Does anyone recall Labour’s e-petition site at the prime minister’s office?
Not that it was ever really much use, but it did at least allow people to blow off some steam and give the government some idea of what their more unpopular ideas and policies were. Maybe it did get them to back-pedal once or twice – who knows?
Well that was then and this is now. It was suspended before the general election, presumably because Gordon didn’t want any more heckling from the punters.
Dave and Nick the “Transparent Government” twins have apparently decided that, rather than be simply and quickly re opened, the e-petition site is to be moved to Direct Gov this year - some unspecified date this year, to be, er, imprecise. This came out in parliament in December.
It’s February now and it is still not working. Odd that, considering they already have a functional system that works fine bought and paid for out of our hard earned taxes. One wonders why they couldn’t just move the pages to Direct.gov?
Still if they had done they would probably be getting nasty e-petitions objecting to selling off the forests, or student fees, or scrapping the Ark Royal, or… maybe something upsetting like this.
What’s the betting they don’t hurry themselves too much to get it up and running?
Still nature abhors a vacuum as they say.
Showing posts with label Political Spin and Misdirection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Spin and Misdirection. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Monday, 6 December 2010
Will that be eat in or takeout?
It seems it's official - According to Wikileaks anyway, Saudia Arabia is basically funding Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, to the tune of millions of dollars.
Not the Saudi state, officially at least, though it might be said there is a blurring between the stae and certain individuals there. It is reportedly through companies/charities/groups within Saudi Arabia. This region is the seat of the extreamist Whabbi funamentalist Islamic sect.
It is interesting that Saudi Arabia, like Kuwait and some other ostensibly 'friendly' middle eastern states seem to be more keen on dealing with internal terrorism, when they can't risibly blame it on westerners allegedly blowing each other up in fatal disputes over alcohol smuggling.
They seem far less keen on dealing with what amouts to the export of terriorism and steming the flow of funds to it from it's citizens.
One presumes one reason is these states feel they are less likely to suffer the effects of terrorism themselves - if it takes place off their own soil. If they allow what might otherwise be an internal problem with their own dissidents who might destabilise their own regimes to be safely occupied much further away, targeted agaisnt western 'infidel' interests else where.
One wonders, given this apparent massive terrorist funding through Islamic 'charities', how much of their funding is actually due to the trade in drugs and goods counterfeiting that western governments seem keen to blame it on - and why they are.
A continued uniterrupted supply of supply of oil might be a good reason. with the added bunus of providing a nice justification for new laws and powers.
Not the Saudi state, officially at least, though it might be said there is a blurring between the stae and certain individuals there. It is reportedly through companies/charities/groups within Saudi Arabia. This region is the seat of the extreamist Whabbi funamentalist Islamic sect.
It is interesting that Saudi Arabia, like Kuwait and some other ostensibly 'friendly' middle eastern states seem to be more keen on dealing with internal terrorism, when they can't risibly blame it on westerners allegedly blowing each other up in fatal disputes over alcohol smuggling.
They seem far less keen on dealing with what amouts to the export of terriorism and steming the flow of funds to it from it's citizens.
One presumes one reason is these states feel they are less likely to suffer the effects of terrorism themselves - if it takes place off their own soil. If they allow what might otherwise be an internal problem with their own dissidents who might destabilise their own regimes to be safely occupied much further away, targeted agaisnt western 'infidel' interests else where.
One wonders, given this apparent massive terrorist funding through Islamic 'charities', how much of their funding is actually due to the trade in drugs and goods counterfeiting that western governments seem keen to blame it on - and why they are.
A continued uniterrupted supply of supply of oil might be a good reason. with the added bunus of providing a nice justification for new laws and powers.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Good money after bad
What is the point of politicians? I am sure they have their own reasons for being (Power? Money?) - but what is the point, the benefit, from the average citizens perspective?
Take David Cameron as an example. The EU wanted to increase it’s budget. As a negotiating position it suggested 5.9%. He was not going to stand for that – he said.
Now if you were thinking of buying something and there was a haggle possibility just you know the salesperson will ask double and let the unwary tourist knock them down and think they got a bargain. Did Dave never buy any jewellery for his wife in Greece?
This was of course readily agreed by the European Commission and rubber stamped by the European Parliament to keep the gravy high speed train rolling and would have cost the UK an extra £900m per year until it was put up again the following year.
The UK contributes a ridiculously large share of the operating costs of the EU. Who knows they might have been stupid enough to just go along with it.
