” Rule #1: Use your good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.”Nordstrom's Employee Handbook
Friday, 29 February 2008
Quote of the day
Drudge report risks coalition trops lives in Afganistan
The fact that Prince Harry has been serving with the UK’s armed forces in Helmand Province has been blown by the Drudge Report.
The fact is that he - and the troops he leads can only function effectively, at normal risk levels if he remains anonymous. Without that, the risk escalates astronomically.
So what is the difference between an enemy spy and Matt Drudge?
I am not sure what else you could call it - making sensitive military information available to enemy forces via the internet.
Information that affects the security of operations and could cost lives. It’s not as if there is even an overriding moral factor that might justify it. He knew it was going to be widely known once it was safe to release the information, but it was time sensitive.
He knew that, but apparently disregarded it, just to get a grubby scoop. But this isn’t really politics, or scandal, this is brave, mostly ordinary, people with integrity just trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
At the very least it is dangerously irresponsible and done with little concern as to the possible ramifications, or the welfare of others.
So - The difference? Well Drudge makes a profit out of it, rather than doing it for merely ideological reasons.
He is reputed to be doing very nicely out of it, owning a luxurious Mediterranean-style home on Rivo Alto Island in Florida's Biscayne Bay, a condo at the Four Seasons in Miami and reportedly drives around in a black Mustang.
It is the way of the world that he will probably continue to enjoy them - and is unlikely to suffer any doubts, or be bothered by the consequences to others, such as troops who are just trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.
The fact is that he - and the troops he leads can only function effectively, at normal risk levels if he remains anonymous. Without that, the risk escalates astronomically.
So what is the difference between an enemy spy and Matt Drudge?
I am not sure what else you could call it - making sensitive military information available to enemy forces via the internet.
Information that affects the security of operations and could cost lives. It’s not as if there is even an overriding moral factor that might justify it. He knew it was going to be widely known once it was safe to release the information, but it was time sensitive.
He knew that, but apparently disregarded it, just to get a grubby scoop. But this isn’t really politics, or scandal, this is brave, mostly ordinary, people with integrity just trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
At the very least it is dangerously irresponsible and done with little concern as to the possible ramifications, or the welfare of others.
So - The difference? Well Drudge makes a profit out of it, rather than doing it for merely ideological reasons.
He is reputed to be doing very nicely out of it, owning a luxurious Mediterranean-style home on Rivo Alto Island in Florida's Biscayne Bay, a condo at the Four Seasons in Miami and reportedly drives around in a black Mustang.
It is the way of the world that he will probably continue to enjoy them - and is unlikely to suffer any doubts, or be bothered by the consequences to others, such as troops who are just trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Surgeon ’hurried up’ patient's death to get at his organs
This is what can come from a system that is a little too anxious to harvest organs for transplant.
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Quote of the day
” If we cannot learn, if the only effect upon us of the presence of the dynamiter in our midst is to make us multiply punishments, invent restrictions, increase the number of our official spies, forbid public meetings, interfere with the press, put up gratings -- as in one country they propose to do -- in our House of Commons, scrutinize visitors under official microscopes, request them, as at Vienna, and I think now at Paris also, to be good enough to leave their greatcoats in the vestibules ... I venture to prophesy that there lies before us a bitter and an evil time.”Auberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert (1838—1906) Writer, Philosopher ~ and MP
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Issue of DNA records of the innocent reaches European Court
Did you wonder why Det Supt Stuart Cundy, who led the murder hunt which led to Mark Dixie's conviction, started going on about a compulsory national DNA database the other day? What his agenda might have been?
Unlike Scotland, where they take their civil liberties a wee bit more seriously, In England and Wales if the police arrest you, even if you have done nothing wrong, like the guy with the MP3 player, they will take your DNA and you will go into New Labour’s National DNA database, never to be removed.
This is unlike the tried and tested system with fingerprints where they only keep them if a person is convicted and people don’t mind giving them for elimination purposes because they know they will be destroyed afterwards.
Now the police’s practices with the DNA database is being challenged in the European Court of human rights as an infringement of an individuals right to privacy and anti-discrimination.
This database is scarily already the largest of it’s kind in the whole world.
If they win then the police will have to remove the DNA records from the system of those who have not been convicted and the system will have to work more like the fingerprint system or the Scottish system.
It is quite probable that a compulsory universal DNA database (that the police appear to be covertly working their way towards already) would indeed probably result in a few extra detections, or earlier detections of crimes.
Then again, so would electronically tagging every citizen, at their own expense, with a mini GPS system, camera and Microphone that relayed the info it recorded to a central database would too.
The question is, is the price paid in the loss of your civil liberties worth the benefits of the illusion of safety. DNA evidence can be spoofed, or compromised, by the savvy criminal and it is not always necessarily as reliable as it is imagined to be by the general public.
If they ever do manage to force a compulsory national DNA database on us by some devious means (Passports? ID Cards?). it will be great for the Authoritarians who want to check our every move.
Then there is the good old mission creep factor. What else would they get up to with the information? - One could do racial profiling in the name of medical research for instance…
One thing is certain - before long every junior civil servant and council worker in the country would have access and you could be sure they could not be trusted not to leave millions of records on a bus somewhere, or just loose them.
Best it is stopped. It comes to something when a UK citizen has to appeal to the European court to protect their civil rights from our own Government.
Unlike Scotland, where they take their civil liberties a wee bit more seriously, In England and Wales if the police arrest you, even if you have done nothing wrong, like the guy with the MP3 player, they will take your DNA and you will go into New Labour’s National DNA database, never to be removed.
This is unlike the tried and tested system with fingerprints where they only keep them if a person is convicted and people don’t mind giving them for elimination purposes because they know they will be destroyed afterwards.
Now the police’s practices with the DNA database is being challenged in the European Court of human rights as an infringement of an individuals right to privacy and anti-discrimination.
This database is scarily already the largest of it’s kind in the whole world.
If they win then the police will have to remove the DNA records from the system of those who have not been convicted and the system will have to work more like the fingerprint system or the Scottish system.
It is quite probable that a compulsory universal DNA database (that the police appear to be covertly working their way towards already) would indeed probably result in a few extra detections, or earlier detections of crimes.
Then again, so would electronically tagging every citizen, at their own expense, with a mini GPS system, camera and Microphone that relayed the info it recorded to a central database would too.
The question is, is the price paid in the loss of your civil liberties worth the benefits of the illusion of safety. DNA evidence can be spoofed, or compromised, by the savvy criminal and it is not always necessarily as reliable as it is imagined to be by the general public.
If they ever do manage to force a compulsory national DNA database on us by some devious means (Passports? ID Cards?). it will be great for the Authoritarians who want to check our every move.
Then there is the good old mission creep factor. What else would they get up to with the information? - One could do racial profiling in the name of medical research for instance…
One thing is certain - before long every junior civil servant and council worker in the country would have access and you could be sure they could not be trusted not to leave millions of records on a bus somewhere, or just loose them.
Best it is stopped. It comes to something when a UK citizen has to appeal to the European court to protect their civil rights from our own Government.
‘Most Wanted Fugitive’ actually innocent German holidaymaker
It just goes to show how much you can rely on facial recognition software.
A German couple on holiday in the Sicilian resort of Taormina last year were mis-identified as James J Bulger, alleged American crime boss, one of the FBI’s most wanted - and his girlfriend Catherine Grieg.
