate with delivering said 'promised action'. Remember this?
By their words shall ye know them!
Not caring too much about the rest of the world and only wishing to concentrate on the well-being of my own country; also on the assumption and knowledge that Alistair Darling is but the mouthpiece of his Master, can we assume that the phrase "whatever action necessary" includes the word 'resignation'?
Having said that Dear Reader, one should remember that 'promised action' does not actually equate with delivering said 'promised action'. Remember this?
By their words shall ye know them!
Revised Opinion Of Bolton & Derby
Although Bolton and Derby are north of Watford, which to some puts those two places on a 'no-go' list, one has to revise that opinion in view of the welcome afforded to returning troops.
According to the report, Shokat Lal, chairman of Derby Pakistani Community Centre, said: "What the people did in Luton is not representative of the Muslim community here in Derby."
Maybe the 'Muslim Community' of this country, if they truly wish to 'assimilate', should 'sort out' their brethren and teach the 'dissidents' a few home truths. Rule number one, which should be remembered by all of our 'ethnic brethren' - and by all I mean those that have chosen to live in our country, having come here from abroad and regardless from which country - is this:
If you find our country and our culture to be not to your liking - LEAVE!
According to the report, Shokat Lal, chairman of Derby Pakistani Community Centre, said: "What the people did in Luton is not representative of the Muslim community here in Derby."
Maybe the 'Muslim Community' of this country, if they truly wish to 'assimilate', should 'sort out' their brethren and teach the 'dissidents' a few home truths. Rule number one, which should be remembered by all of our 'ethnic brethren' - and by all I mean those that have chosen to live in our country, having come here from abroad and regardless from which country - is this:
If you find our country and our culture to be not to your liking - LEAVE!
Friday, 13 March 2009
Buttering Up
According to the Telegraph we all need a bit of the above.
Where the subject of the picture is concerned - too bloody true!
After that, Trixie can 'spread' me on whatever she likes!
Get in the queue lads!
Where the subject of the picture is concerned - too bloody true!
After that, Trixie can 'spread' me on whatever she likes!
Get in the queue lads!
Netball Ladies Warned Over Swearing On Court
I see from the print edition of the Telegraph today (no link) that netball players have been given a 'warning' over 'unladylike conduct' and 'foul language' on court.
Nigel Holl, the director of England Netball, (how the hell is a man in charge of a ladies game?) has castigated players for verbal abuse and bad language.
Listen Holl - and you are just digging an even bigger 'holl' - firstly, girls will be girls; and secondly, where the hell do you think we men first learned such words initially?
Idiot!
Nigel Holl, the director of England Netball, (how the hell is a man in charge of a ladies game?) has castigated players for verbal abuse and bad language.
Listen Holl - and you are just digging an even bigger 'holl' - firstly, girls will be girls; and secondly, where the hell do you think we men first learned such words initially?
Idiot!
ACPO - Lawmakers?
An article in the print edition of the Telegraph today (no link) reports that abusive partners may be banned from drinking alcohol at home.
Plans are being considered by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that will give officers responding to "persistent domestic violence offenders" the power to order a suspect to take a breath test. If failing such a test the suspect could then be arrested - and an order, not to consume alcohol at home for a specified period, imposed.
Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire, who is the national lead officer on domestic violence, said police and courts needed "additional powers" to control serial violent offenders.
Excuse me ACPO, but since when did you decide the law and the punishment? Would it be impertinent to remind you that all police officers - and that includes members of ACPO and Chief Constables - are public servants and that you are paid by the taxpayers, aka your masters?
And how do you envisage this idea would be enforced and monitored? Or is that another 'power' you believe you will need as a result? Remember that phrase 'the privacy of ones home'? No doubt you also envisage having yet another 'national register' such as that proposed by Jacqui - Second Home - Secretary Smith for offenders to who are banned from the family home.
Might one suggest that there is more than sufficient crime already without you officious people (of dubious parentage) creating new ones in your desire to 'panda' to political correctness.