So David Cameron makes militant noises and sets off apparently like St George himself to do battle with this hungry Wurm that nests on a pile of taxpayer’s gold.
Sadly the EU is an organisation it would be difficult to argue is fit for purpose, one who’s finances have, as far as I can tell, never been signed off as honest and above board by any accountants.
Put bluntly no accountant who wanted to stay in business, or to be able to portray themselves as honest, or marginally competent, is willing to chance their reputations and the prospect of doing time by signing off on them.
Now a question immediately occurs - well it would if you were not carefully steered away from it.
Why is it - when every European government is having to reduce their expenditure and operating costs - the EU feels the need to increase theirs, without apparently noticing everyone else is having to retrench.
So what was the result of all this tough negotiation, this rhetoric and spin? Was the budget actually cut, or even frozen - as it should have been if the EU reflected the states that make it up.
What did you expect? The budget was increased anyway of course, but by a mere 2.9% In real money 3% instead of 6%.
Dave Cameron is presumably not actually stupid so he must have some idea of the haggle, that suggests he knew quite well that 6% was a starting point. Maybe he thinks we are stupid.
The UKs massive contribution to the EU is a luxury it can’t afford, let alone increase. Even the EU recognised the UK had been rooked when it gave Thatcher a reduction in contributions, disguised as a face saving rebate. A rebate that Labour later pointlessly gave away big chunks of. Still it was only taxpayers money – plenty more where that came from.
How those European politicians must laugh when UK politicians turn up offering yet another opportunity to be fleeced yet again.
So Cameron comes back having committed the UK to pour a staggering extra £400,000,000 down the EU pissoire - and tries to spin that as tough negotiating! As some sort of great victory! Can’t afford too many more "victories" like that.
Getting back to that original question - What exactly is the point of David Cameron?
Take David Cameron as an example. The EU wanted to increase it’s budget. As a negotiating position it suggested 5.9%. He was not going to stand for that – he said.
Now if you were thinking of buying something and there was a haggle possibility just you know the salesperson will ask double and let the unwary tourist knock them down and think they got a bargain. Did Dave never buy any jewellery for his wife in Greece?
This was of course readily agreed by the European Commission and rubber stamped by the European Parliament to keep the gravy high speed train rolling and would have cost the UK an extra £900m per year until it was put up again the following year.
The UK contributes a ridiculously large share of the operating costs of the EU. Who knows they might have been stupid enough to just go along with it.
So David Cameron makes militant noises and sets off apparently like St George himself to do battle with this hungry Wurm that nests on a pile of taxpayer’s gold.
Sadly the EU is an organisation it would be difficult to argue is fit for purpose, one who’s finances have, as far as I can tell, never been signed off as honest and above board by any accountants.
Put bluntly no accountant who wanted to stay in business, or to be able to portray themselves as honest, or marginally competent, is willing to chance their reputations and the prospect of doing time by signing off on them.
Now a question immediately occurs - well it would if you were not carefully steered away from it.
Why is it - when every European government is having to reduce their expenditure and operating costs - the EU feels the need to increase theirs, without apparently noticing everyone else is having to retrench.
So what was the result of all this tough negotiation, this rhetoric and spin? Was the budget actually cut, or even frozen - as it should have been if the EU reflected the states that make it up.
What did you expect? The budget was increased anyway of course, but by a mere 2.9% In real money 3% instead of 6%.
Dave Cameron is presumably not actually stupid so he must have some idea of the haggle, that suggests he knew quite well that 6% was a starting point. Maybe he thinks we are stupid.
The UKs massive contribution to the EU is a luxury it can’t afford, let alone increase. Even the EU recognised the UK had been rooked when it gave Thatcher a reduction in contributions, disguised as a face saving rebate. A rebate that Labour later pointlessly gave away big chunks of. Still it was only taxpayers money – plenty more where that came from.
How those European politicians must laugh when UK politicians turn up offering yet another opportunity to be fleeced yet again.
So Cameron comes back having committed the UK to pour a staggering extra £400,000,000 down the EU pissoire - and tries to spin that as tough negotiating! As some sort of great victory! Can’t afford too many more "victories" like that.
Getting back to that original question - What exactly is the point of David Cameron?
Saturday, 16 October 2010
Spin me right round baby, right round
One of the few legitimate functions of government must surely be defence of the nation, or what is the point of it at all?
No it seems the UK State is reneging on even that basic duty. The coalition Government is attempting to spin a poorly though out attempt to save money as only an 8% cut in defence spending.