Fortunately the FBI appear to have adopted a more sensible approach since they had pensioner Derek Bond arrested at gunpoint and clapped in irons whilst on a wine tasting holiday in South Africa. They misidentified him as one Derek Sykes, on their most wanted list. It was days before they even bothered to go look at him. He had to agree to extradition to try and sort it out.
It could have been far worse, he could have been in real trouble as happened to a German businessman in 2005, whilst off on holiday going to Macedonia.
He was allegedly arrested, held captive, flown to Afghanistan and tortured - by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of one of the 7/11 Hijackers.
Oops! Sorry…
Presumably this is the same vaunted biometric technology to be included in Passports and New Labour’s beloved ID card system and database. The same facial recognition software that was trialled last year as a part of a airport security and hailed as a success.
Knowing it’s going to be there ready to misidentify you as a dangerous gangster, or a terrorist should make you feel so much more secure – doesn’t it?
A German couple on holiday in the Sicilian resort of Taormina last year were mis-identified as James J Bulger, alleged American crime boss, one of the FBI’s most wanted - and his girlfriend Catherine Grieg.
Fortunately the FBI appear to have adopted a more sensible approach since they had pensioner Derek Bond arrested at gunpoint and clapped in irons whilst on a wine tasting holiday in South Africa. They misidentified him as one Derek Sykes, on their most wanted list. It was days before they even bothered to go look at him. He had to agree to extradition to try and sort it out.
It could have been far worse, he could have been in real trouble as happened to a German businessman in 2005, whilst off on holiday going to Macedonia.
He was allegedly arrested, held captive, flown to Afghanistan and tortured - by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of one of the 7/11 Hijackers.
Oops! Sorry…
Presumably this is the same vaunted biometric technology to be included in Passports and New Labour’s beloved ID card system and database. The same facial recognition software that was trialled last year as a part of a airport security and hailed as a success.
Knowing it’s going to be there ready to misidentify you as a dangerous gangster, or a terrorist should make you feel so much more secure – doesn’t it?
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Quote of the day
” Politicians never accuse you of ‘greed’ for wanting other people’s money - only for wanting to keep your own money.”Joseph Sobran
PM’s Kiss of death for Martin
It’s been looking as though the red faced one, Michael Martin, Speaker of the house of Commons, bearer of the huge chip on his shoulder, would be able to ride out the scandal over his expenses - Especially as he is in charge of investigating them himself…
“Oi me! Did you do it?”, “Wot me guv? Naah.”, “Well that’s OK then, I’m convinced”.
Martin is the chairman of the Commons members estimate committee, who are conducting a ‘root-and-branch’ review of expenses following the discovery of Derek Conway’s dodgy expenses.
And we wondered why he had been so keen on blocking details of MPs' travel expenses being published under the Freedom of Information Act…
His spokesman, Mike Granatt, has now resigned for ‘ethical reasons’ apparently after cottoning on to the fact he had been parroting what has delicately been described as ‘incorrect information’ concerning actual details of Martin’s wife’s taxi fares.
No stranger to being accused of playing fast and loose with taxpayers money - in October 2007, Martin was criticised for blowing over £20K of taxpayers' money on lawyers to silence negative press coverage. Being a ‘class warrior’ didn’t put him off employing posh libel firm Carter-Ruck .
Martin must surely realise that if people criticise his conduct it could simply be because they genuinely find his conduct is open to question, still class is always a good smokescreen, bound to guarantee a knee jerk reaction with the more bigoted left.
But he may be doomed after all, as Gordon Brown has given him his backing. Talk about the kiss of death ;-)
“Oi me! Did you do it?”, “Wot me guv? Naah.”, “Well that’s OK then, I’m convinced”.
Martin is the chairman of the Commons members estimate committee, who are conducting a ‘root-and-branch’ review of expenses following the discovery of Derek Conway’s dodgy expenses.
And we wondered why he had been so keen on blocking details of MPs' travel expenses being published under the Freedom of Information Act…
His spokesman, Mike Granatt, has now resigned for ‘ethical reasons’ apparently after cottoning on to the fact he had been parroting what has delicately been described as ‘incorrect information’ concerning actual details of Martin’s wife’s taxi fares.
No stranger to being accused of playing fast and loose with taxpayers money - in October 2007, Martin was criticised for blowing over £20K of taxpayers' money on lawyers to silence negative press coverage. Being a ‘class warrior’ didn’t put him off employing posh libel firm Carter-Ruck .
Martin must surely realise that if people criticise his conduct it could simply be because they genuinely find his conduct is open to question, still class is always a good smokescreen, bound to guarantee a knee jerk reaction with the more bigoted left.
But he may be doomed after all, as Gordon Brown has given him his backing. Talk about the kiss of death ;-)
Friday, 22 February 2008
New Labour Back bencher threat to agency staff
One wonders if the MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, New Labour's Andrew Miller, is actually intent on damaging the UK economy, or if it is only a side effect of his attempt to grab more influence for the unions.
Supported (of course) by the trade unions he has tabled a private members bill to force the same rights/benefits as full time employees receive on agency staff, such a sick pay.
The union said there should be a "level playing field" with permanently employed people.
I have often heard full time employees express slightly jealous amazement when they find out what agency staff are paid by comparison.
The fact is that agency staff usually get a higher pay scale than permanent staff. This generally makes up at least the financial difference for sick pay and annual leave, etc. that they don’t get.
They usually also get a premium to make up for the lack of job security, as they generally fill posts where full time employees are off long term sick, having children, or the post is unable to be filled. They are also used when capacity suddenly and temporarily needs to be expanded for a project.
These people tend to be independent and avoid union membership. They also tend to take far less sick leave; so can spend that portion of their wage as they choose.
If they had the same rights and conditions as full time employees they would no longer be competitive, or of any use to an employer, in the capacity they are generally used in. It would not be economical to pay them the same rates as they get now.
If these rights were introduced then this sector would become much less competitive and be markedly reduced. The knock on is that all the businesses that make use of them to fill in would be less efficient and less cost effective.
This would in turn force them to look for redundancies more often and make full time employees positions a little less secure. It would of course strengthen the union’s position.
Supported (of course) by the trade unions he has tabled a private members bill to force the same rights/benefits as full time employees receive on agency staff, such a sick pay.
The union said there should be a "level playing field" with permanently employed people.
I have often heard full time employees express slightly jealous amazement when they find out what agency staff are paid by comparison.
The fact is that agency staff usually get a higher pay scale than permanent staff. This generally makes up at least the financial difference for sick pay and annual leave, etc. that they don’t get.
They usually also get a premium to make up for the lack of job security, as they generally fill posts where full time employees are off long term sick, having children, or the post is unable to be filled. They are also used when capacity suddenly and temporarily needs to be expanded for a project.
These people tend to be independent and avoid union membership. They also tend to take far less sick leave; so can spend that portion of their wage as they choose.
If they had the same rights and conditions as full time employees they would no longer be competitive, or of any use to an employer, in the capacity they are generally used in. It would not be economical to pay them the same rates as they get now.
If these rights were introduced then this sector would become much less competitive and be markedly reduced. The knock on is that all the businesses that make use of them to fill in would be less efficient and less cost effective.