Plans are being considered by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that will give officers responding to "persistent domestic violence offenders" the power to order a suspect to take a breath test. If failing such a test the suspect could then be arrested - and an order, not to consume alcohol at home for a specified period, imposed.
Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire, who is the national lead officer on domestic violence, said police and courts needed "additional powers" to control serial violent offenders.
Excuse me ACPO, but since when did you decide the law and the punishment? Would it be impertinent to remind you that all police officers - and that includes members of ACPO and Chief Constables - are public servants and that you are paid by the taxpayers, aka your masters?
And how do you envisage this idea would be enforced and monitored? Or is that another 'power' you believe you will need as a result? Remember that phrase 'the privacy of ones home'? No doubt you also envisage having yet another 'national register' such as that proposed by Jacqui - Second Home - Secretary Smith for offenders to who are banned from the family home.
Might one suggest that there is more than sufficient crime already without you officious people (of dubious parentage) creating new ones in your desire to 'panda' to political correctness.
A Duplicitous Government
We have, for some time, been aware that this government is not whiter than white, despite promises made at its inception - although in the government's defense the words 'promises' and 'Labour' have never been synonymous.
It is now reported by the Telegraph that prior to the Iraq war civil servants were complaining about hyperbole content in Labour's infamous 'dossiers'. This latest of information, contained in e-mails released following a ruling by the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, can but increase the calls that Cabinet minutes should also be released.
The report mentions civil servant's concerns about 'iffy drafting'. Well, what can one expect when the authors are nothing more than a semi-illiterate collection of halfwits? I would imagine that most of them could not write their address down - which, to be fair, must be difficult when one has more than one home! Mind you, the taxpayer probably pays for staff to take care of that for them!
It is now reported by the Telegraph that prior to the Iraq war civil servants were complaining about hyperbole content in Labour's infamous 'dossiers'. This latest of information, contained in e-mails released following a ruling by the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, can but increase the calls that Cabinet minutes should also be released.
The report mentions civil servant's concerns about 'iffy drafting'. Well, what can one expect when the authors are nothing more than a semi-illiterate collection of halfwits? I would imagine that most of them could not write their address down - which, to be fair, must be difficult when one has more than one home! Mind you, the taxpayer probably pays for staff to take care of that for them!
We're All To Be Marked Men (And Women)
According to the Daily Telegraph, a future trends analyst has foretold that in the future (2359) drinkers entering a pub will be able to order their drink before they have reached the bar. This will be due to the fact we will all have microchips embedded under the skin.
Ben Hourahaine, the future trends analyst in question - who sounds more like a prophet of doom - also believes that this microchip will also keep a tally of the number of units consumed.
Oh boy, whats the betting that this microchip will not just be keeping a tally of your units? The state is quite capable of thinking up ways to know everything about us without people like this helping them!
Two points: At the present rate of pub closures it is highly unlikely there will be any pubs left in just a year or two, let alone 2359. Secondly, thank the Lord, I won't be around then. (Unless of course I am recycled as a punishment for failing to acknowledge the greatness of the second Saviour of the World).
Afterthought: On the basis that what was good enough for the first Saviour of the World must be good enough for the second - anyone got some spare wood, nails and a hammer?
Ben Hourahaine, the future trends analyst in question - who sounds more like a prophet of doom - also believes that this microchip will also keep a tally of the number of units consumed.
Oh boy, whats the betting that this microchip will not just be keeping a tally of your units? The state is quite capable of thinking up ways to know everything about us without people like this helping them!
Two points: At the present rate of pub closures it is highly unlikely there will be any pubs left in just a year or two, let alone 2359. Secondly, thank the Lord, I won't be around then. (Unless of course I am recycled as a punishment for failing to acknowledge the greatness of the second Saviour of the World).
Afterthought: On the basis that what was good enough for the first Saviour of the World must be good enough for the second - anyone got some spare wood, nails and a hammer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