This is not really the case of course, but why did we ever expect honest dealing from politicians. When all is taken into account it is at least a 15% cut.
This after years of sustained, one can't help but suspect, essentially ideologically driven government neglect - and despite spin to the contrary, continuous real cuts in defence spending, even in a time of actual war thanks to the previous government.
It was to be hoped that things might have changed with the removal of the incompetent Labour administration but no.
These reductions from a government that is for some insane reason ring-fencing foreign aid budgets in preference to maintaining a credible defence capability, a government that seems to be surrendering the UK's ability to project any credible force globally.
One might be tempted to wonder if this is part of some cunning backdoor pro EU defence force thinking - but alas suspects it is more just simple lack of foresight, incompetence and a lazy hope that the US can take care of the bad guys out there for us (that seems prevalent in so many governments throughout the world) - whilst of course looking down their noses at the US for being willing to actually grasp the nettle.
It isn't as if the UK is unable (despite successive governments discouragement and denigration of them) to produce brave men and women ready to fight and chance dieing in the nation's interests.
Nor is it there is not the know-how and skills to equip them.
Or even as if there isn't the will within the population.
As usual it is politicians who fail to actually reflect the will and desires of the people.
So tell me - How does this 'democracy' stuff work exactly?
No it seems the UK State is reneging on even that basic duty. The coalition Government is attempting to spin a poorly though out attempt to save money as only an 8% cut in defence spending.
This is not really the case of course, but why did we ever expect honest dealing from politicians. When all is taken into account it is at least a 15% cut.
This after years of sustained, one can't help but suspect, essentially ideologically driven government neglect - and despite spin to the contrary, continuous real cuts in defence spending, even in a time of actual war thanks to the previous government.
It was to be hoped that things might have changed with the removal of the incompetent Labour administration but no.
These reductions from a government that is for some insane reason ring-fencing foreign aid budgets in preference to maintaining a credible defence capability, a government that seems to be surrendering the UK's ability to project any credible force globally.
One might be tempted to wonder if this is part of some cunning backdoor pro EU defence force thinking - but alas suspects it is more just simple lack of foresight, incompetence and a lazy hope that the US can take care of the bad guys out there for us (that seems prevalent in so many governments throughout the world) - whilst of course looking down their noses at the US for being willing to actually grasp the nettle.
It isn't as if the UK is unable (despite successive governments discouragement and denigration of them) to produce brave men and women ready to fight and chance dieing in the nation's interests.
Nor is it there is not the know-how and skills to equip them.
Or even as if there isn't the will within the population.
As usual it is politicians who fail to actually reflect the will and desires of the people.
So tell me - How does this 'democracy' stuff work exactly?
Sunday, 4 April 2010
"Fire up the Quattro Bolly"
Up till now I wouldn't have actually really questioned the Milliband Brothers intelligence, only their good sense.Seeing them launch their latest poster attack on David Cameron by trying to compare him with Philip Glenister's no nonsense cop character Gene Hunt from the popular TV series Ashes to Ashes made me do just that though.
Now I can see where they are trying to go with it. Labour see the 80s as unmitigately bad with Maggie in power and all that. I am not sure we all hated the 80s like Labour, but Labour certainly did, so they are probably making the mistake that we will all think 80s were entirely bad.
I know the 80s wern#'t perfect by any means, but the thing is the country also kind of turned it's self round and we beagn to feel just a little bit better about ourselves for the first time in ages too.
What Labour seem to have missed is that the character of Gene Hunt is really a kind of hero. Whatever else he is A. Incorruptible B. Tough C. Direct D Kickass and C Pretty Cool, etc. none are things that I had particularly previously associated with Dave the bloke.
Quite Frankly if Gene Hunt were running for PM he might well get my vote.
Up to now I couldn't help feeling Dave's greatest asset was that he was sligtly less awful and possibly slightly less incompetent than the clunking fist Gordon Brown. Who knows.. maybe he does share some of those characteristics with Gene Hunt :-)
If I were the clunking fist I would think twice about putting the Amaising Millibandis in charge of any more posters. It seems the Tories were quick to both spot and take advantage of this spectacular own goal and have gleefully hijacked it.
“Fire up the Quattro Bolly" - If anything it’s well overdue for change.
Monday, 22 March 2010
Crooked influence peddler's looking for buyers?