This would in turn force them to look for redundancies more often and make full time employees positions a little less secure. It would of course strengthen the union’s position.
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Tesco willing to work with the UK State (thus logically against it’s customers) on banning 'cheap' alcohol
It is interesting to note that Tesco appear to be cravenly responding to New Labour’s, authoritarian, patrician, health fascist line, that supermarkets are selling alcohol to the proletariat too cheaply.
At first thought one might wonder that some are willing to go along with anything and conjecture they may be hoping for a position of relative authority over the other prisoners in the concentration camp.
It is also quite possible that they are just boxing clever by responding to the likes of Professor Julian le Grand, when they know the only route is really even higher punitive taxation.
This is undoubtedly where the government would desperately like to go, but even they clearly realise that, without first demonising alcohol and all those who sell and drink it, this may be a step too far - even for New Labour supporters. That is why they now have their like minded medical glove puppets whipped into doing a chorus line on the subject.
Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, pointed out that it was actually really in the State’s hands as: "We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we (the supermarkets) can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law.”, in other words a price fixing cartel and "Supermarkets are not allowed to act together to put up prices because that would be bad for the consumer."
Tesco knows perfectly well the government can’t bypass that - or they would run afoul of the real law of the land in this respect - the EC and the European Court.
It is possible they are betting both ways… any further such pronouncements though - and I will be voting with my feet, on principle.
At first thought one might wonder that some are willing to go along with anything and conjecture they may be hoping for a position of relative authority over the other prisoners in the concentration camp.
It is also quite possible that they are just boxing clever by responding to the likes of Professor Julian le Grand, when they know the only route is really even higher punitive taxation.
This is undoubtedly where the government would desperately like to go, but even they clearly realise that, without first demonising alcohol and all those who sell and drink it, this may be a step too far - even for New Labour supporters. That is why they now have their like minded medical glove puppets whipped into doing a chorus line on the subject.
Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, pointed out that it was actually really in the State’s hands as: "We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we (the supermarkets) can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law.”, in other words a price fixing cartel and "Supermarkets are not allowed to act together to put up prices because that would be bad for the consumer."
Tesco knows perfectly well the government can’t bypass that - or they would run afoul of the real law of the land in this respect - the EC and the European Court.
It is possible they are betting both ways… any further such pronouncements though - and I will be voting with my feet, on principle.
Wednesday, 20 February 2008
Quote of the day
” When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.”
Thomas Jefferson
le Grand calls for UK supermarkets to be banned from selling alcohol
The ‘Chair’ of the Department of Health mouthpiece, Health England , Professor Julian le Grand is at it again.
This time he wants to ban the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, because he clearly doesn’t think adults are capable of managing their own alcohol intake, one suspects he believes unlike him and his elite cronies.
He puritanically sees alcohol as "adult candy" and apparently believes that customers are being ‘seduced’ into buying alcohol, on offer, on their way around the supermarket.
One might be tempted to wonder if he has a relative that runs an off licence ;-)
He also believes the price of alcohol is “disgracefully low" and there should (magically?) be a "dramatic rise" in prices - one presumes he would wish to rectify this by means of yet more taxation.
He seems incapable of understanding, or maybe doesn’t know, that there is no such thing as a “disgracefully low” price, without interference from his ilk the market sets the price. One suspects he would prefer it if the state controlled and set the price of all goods and services.
I have news for him. He may get his wish, at least in the short term and for beer, due to market forces.
The director of food at the British Retail Consortium, Andrew Opie, reacted angrily to what they pointed out was a ridiculous suggestion.
He pointed out that no one buys alcohol accidentally and drew attention to something anyone who regularly shops in a supermarket will have probably noticed: “Supermarkets have the best record on preventing under age sales and are helping to drive a culture of sensible drinking."
This time he wants to ban the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, because he clearly doesn’t think adults are capable of managing their own alcohol intake, one suspects he believes unlike him and his elite cronies.
He puritanically sees alcohol as "adult candy" and apparently believes that customers are being ‘seduced’ into buying alcohol, on offer, on their way around the supermarket.
One might be tempted to wonder if he has a relative that runs an off licence ;-)
He also believes the price of alcohol is “disgracefully low" and there should (magically?) be a "dramatic rise" in prices - one presumes he would wish to rectify this by means of yet more taxation.
He seems incapable of understanding, or maybe doesn’t know, that there is no such thing as a “disgracefully low” price, without interference from his ilk the market sets the price. One suspects he would prefer it if the state controlled and set the price of all goods and services.
I have news for him. He may get his wish, at least in the short term and for beer, due to market forces.
The director of food at the British Retail Consortium, Andrew Opie, reacted angrily to what they pointed out was a ridiculous suggestion.
He pointed out that no one buys alcohol accidentally and drew attention to something anyone who regularly shops in a supermarket will have probably noticed: “Supermarkets have the best record on preventing under age sales and are helping to drive a culture of sensible drinking."
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
Fayed’s much heralded Inquest ‘evidence’, all bluster, no substance
Well many of us may have been waiting for some sort startling evidence backed revelations from Mohammed Fayed yesterday, especially those with a penchant for tinfoil lined hats.
If so we were all doomed to disappointment. He had not a shred of it. Zip. Nil, Nought.
One begins to suspect the only conspiracy was on the part of Mr Fayed. That it may all have been some sort of elaborate wind up on Fayed’s part, at the taxpayers expense, designed to allow him to bad mouth as many people as possible under the immunity provided by the court. It strikes one more as a sort of elaborate fingering the nose at the British State, perhaps in revenge for imagined, or even real, slights – But done with your and my money.
His claims are so convoluted and complicated, involving so many people and such random impossible chances and coincidences, that it is difficult to imagine that even he gives them any real credence.
It would simply not be possible for such a vast conspiracy to have hung together for ten weeks, let alone all these years, without concrete evidence, in large amounts leaking big time. If it were there to be had it would have been by now. Also some of the supposed bedfellows are beyond belief – The French and British security services for instance ;-) who would believe that?
Mr Fayed’s research/evidence seems to have led him to believe Prince Philip was German. His views on the subject as expressed in court are not what might necessarily be interpreted as politically correct racially speaking. Whilst prince Philip probably has some German blood from Prince Albert, his grandfather was King George I of Greece and he was born Prince of Greece, so presumably he is more Greek than German and should not be condemned for being either. Prince Philip saw active service for this country throughout WWII.
Mr Fayed has had his expensive joke. His performance and claims have been so risible one wonders, as a lay person, if he may even have laid himself open to contempt.
The proceedings should now be brought to as speedy conclusion as possible, with as little further waste of hard earned taxpayers money as possible.
If so we were all doomed to disappointment. He had not a shred of it. Zip. Nil, Nought.
One begins to suspect the only conspiracy was on the part of Mr Fayed. That it may all have been some sort of elaborate wind up on Fayed’s part, at the taxpayers expense, designed to allow him to bad mouth as many people as possible under the immunity provided by the court. It strikes one more as a sort of elaborate fingering the nose at the British State, perhaps in revenge for imagined, or even real, slights – But done with your and my money.
His claims are so convoluted and complicated, involving so many people and such random impossible chances and coincidences, that it is difficult to imagine that even he gives them any real credence.
It would simply not be possible for such a vast conspiracy to have hung together for ten weeks, let alone all these years, without concrete evidence, in large amounts leaking big time. If it were there to be had it would have been by now. Also some of the supposed bedfellows are beyond belief – The French and British security services for instance ;-) who would believe that?