Well Labour’s former Transport minister the Honourable Stephen Byers along with some of his colleagues, Former Labour ministers the Honourable Geoff Hoon and the Honourable Patricia Hewitt have been caught in a sting operation touting for business.Pedalling what political influence they have secretly to the highest bidder.
In his own words he was like “A cab for hire”.
He had boastfully claimed during a sting operation that he had surreptitiously engineered a deal with Transport Secretary Lord Adonis over the termination of a rail franchise contract. And that he had persuaded the Business Secretary Lord Mandelson to alter food labelling regulations on behalf of a major supermarket chain.
The chance of these being the only former ministers currently doing this are, one suspects, vanishingly small.
In an echo of the moral ambivalence MPs so amply demonstrated at length when caught fleecing the taxpayer by dubious expenses claims that would have resulted in any normal employer suspending the miscreants. Certainly reporting likes you or I to the police, probably followed by sacking.
He and his colleagues are insouciantly claiming they have done nothing wrong and they had complied with all the rules.
If that is the case it is simply another example of how endemic the failure of MPs moral compass is
After being confronted Byers tried to claim he was not actually like “a cab for hire” after all and that he had in fact “exaggerated”. Well we know that - his lips must surely have been moving when he was speaking after all. It is a polite way of putting it.
Those less inclined to be kind to him might interpret this to mean that the man is a self confessed liar..
The problem is deciding exactly how he is lying.
Lying to cover up his secretly influencing legislation for money?
...Or lying to all comers about how he can, for a sufficient bung, influence legislation to his potential customer’s advantage?
Difficult call...
Monday, 22 February 2010
A future - but would it really be fair for all?
It seems that Labour, or rather the ideologically dedicated ;-) Saatchi and Saatchi, have come up with an election campaign slogan.
'A future fair for all'
Apparently it is supposed to capture Labour and particularly the (possibly literally) clunking fist’s "own personal point of view”.
No wonder they want to distract us from looking at their record in power with airy waffle of the future. A future they know will involve tax hikes and spending cuts that they are even now allowing to grow larger as they try to play them down dragooning their pet economists much as when they wrongly as it turned out attacked Geoffrey Howe.
“Fairness” is one of those Labour newspeak words like “Community”.
As near as I can tell, to Labour and their fellow travellers, fairness essentially means that no one should be allowed to succeed more than anyone else. The thought seems to be that if someone does, or aspires to do so, then it is somehow unfair. They are somehow “unfairly” taking advantage of, intelligence, hard work and plain good luck, or possibly that of their parents in order to succeed.
Essentially to cut people off at the knees so to speak in order to prevent them standing head and shoulders above anyone else. Because to their minds the very act of doing so is of course “unfair”.
S&S’s director of strategy to Richard Huntington would like us to believe that the new slogan “highlights that change is a process”. Really?
Apparently it also rather worryingly “locks together a destination for Britain”
Oh and it seems outrageously contends “that the future for Labour is for the many, compared to the Conservatives”, where he would have us believe the future would “always be for the few."
So then, they are apparently (and possibly allowing their Freudian slip to show) taking a leaf out of the early Russian communists little red book.
Up to a certain point in 1903 they were part of the relatively innocuously titled “Russian Social Democratic Party”. A minority, who didn’t feel they were necessarily destined for success there, going on the way they were, spit away from the party and formed a breakaway group.
Much like our Gordon it seems they presumably cunningly and misleadingly, (rather than ironically), they referred to themselves as “members of the majority”. Possibly in order to sucker those who don’t look too closely at such claims and go with the feel of a slogan rather than it’s relationship with reality.
The Russian word for “members of the majority” is of course Bolsheviks, after 1917 they managed a much longer stint in power than Tony Blair ever did. Such an extended term in power is surely the stuff of the clunking fist’s private fantasies.
It seems to me more realistic to argue that if you want a future where you really do have a fair chance to succeed, without the ball and chain of the incompetent nannying of the repressive Labour state dragging you down then the last thing you should do is vote Labour.
'A future fair for all'
Apparently it is supposed to capture Labour and particularly the (possibly literally) clunking fist’s "own personal point of view”.
No wonder they want to distract us from looking at their record in power with airy waffle of the future. A future they know will involve tax hikes and spending cuts that they are even now allowing to grow larger as they try to play them down dragooning their pet economists much as when they wrongly as it turned out attacked Geoffrey Howe.
“Fairness” is one of those Labour newspeak words like “Community”.
As near as I can tell, to Labour and their fellow travellers, fairness essentially means that no one should be allowed to succeed more than anyone else. The thought seems to be that if someone does, or aspires to do so, then it is somehow unfair. They are somehow “unfairly” taking advantage of, intelligence, hard work and plain good luck, or possibly that of their parents in order to succeed.
Essentially to cut people off at the knees so to speak in order to prevent them standing head and shoulders above anyone else. Because to their minds the very act of doing so is of course “unfair”.
S&S’s director of strategy to Richard Huntington would like us to believe that the new slogan “highlights that change is a process”. Really?
Apparently it also rather worryingly “locks together a destination for Britain”
Oh and it seems outrageously contends “that the future for Labour is for the many, compared to the Conservatives”, where he would have us believe the future would “always be for the few."
So then, they are apparently (and possibly allowing their Freudian slip to show) taking a leaf out of the early Russian communists little red book.
Up to a certain point in 1903 they were part of the relatively innocuously titled “Russian Social Democratic Party”. A minority, who didn’t feel they were necessarily destined for success there, going on the way they were, spit away from the party and formed a breakaway group.
Much like our Gordon it seems they presumably cunningly and misleadingly, (rather than ironically), they referred to themselves as “members of the majority”. Possibly in order to sucker those who don’t look too closely at such claims and go with the feel of a slogan rather than it’s relationship with reality.
The Russian word for “members of the majority” is of course Bolsheviks, after 1917 they managed a much longer stint in power than Tony Blair ever did. Such an extended term in power is surely the stuff of the clunking fist’s private fantasies.
It seems to me more realistic to argue that if you want a future where you really do have a fair chance to succeed, without the ball and chain of the incompetent nannying of the repressive Labour state dragging you down then the last thing you should do is vote Labour.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Climate Change
With the recent UK Met office predictions of Barbeque summers and mild winters that don’t materialise, the subject of ‘Global Warming’ never seems far from mind these days.
Belief in the theory influences may public decisions and where much public money is expended.
Possibly even Met office predictions, confounded by cool damp summers and frozen snowy winters. Predictions, it has been suggested, that are influenced by an evangelical conviction in Anthropocentric Global Warming of the Met offices boss and his hiring policy.
Lots of shorthand terms are bandied about. “Global warming”, “Climate change”, etc.
So lets examine the facts. Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact. There is overwhelming evidence accrued over years and over recorded history to back it up.
At various times the earth has lazed under balmy tropical temperatures over much of it’s surface, at others ice has covered vastly more of it’s surface than it does today. There is evidence that the climate has swung from warm to cold and back again countless times.
It did so before mankind existed and could not possibly have influenced it. It has continued to do so since he walked the earth, again before mankind could conceivably had any impact on it.
So then, climate change incontrovertibly exists - and would still exist if mankind had never existed, it will continue if we were to cease to exist.
What causes it? Well probably a complicated mix of many things. How far the earth is from the sun, cloud cover, the arrangements of the continents, sunspot activity, volcanic activity, how much dust and particulate matter is in the atmosphere to list a few.
Even Mars apparently undergoes variations, these must surely be entirely natural. It is difficult to imagine one or two solar powered rovers having much impact on climate.
It is questionable that we and so-called climate scientists have the definitive answer to all the causes of climate change and how they interact. To be honest I suspect if they are honest they are still trying to work it out.
Now currently all the evidence suggests we are in the middle of a series of coolings and warmings that fluctuate over millennia, with smaller fluctuations, or beats within the larger ones.
Most of recorded history happens to have taken place within a period of warming where the ice sheets retreated and vast amounts water, locked up in ice sheets on the land melted and the sea levels varied as water was added to them and some parts of the earth that had been squashed down under the weight of miles of ice rebounded and rose and surrounding areas that had been pushed up correspondingly sank.
One suspects we have been able to advance and support increasing numbers at least partly because warming of the climate has helped us survive and prosper.
So global warming? Yes that too must exist along with global cooling and the current warming has been going on since before the start of recorded history.
35,000 years ago, not so long in the grand scheme of things, There was ice sheet just north of where London is now. To the south tundra with caribou. There was no north sea or channel.
The ice began to melt, things began to get warmer. If that hadn’t happened then right now, where I am just now you could probably see a wall of ice.
This was not influenced by Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal four wheeled drive vehicles, or by the methane emitted by cows that went into their burger chains. Maybe planes full of teeming bison, caribou, wooly rhinoceros and mammoths are just as windy…
The logic is inescapable global warming can and does happen absolutely independent of the influence of mankind.