Mr Fayed’s research/evidence seems to have led him to believe Prince Philip was German. His views on the subject as expressed in court are not what might necessarily be interpreted as politically correct racially speaking. Whilst prince Philip probably has some German blood from Prince Albert, his grandfather was King George I of Greece and he was born Prince of Greece, so presumably he is more Greek than German and should not be condemned for being either. Prince Philip saw active service for this country throughout WWII.
Mr Fayed has had his expensive joke. His performance and claims have been so risible one wonders, as a lay person, if he may even have laid himself open to contempt.
The proceedings should now be brought to as speedy conclusion as possible, with as little further waste of hard earned taxpayers money as possible.
Monday, 18 February 2008
Quote of the day
“ The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients.”Edmund Burke
" If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.”Jacob Hornberger
A permit to allow you to do lawful things the ruling political elite disapprove of
It is arguable that Professor Julian le Grand a lecturer in social policy at the London School of Economics, is a very scary person.
Why? Because of some of the more sinister methods of state control of the individual that he advocates, coupled with the fact that, as a former aid to Tony Blair and chairman of Health England, a ministerial advisory board, he has the ear of those in power, so wealds undue influence.
He is advocating the introduction of licences to permit people to purchase perfectly legal goods.
He proposes that the licences should be made as difficult as possible to obtain, with complicated forms to fill out and that they should cost between £10 and up to £200 (presumably to penalise the better off) and be renewable annually.
You know it must be something to concern citizens of every political stripe when both the Telegraph and the Guardian have commented on it detrimentally.
He is talking about smoking in this case and the permit would be to purchase tobacco products – but the principle is dangerously easily applicable to anything the state, as the tool of the ruling political elite 'disapproves' of.
But hey! The money would all go to the good old NHS, so that’s OK then – Right?
Once the principle is accepted and applied to a limited hate group, who many non smokers will not worry about, it can be rolled out further.
Alcohol? All those binge drinkers disrupting society, it would keep underage kids away from the stuff right? Stop those middle class wine lovers inadvertantly drinking themselves to death right? Probably not…
‘Unhealthy’, ‘fattening’, food and drinks like burgers, or even tea? Apparently drinking bottled water is ‘immoral’ now. How about that?
A petrol/diesel permit?
What about certain activities like taking a cheap flight, or maybe taking a foreign holiday?
This is actually pretty scary stuff - and by no means beyond the realms of possibility.
In a truly bizarre piece of convoluted newspeak he attempts to brand this classic example of fascist thinking as “libertarian paternalism". An oxymoreon if ever there was one.
It is certainly a fine example of the Political Patrician classes mental processes at work. Showcasing the patrician view of the lower orders he feels and possibly intends this to impact more on poor and less well educated, justifying it on the grounds that it should contribute to a reduction in 'health inequalities'.
It clearly about as diametrically opposed to actual Libertarian thinking as it is possible to get.
One wonders if this may be deliberate on his part, in an attepmpt at black propaganda, targeted at the political ‘meat and two veg brigade’, to put them off realising what Libertarian ideas are really about, given that those ideas are such a threat to his way of thinking.
Why? Because of some of the more sinister methods of state control of the individual that he advocates, coupled with the fact that, as a former aid to Tony Blair and chairman of Health England, a ministerial advisory board, he has the ear of those in power, so wealds undue influence.
He is advocating the introduction of licences to permit people to purchase perfectly legal goods.
He proposes that the licences should be made as difficult as possible to obtain, with complicated forms to fill out and that they should cost between £10 and up to £200 (presumably to penalise the better off) and be renewable annually.
You know it must be something to concern citizens of every political stripe when both the Telegraph and the Guardian have commented on it detrimentally.
He is talking about smoking in this case and the permit would be to purchase tobacco products – but the principle is dangerously easily applicable to anything the state, as the tool of the ruling political elite 'disapproves' of.
But hey! The money would all go to the good old NHS, so that’s OK then – Right?
Once the principle is accepted and applied to a limited hate group, who many non smokers will not worry about, it can be rolled out further.
Alcohol? All those binge drinkers disrupting society, it would keep underage kids away from the stuff right? Stop those middle class wine lovers inadvertantly drinking themselves to death right? Probably not…
‘Unhealthy’, ‘fattening’, food and drinks like burgers, or even tea? Apparently drinking bottled water is ‘immoral’ now. How about that?
A petrol/diesel permit?
What about certain activities like taking a cheap flight, or maybe taking a foreign holiday?
This is actually pretty scary stuff - and by no means beyond the realms of possibility.
In a truly bizarre piece of convoluted newspeak he attempts to brand this classic example of fascist thinking as “libertarian paternalism". An oxymoreon if ever there was one.
It is certainly a fine example of the Political Patrician classes mental processes at work. Showcasing the patrician view of the lower orders he feels and possibly intends this to impact more on poor and less well educated, justifying it on the grounds that it should contribute to a reduction in 'health inequalities'.
It clearly about as diametrically opposed to actual Libertarian thinking as it is possible to get.
One wonders if this may be deliberate on his part, in an attepmpt at black propaganda, targeted at the political ‘meat and two veg brigade’, to put them off realising what Libertarian ideas are really about, given that those ideas are such a threat to his way of thinking.
New Labour nationalises Failed bank Northern Rock
It’s the ‘general election that never was’ all over again. New Labour have spent so long pratting around, unable to make a decision over the inappropriately named Northern Rock (more like a millstone round all our necks) that they have now left themselves with no option but to nationalise it, ‘temporarily’.
Not content with exposing the taxpayer to £55 million liability, in a spectacular example of Nick Leeson-onomics, New Labour have gone double, or nothing - ramping the exposure up to £110 million!
This matter will no doubt see some considerable comment so I shall limit my myself to observing that this averages around £3,500 for each taxpayer. Personally, if I had any choice in the matter at all, I could think of a few things I would rather have spent £3,500 of my hard earned cash on.
Not content with exposing the taxpayer to £55 million liability, in a spectacular example of Nick Leeson-onomics, New Labour have gone double, or nothing - ramping the exposure up to £110 million!
This matter will no doubt see some considerable comment so I shall limit my myself to observing that this averages around £3,500 for each taxpayer. Personally, if I had any choice in the matter at all, I could think of a few things I would rather have spent £3,500 of my hard earned cash on.
Definitely something to think about
Beaman’s World had an interesting post the other day.
It articulated something that I had trying to formulate more concretely myself:
Probably a majority of any group wishes to live in peace and quietly get on with their lives - but a majority that will not police their fanatic minorities is in fact irrelevant, when it comes to the activities of the fanatics and extremists - when it comes to how that group relates with and impacts on, the greater world.
If the majority do not oppose them then if anything they become part of the problem as they provide a form of legitimisation, and/or a medium for the fanatics to move and conceal themselves within and a resource.
There will always be fanatics, of every stripe. If they are not opposed the chances of their reaching a tipping point in numbers and momentum where they then effectively ‘own’ the rest and can do untold harm are greatly increased.
Possibly a concrete illustration of where the phrase: “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” fits well…
Go read the post.
It articulated something that I had trying to formulate more concretely myself:
Probably a majority of any group wishes to live in peace and quietly get on with their lives - but a majority that will not police their fanatic minorities is in fact irrelevant, when it comes to the activities of the fanatics and extremists - when it comes to how that group relates with and impacts on, the greater world.
If the majority do not oppose them then if anything they become part of the problem as they provide a form of legitimisation, and/or a medium for the fanatics to move and conceal themselves within and a resource.
There will always be fanatics, of every stripe. If they are not opposed the chances of their reaching a tipping point in numbers and momentum where they then effectively ‘own’ the rest and can do untold harm are greatly increased.
Possibly a concrete illustration of where the phrase: “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” fits well…
Go read the post.
Friday, 15 February 2008
Quote of the day
”History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid”Dwight David Eisenhower
“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”Plato
UK weakened from within to the point of becoming a ‘soft touch’
The influential Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank has finally actually articulated what the majority of the public, who bother to think about such things at all, had worked out some time back.
Namely that the Government has opened the UK up by it’s failure to make it worth the bother of integration to isolationist ethnic minorities.
It seems the self hating ‘great and good’, the most recent example being the arch Bishop of Canterbury, have spent so long bending over backwards effacing British institutions and ways in the name of ‘multiculturalism’ that they have virtually faded away, People naturally wish to cling to an Identity and this leaves a vacume for religion, or race, to fill - to the detriment of society as a whole, providing the fertile ground for and feeding extremism.
The RUSI state: : "That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate.
This is a problem worsened by the lack of leadership from the majority which in mis-placed deference to 'multiculturalism' failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism.
The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy.
We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without."
Predictably, as the executive arm of the Islington Tendancy and a perfect example of the problem New Labour reflexively deny any suggestion that this may be so out of hand. Attempting to claim the findings "do not stand up to scrutiny", though they actually make clear sense when scrutinised.
Muddying/diverting the point a Cabinet Office spokesman claimed: "The safety and security of our citizens is the Government's main priority and the Government rejects any suggestion that Britain is a soft touch for terrorists."
Namely that the Government has opened the UK up by it’s failure to make it worth the bother of integration to isolationist ethnic minorities.
It seems the self hating ‘great and good’, the most recent example being the arch Bishop of Canterbury, have spent so long bending over backwards effacing British institutions and ways in the name of ‘multiculturalism’ that they have virtually faded away, People naturally wish to cling to an Identity and this leaves a vacume for religion, or race, to fill - to the detriment of society as a whole, providing the fertile ground for and feeding extremism.
The RUSI state: : "That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate.
This is a problem worsened by the lack of leadership from the majority which in mis-placed deference to 'multiculturalism' failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism.
The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy.
We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without."
Predictably, as the executive arm of the Islington Tendancy and a perfect example of the problem New Labour reflexively deny any suggestion that this may be so out of hand. Attempting to claim the findings "do not stand up to scrutiny", though they actually make clear sense when scrutinised.
Muddying/diverting the point a Cabinet Office spokesman claimed: "The safety and security of our citizens is the Government's main priority and the Government rejects any suggestion that Britain is a soft touch for terrorists."
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Something you should be worried about
Someone with an over active imagination managed to mistake the MP3 player a man on his way home from work was listening to for a gun. They reported it to the police.
We all know that tinny buzzing can be annoying ;-) and it must have been playing at least loudly enough to drown out police shouting at him , as proved to be the case.
It is fortunate whoever it was doesn’t regularly use the tube, or there would be armed police running round in droves all over the place.
The police did what they are supposed to, given the circumstances (Hurrah!), fortunately they were not quite so ‘enthusiastic’ as those who dealt with poor Jean Charles de Menezes and the music lover survived the experience.
The poor guy only realised something was up when passers by and traffic reacted weirdly staring at him. He took out the earpieces and realised he had lots of policemen behind him pointing guns at him and shouting not to move. Fortunately for him he didn’t try to change tracks before he realised…
On discovering he was armed with nothing more deadly than music they still – get this – arrested him and carted him off in hand cuffs anyway.
Now in days of yore, say 30 years ago, even 15 years ago, they would have thought twice about that. But that was before New Labour - and here it all starts to become an example of a dawning fascist state at work.
They could have verified who he was and all this could have been done on the street where they stopped him, or in a police car. At worse he could have ‘assisted them with their enquiries’ at the station and sorted the matter out easily there.
Here is the bit you should really be concerned about though. By now they must have known pretty well the guy was guilty of nothing more than going home from work on the bus, speaking to the witness should have easily confirmed this.
What happened to the discretion that British police officers used to be so famous for using. All gone now under a flurry of ‘Policies’ and ‘Targets’ and ‘Initiatives’. Stuff just serving the public, serve the State. I bet it showed up as at least one extra detection, probably several.
No they had to arrest him, like a clueless call centre operator running through their script - and worst still they took his DNA and fingerprints – and the State will keep them.
We all know that tinny buzzing can be annoying ;-) and it must have been playing at least loudly enough to drown out police shouting at him , as proved to be the case.
It is fortunate whoever it was doesn’t regularly use the tube, or there would be armed police running round in droves all over the place.
The police did what they are supposed to, given the circumstances (Hurrah!), fortunately they were not quite so ‘enthusiastic’ as those who dealt with poor Jean Charles de Menezes and the music lover survived the experience.
The poor guy only realised something was up when passers by and traffic reacted weirdly staring at him. He took out the earpieces and realised he had lots of policemen behind him pointing guns at him and shouting not to move. Fortunately for him he didn’t try to change tracks before he realised…
On discovering he was armed with nothing more deadly than music they still – get this – arrested him and carted him off in hand cuffs anyway.
Now in days of yore, say 30 years ago, even 15 years ago, they would have thought twice about that. But that was before New Labour - and here it all starts to become an example of a dawning fascist state at work.
They could have verified who he was and all this could have been done on the street where they stopped him, or in a police car. At worse he could have ‘assisted them with their enquiries’ at the station and sorted the matter out easily there.
Here is the bit you should really be concerned about though. By now they must have known pretty well the guy was guilty of nothing more than going home from work on the bus, speaking to the witness should have easily confirmed this.
What happened to the discretion that British police officers used to be so famous for using. All gone now under a flurry of ‘Policies’ and ‘Targets’ and ‘Initiatives’. Stuff just serving the public, serve the State. I bet it showed up as at least one extra detection, probably several.
No they had to arrest him, like a clueless call centre operator running through their script - and worst still they took his DNA and fingerprints – and the State will keep them.
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Lib Dem election promises “not subject to legitimate expectation” either
Those who voted Liberal Democrat in the last general election presumably did so on the basis of their manifesto – that, Like New Labour’s, promised a referendum on the European Constitution.
Now their new Leader, Nick Clegg, who holds his seat as a result of that election, is also disingenuously claiming, like Gordon Brown, that the microscopic differences in the Lisbon Treaty somehow remove any need for a popular vote. He wants Liberal Democrat MPs to help New Labour block an amendment demanding a referendum and force the treaty through.
So now you know. With Nick Clegg in charge you can’t believe the lies the Fib Dems print in their manifesto any more than you can New Labour’s.
They will apparently say whatever is expedient to persuade people to vote for them - and then do as it suits them with no regard to their vain promises.
And they wonder why the citizen is loosing faith in politicians…
Now their new Leader, Nick Clegg, who holds his seat as a result of that election, is also disingenuously claiming, like Gordon Brown, that the microscopic differences in the Lisbon Treaty somehow remove any need for a popular vote. He wants Liberal Democrat MPs to help New Labour block an amendment demanding a referendum and force the treaty through.
So now you know. With Nick Clegg in charge you can’t believe the lies the Fib Dems print in their manifesto any more than you can New Labour’s.
They will apparently say whatever is expedient to persuade people to vote for them - and then do as it suits them with no regard to their vain promises.
And they wonder why the citizen is loosing faith in politicians…
Quote of the day
“ If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”Thomas Jefferson
Private treatment initiative underutilised by NHS, rollout halted.
It seems that Independent sector treatment centres (ISTCs), created in a bid to cut waiting lists, to take care of minor surgery and diagnostic tests such knee and hip replacements, hernias and cataract operations, are being under utilised. Some are being passed only half the work they agreed to handle.
This is hardly surprising when you realise that it is not in the interests of cash strapped NHS hospitals to pass them patients - as they are paid per person treated and have to compete for the patients.
Under this arrangement It makes economic sense for NHS hospitals to hang on to as many patients as possible, even though this may disadvantage the patient, as it may involve, at a minimum, much longer waits for treatment.
Thus the contractual arrangements have the, presumably, unintentional side effect of sabotaging the initiative.
David Worskett, representing private health providers, pointed out that part of the problem was also due to GPs being reluctant to utilise them in some areas.
There have been two waves of ISTCs opened since they were announced in 2003. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has scrapped some of the second wave because of ‘lack of demand’, despite waiting lists. He has also pulled the plug on the third wave.
This may not necessarily be seen as entirely bad, or to be avoided, by NHS supporters who are vehemenently opposed to any private sector involvement on ideological grounds. It is also likely some employed within in the NHS may closely identify their interests with it’s remaining as it is.
Karen Jennings, of Unison stated: "This is money that should have gone into the NHS."
This is hardly surprising when you realise that it is not in the interests of cash strapped NHS hospitals to pass them patients - as they are paid per person treated and have to compete for the patients.
Under this arrangement It makes economic sense for NHS hospitals to hang on to as many patients as possible, even though this may disadvantage the patient, as it may involve, at a minimum, much longer waits for treatment.
Thus the contractual arrangements have the, presumably, unintentional side effect of sabotaging the initiative.
David Worskett, representing private health providers, pointed out that part of the problem was also due to GPs being reluctant to utilise them in some areas.
There have been two waves of ISTCs opened since they were announced in 2003. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has scrapped some of the second wave because of ‘lack of demand’, despite waiting lists. He has also pulled the plug on the third wave.
This may not necessarily be seen as entirely bad, or to be avoided, by NHS supporters who are vehemenently opposed to any private sector involvement on ideological grounds. It is also likely some employed within in the NHS may closely identify their interests with it’s remaining as it is.
Karen Jennings, of Unison stated: "This is money that should have gone into the NHS."
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
New Labour Manifesto Promises are: “Not subject to Legitimate Expectation”
This has been aired elsewhere - but quite frankly can’t be drawn to the attention of the voters often enough, so I make no apology for raising it here.
UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.
The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:
"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.
"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “
Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.
What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!
In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.
Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.
Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.
So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.
You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.
Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.
UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.
The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:
"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.
"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “
Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.
What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!
In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.
Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.
Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.
So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.
You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.
Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.
Quote of the day
“ Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.”Demosthenes
Diana Death enquiry pushed to £6 Million and rising
It emerges that £6 million has been spent investigating the death of the Princess of Wales – and that is only so far. You can be absolutely sure the final figure will be considerably more than that .
Why? Largely because one sad grieving old man, being fed what people think he wants to hear by people who can collect money from him, plus some fully paid up members of the tinfoil hat squad, will never accept an outcome that does not fit in with their pre conceived conspiracy theories.
No matter how many enquiries, investigations, whatever, they will not be satisfied with the truth they will only be satisfied with what they want to hear, what they sadly imagine to be the truth.
Any reasonable person can not escape the fact that this junket has gone on long enough – far too long and spent far too much taxpayer’s money.
No body with a realistic understanding of the world can imagine anyone would plan an assassination like that. That is the stuff of convoluted best selling novels. There were simply too many random factors at play and too many witnesses.
Much of what happened that night was clearly chance resulting from decisions made on the fly by Dodi Fayed, his driver and the random actions of the paparazzi. No one in their right mind would rely on so many random factors coming together to plan for them.
One can empathise with Mr Fayed for thinking the way he does and he may have some excuse.
He employed the driver, his beloved son made many of the key decisions that lead to the accident. He will be desperate to believe it was anyone or anything, other than himself, or his son that may have been responsible for this sad accident.
His idea of the way Royal families behave may be influenced by how certain middle eastern royal families who actually govern their countries do react and judge their honour. It would be understandable if a grieving old man, a man who’s understanding of the way some things work in the UK may be less than clear, were to project what he is familiar with, his expectations, on another princess.
With the best will in the world it is difficult to equate the plain speaking Prince Philip with King Khalid.
If Mr Fayed wishes to continue to flog a dead horse indefinitely perhaps it would be better done at his own expense rather than the put upon British Taxpayer’s.
Why? Largely because one sad grieving old man, being fed what people think he wants to hear by people who can collect money from him, plus some fully paid up members of the tinfoil hat squad, will never accept an outcome that does not fit in with their pre conceived conspiracy theories.
No matter how many enquiries, investigations, whatever, they will not be satisfied with the truth they will only be satisfied with what they want to hear, what they sadly imagine to be the truth.
Any reasonable person can not escape the fact that this junket has gone on long enough – far too long and spent far too much taxpayer’s money.
No body with a realistic understanding of the world can imagine anyone would plan an assassination like that. That is the stuff of convoluted best selling novels. There were simply too many random factors at play and too many witnesses.
Much of what happened that night was clearly chance resulting from decisions made on the fly by Dodi Fayed, his driver and the random actions of the paparazzi. No one in their right mind would rely on so many random factors coming together to plan for them.
One can empathise with Mr Fayed for thinking the way he does and he may have some excuse.
He employed the driver, his beloved son made many of the key decisions that lead to the accident. He will be desperate to believe it was anyone or anything, other than himself, or his son that may have been responsible for this sad accident.
His idea of the way Royal families behave may be influenced by how certain middle eastern royal families who actually govern their countries do react and judge their honour. It would be understandable if a grieving old man, a man who’s understanding of the way some things work in the UK may be less than clear, were to project what he is familiar with, his expectations, on another princess.
With the best will in the world it is difficult to equate the plain speaking Prince Philip with King Khalid.
If Mr Fayed wishes to continue to flog a dead horse indefinitely perhaps it would be better done at his own expense rather than the put upon British Taxpayer’s.
Monday, 11 February 2008
Quote of the day
“ Confidence... thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.”“Franklin D. Roosevelt
Egg faces possible enquiry over cancelled cards
Egg’s dubious cancellation of the cards of customers who are reliable users has now led them to be reported to the Financial Services Authority. This has now been referred to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).
New Labour MP, Nigel Griffiths stated: "I am very pleased about that. It shows how seriously they are taking it. I cannot tell you the number of complaints I have had - they just keep flooding in."
Many customers who have had their cards summarily cancelled were adamant that they always paid their bills on time and had excellent credit ratings.
Mr Griffiths said he would be introducing a Commons motion demanding an inquiry into the matter and that he was "in no doubt that is the reason" for the cancellations.
New Labour MP, Nigel Griffiths stated: "I am very pleased about that. It shows how seriously they are taking it. I cannot tell you the number of complaints I have had - they just keep flooding in."
Many customers who have had their cards summarily cancelled were adamant that they always paid their bills on time and had excellent credit ratings.
Mr Griffiths said he would be introducing a Commons motion demanding an inquiry into the matter and that he was "in no doubt that is the reason" for the cancellations.
Friday, 8 February 2008
Are credit card companies over extended?
Are the credit card companies feeling the pinch more than they would care to admit?
In the last decade or so, many of us will have been aware of credit card companies thrusting increased spending limits on people, when they are nearing their current limit and use of the card has slowed.
We are all unfortunately used to what you might call postal SPAM, urging us to take out new cards together with partially completed (where do they get the details?) application forms that we then have to destroy in order to avoid the threat of identity theft.
Recently I have become aware of instances of credit limits being reduced, presumably because of some new panicked arcane algorithms applied to the owners spending habits.
I became aware of a new one the other day though. A credit card actually pulling out of the agreement - for no discernable reason at all. The person pays all their bills on time. In withdrawing the company wrote assuring that there was no problem with the person’s credit record and they could continue to make payments (how kind of them).
Given the current financial climate the owner had prudently cut back on using it and was just making the regular payments in order to reduce it. With the intent of maintain this until some assets were freed up and they could clear the card - though it is surely unlikely the card operator could have known this. Though it does rather smack of breaking up with someone before they can call it off with you.
One can only conclude that the company may be becoming slightly desperate and also possibly needs to look more carefully at it’s computer algorithms as they have lost the sort of reliable customer one would think they would be desperate to hang on to.
Let's hope we arn't going to see any more 'Northern Rocks' too soon - Do we all need to worry more than the Government would have us believe?
It would be interesting to know if anyone can add to this.
In the last decade or so, many of us will have been aware of credit card companies thrusting increased spending limits on people, when they are nearing their current limit and use of the card has slowed.
We are all unfortunately used to what you might call postal SPAM, urging us to take out new cards together with partially completed (where do they get the details?) application forms that we then have to destroy in order to avoid the threat of identity theft.
Recently I have become aware of instances of credit limits being reduced, presumably because of some new panicked arcane algorithms applied to the owners spending habits.
I became aware of a new one the other day though. A credit card actually pulling out of the agreement - for no discernable reason at all. The person pays all their bills on time. In withdrawing the company wrote assuring that there was no problem with the person’s credit record and they could continue to make payments (how kind of them).
Given the current financial climate the owner had prudently cut back on using it and was just making the regular payments in order to reduce it. With the intent of maintain this until some assets were freed up and they could clear the card - though it is surely unlikely the card operator could have known this. Though it does rather smack of breaking up with someone before they can call it off with you.
One can only conclude that the company may be becoming slightly desperate and also possibly needs to look more carefully at it’s computer algorithms as they have lost the sort of reliable customer one would think they would be desperate to hang on to.
Let's hope we arn't going to see any more 'Northern Rocks' too soon - Do we all need to worry more than the Government would have us believe?
It would be interesting to know if anyone can add to this.
Quote of the day
" With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."Steven Weinberg
Arch Bishop suggests adoption of aspects of Sharia Law in the UK
About now there must be quite a few people, especially in the corridors of power and possibly within the Anglican Church tuning over the phrase: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” in their minds - or possibly paraphrasing it and substituting turbulent for pestilential.
Not content to be presiding over the apparent disintegration of the Anglican Church the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Williams has chosen to start stirring things up by unhelpfully suggesting the adoption of some of Sharia law in the UK appeared to be “unavoidable”, attracting criticism from across the (rather narrow these days) political spectrum.
Such comments can only put back the possibility of Moslem integration into British society.
He did raise some valid points in his speech, identifying problems - but his conclusions, solutions and ideas; betray him as misguided, weak and rather foolish.
If the law of the land does not apply equally and fairly for all then it is not the law of the land at all. Ghettos where different laws apply will just entrench the no-go areas the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali spoke of.
Better we separate religion from the state formally and entirely.
Parliament should be the place the law is decided and it should be uniform - though unfortunately that is becoming less so, as more and more, actual power, is brazenly transferred to the EU, amid political denial.
It seems almost traditional now that Arch Bishops of Canterbury will say something controversial from time to time, possibly in an attempt to appear ‘relevant’.
But maybe it is time for this one to consider stepping down in favour of a more capable pair of hands – and who knows – converting ;-)
Not content to be presiding over the apparent disintegration of the Anglican Church the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Williams has chosen to start stirring things up by unhelpfully suggesting the adoption of some of Sharia law in the UK appeared to be “unavoidable”, attracting criticism from across the (rather narrow these days) political spectrum.
Such comments can only put back the possibility of Moslem integration into British society.
He did raise some valid points in his speech, identifying problems - but his conclusions, solutions and ideas; betray him as misguided, weak and rather foolish.
If the law of the land does not apply equally and fairly for all then it is not the law of the land at all. Ghettos where different laws apply will just entrench the no-go areas the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali spoke of.
Better we separate religion from the state formally and entirely.
Parliament should be the place the law is decided and it should be uniform - though unfortunately that is becoming less so, as more and more, actual power, is brazenly transferred to the EU, amid political denial.
It seems almost traditional now that Arch Bishops of Canterbury will say something controversial from time to time, possibly in an attempt to appear ‘relevant’.
But maybe it is time for this one to consider stepping down in favour of a more capable pair of hands – and who knows – converting ;-)
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Quote of the day
" Tis not the eating, nor 'tis not the drinking that is to be blamed, but the excessJohn Selden (1584-1684)
" The excess of our youth are checks written against our age and they are payable with interest thirty years later"Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832)
Study shows predisposition to ‘obesity’ is largely inherited
An authoratitive study indicates that so-called ‘obesity’ is strongly influenced by genetic predisposition. The figure they quote is 77%.
Interesting news that, based on past performance, the Government Health fascists will probably do their best to ignore, or claim proves the exact opposite of what it means.
Also it should be remembered the ‘obesity’ definitions were tweaked to take in more people. Increasing the numbers of officially overweight, or obese, in the US alone by 28 million over night.
This does not mean that, because you are predisposed towards being fatter you will actually be fatter - Just that you will probably have to work much harder at avoiding it than others.
Much what many people have been convinced of for years…
Interesting news that, based on past performance, the Government Health fascists will probably do their best to ignore, or claim proves the exact opposite of what it means.
Also it should be remembered the ‘obesity’ definitions were tweaked to take in more people. Increasing the numbers of officially overweight, or obese, in the US alone by 28 million over night.
This does not mean that, because you are predisposed towards being fatter you will actually be fatter - Just that you will probably have to work much harder at avoiding it than others.
Much what many people have been convinced of for years…
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Quote of the day
" To make laws that man cannot - and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt."Elizabeth Cady Stanton
UK Government objectivity is ‘questionable’ over water flouridisation
It appears the Government are doing a ‘WMD dossier’ on water flouridisation. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has taken an authoritative report that shows tooth decay in children across Europe has fallen - irrespective of whether there is fluoride in the water or not - and is using selected bits of it to push the agenda for the compulsory adulteration of water supplies with fluoride.
Some studies have suggested a link between water flouridisation and increased levels of bladder cancer and hip fracture.
It seems Johnson is also pushing the agenda by bribing strategic health authorities to add fluoride with the prospect of an extra £14 million over a three year period.
He claimed: "Fluoridation is scientifically supported, it is legal, and it is our policy, but only two or three areas currently have it and we need to go much further in areas where dental health needs to be improved.”
Concerning the falling tooth decay the report’s authors state: "This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water, or the use of fluoridated salt and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps nutrition."
You have a choice as to what sort of toothpaste you use, with tap water it is Hobson's choice.
Lets hope the authors can manage to steer clear of Harrowdown Hill.
Some studies have suggested a link between water flouridisation and increased levels of bladder cancer and hip fracture.
It seems Johnson is also pushing the agenda by bribing strategic health authorities to add fluoride with the prospect of an extra £14 million over a three year period.
He claimed: "Fluoridation is scientifically supported, it is legal, and it is our policy, but only two or three areas currently have it and we need to go much further in areas where dental health needs to be improved.”
Concerning the falling tooth decay the report’s authors state: "This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water, or the use of fluoridated salt and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps nutrition."
You have a choice as to what sort of toothpaste you use, with tap water it is Hobson's choice.
Lets hope the authors can manage to steer clear of Harrowdown Hill.
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Global warming could produce sudden climate shifts later, rather than gradual evidence sooner
It seems that ‘climate scientists’ are now suggesting that ‘global warming’ may result in sudden climate shifts later in the century, rather than in a gradual process.
This would account for any problems in actually detecting, or measuring, a clear, real, obvious, linear change in climatic conditions and puts off the prospect of having to accept that their absence may put the theory into question - until long after the current passengers on the climatic gravy train have well and truly left the platform..
What will happen if the mothership never turns up? Right or wrong, it all has a worrying hint of a millennial religious belief.
This would account for any problems in actually detecting, or measuring, a clear, real, obvious, linear change in climatic conditions and puts off the prospect of having to accept that their absence may put the theory into question - until long after the current passengers on the climatic gravy train have well and truly left the platform..
What will happen if the mothership never turns up? Right or wrong, it all has a worrying hint of a millennial religious belief.
Monday, 4 February 2008
Winston Churchill and Sherlock Holmes. Many voters don’t know who was real and who wasn’t
According to a survey 47% of those surveyed thought Richard I (the Lionheart), was a myth. Worryingly 33% thought the same about Sir Winston Churchill and Florence Nightingale.
Conversely 59% though Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson were real people.
Did the people conducting the survey especially look for thick people, or is it yet another indictment of State Education?
Possibly both - but more likely the latter, as even the those of the most modest mental ability, exposed to a half decent education would be more than likely to get such simple questions right.
More worrying, what else don’t the respondents have a clue about - and how does this affect important decisions they make in daily life, based apparently on completely mistaken information.
More worrying still ;-) These people can vote...
Conversely 59% though Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson were real people.
Did the people conducting the survey especially look for thick people, or is it yet another indictment of State Education?
Possibly both - but more likely the latter, as even the those of the most modest mental ability, exposed to a half decent education would be more than likely to get such simple questions right.
More worrying, what else don’t the respondents have a clue about - and how does this affect important decisions they make in daily life, based apparently on completely mistaken information.
More worrying still ;-) These people can vote...
Quote of the day
” The great fish swallow up the small; and he who is most strenuous for the rights of the people, when vested with power, is as eager after the prerogatives of government.ABIGAIL ADAMS 1775
UK Parliament now second place to EU to those in power.
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart ex-Charman of Shell has a downer on ‘rich’ people buying ‘gaz guzzling’ vehicles. He wants the EU to ban anything that does less than 35 MPG.
One suspects the problem is not actually with rich people, as there are probably not enough to make a significant difference and they can afford to assuage their consciences by buying a ‘greener’ vehicle. This may more likely be his prejudices speaking.
From experience, it is those who can’t afford better who end up having to run less fuel-efficient vehicles, and there are many more of them.
Leaving this aside, what is particularly telling is that Moody-Stuart is calling on the EU, the actual Government of the UK to ban them, rather than what is becoming an effectively toothless hot air factory, Parliament.
Once Gordon Brown dishonestly signs away yet more of the Voters loaned power to the EU, Parliament will be effectively largely reduced to the power level of a County Council. We already have those, so what is the point of Parliament, as it exists?
One suspects the problem is not actually with rich people, as there are probably not enough to make a significant difference and they can afford to assuage their consciences by buying a ‘greener’ vehicle. This may more likely be his prejudices speaking.
From experience, it is those who can’t afford better who end up having to run less fuel-efficient vehicles, and there are many more of them.
Leaving this aside, what is particularly telling is that Moody-Stuart is calling on the EU, the actual Government of the UK to ban them, rather than what is becoming an effectively toothless hot air factory, Parliament.
Once Gordon Brown dishonestly signs away yet more of the Voters loaned power to the EU, Parliament will be effectively largely reduced to the power level of a County Council. We already have those, so what is the point of Parliament, as it exists?
Saturday, 2 February 2008
Quote of the day
" Let us recollect that peace, or war, will not always be left to our option; that however moderate, or unambitious, we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others."
Alexander Hamilton 1788
Bishop receives death threats
It is interesting to note that since his remarks about no go areas in the UK for non-adherents to the so-called “religion of peace” the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, has received death threats.
Confidentially folks, I may be wrong here - but I suspect the threats were not from Seventh day Adventists, Buddhists, Jews, or Quakers, who were homicidally enraged by his daring to point out the bleedin’ obvious.
One suspects that if the good Bishop’s surname hadn’t been Nazir-Ali then he would have been attacked by some of his less rabid critics employing the dubious combination, Non-Sequitur/Ad hominem erroneous accusation of being ‘racist’ by now. It would certainly not be the first time they have played the race card by any means.
That seems to be their usual first attack that many will reflexively fall over themselves to kowtow to. It cannot be racist to criticise a religion, unless possibly it is one that only allows adherents of one ethnic group with no conversions.
Clearly Islam is not such a religion as it’s ultimate goal is a world Islamic state and it currently has adherents from many different ethnic groups.
Confidentially folks, I may be wrong here - but I suspect the threats were not from Seventh day Adventists, Buddhists, Jews, or Quakers, who were homicidally enraged by his daring to point out the bleedin’ obvious.
One suspects that if the good Bishop’s surname hadn’t been Nazir-Ali then he would have been attacked by some of his less rabid critics employing the dubious combination, Non-Sequitur/Ad hominem erroneous accusation of being ‘racist’ by now. It would certainly not be the first time they have played the race card by any means.
That seems to be their usual first attack that many will reflexively fall over themselves to kowtow to. It cannot be racist to criticise a religion, unless possibly it is one that only allows adherents of one ethnic group with no conversions.
Clearly Islam is not such a religion as it’s ultimate goal is a world Islamic state and it currently has adherents from many different ethnic groups.
Friday, 1 February 2008
Quote of the day
”And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.How did this happen? Who's to blame?
Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it.
I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.
Fear got the best of you - and in your panic you turned to the now
He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.”
V
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)