Left to it’s own devices it is overwhelmingly likely that some time in the next few thousand years things would have all changed round and started to get colder again.
The earth has seen much colder climate than it is now, but it has also seen much warmer, even in recorded history.
There have been little fluctuations over the last few thousand years that made things more or less comfortable for humans.
Most recently there was what is known as “The little ice age” a cooler period where the river Thames in London froze regularly enough for there to be annual ice fares held on it. When we regularly had snow.
Before that, around 1,000 years ago, there was what is known as “the little climatic optimum”, when the climate in Greenland was relatively balmy and vineyards did well in England.
So the real question is have our actions had any effect on top of all that? Over and above the large natural fluctuations that are incontrovertibly continuously taking place even now.
Can we really definitively spot anything we may have done to influence the climate amongst the complicated backdrop of what we know must be naturally varying the climate? Do we really know enough to be able to?
It seems we can’t really fully understand the natural mechanisms yet so we are left trying to spot trends in statistics and trying to work out if they correlate in any way and if any do is it direct or indirect. One suspects there is a lot of interpretation involved.
It is interesting to note even the UK’s Met Office, prominent proponents of the theory of manmade global warming doesn’t seem to be bale to get it right, having apparently got their long range forecasts wrong for the past decade by it seems inflating expected temperatures in line with theory and being consistently disappointed.
One thing that concerns me, as (I like to think) a reasonably educated and informed and logical layman are the instances of mistakes, exaggerations and possibly outright fraud in the so-called science of man made global warming. From sea level ‘adjustments’, to models that produce a hockey stick, no matter what data is input, to the scandal of the recently leaked emails.
Speaking of which it has now come out that Professor Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit according to the Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith committed offences from 2007 to 2008 under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act in that they intentionally prevented the disclosure of requested information.
They have apparently only avoided prosecution because of the way the statute of limitations on the offences are being generously interpreted.
There is also now an independent review chaired by Sir Muir Russell attempting to establish if there is evidence that data was manipulated or suppressed in a way which was "at odds with acceptable scientific practice".
These are cutting edge so-called climate scientists of world renown who have committed offences by concealing or destroying data that they feel might me ‘misleading’ and who are apparently essentially suspected by the authorities of fiddling their results.
These same results are certainly still being used to bolster warmist claims/predictions.
Then there is the sheer vitriol, name calling and reflexive denigration heaped by all ‘believers’ (including the PM recently) on anyone who remotely seems to question the warmist agenda or theory. I don’t trust it.
That to me reeks of the rage and offence taken by a true believer when their deeply held religious or political beliefs are challenged.
It is my experience that the word of such people is not particularly reliable. There is a danger that their deeply held beliefs may make it seem ok to basically lie to bolster their case, especially if they are convinced they are right anyway.
The data in the IPCC reports is now revealed to be of extremely dubious merit, especially concerning dodgy claims of the rate of deglaciation. So dubious that scientists are daring to complain about a lack of proper peer review.
If these claims and it seems others as well are not to be trusted then just how much else that comes out of the IPCC can be?
So for myself I find myself in the position of being unable to trust the so-called data, those ‘climate scientists’ who earn a good living out of the theory and the politicians who find it such a good excuse to raise taxes and enact progressively draconian laws. I am also equally unsure of the motives of many deniers. I am left in a position of not knowing what to believe either way on the anthropocentric theory.
These are many of the same politicians who brought us WMD and the 45 minute deployment claim. It could be those claims were over egged too.
Of course the argument will probably be settled in 25 years time. Either the warmist predictions will have come to pass or not. If they are still arguing by then with nothing definitive to show then the theory is probably wrong in some way. I still wonder exactly what is responsible for the cycle of ice ages.
So meanwhile what to do?
Well it seems to me that we do need energy self sufficiency and it is desirable to avoid air pollution. We don’t want to be breathing smog, chemicals, particulate matter. It might also be good to avoid deforestation and the loss of species and complex habitat involved.
So in some respect it would seem to be desirable to proceed with developing green power generation and energy self sufficiency regardless of the accuracy of the theory of manmade global warming or not. I do feel strongly it would be very desirable to avoid crippling our economies with prohibitive taxes and red tape while doing it , especially after the recession has focussed our minds.
Maybe better if done with logic and honesty, without the largely unnecessary argument and without the quasi-religious zeal and vitriol. Done efficiently and cheaply. There could be manufacturing and employment benefits too.
Clearly the existing wind technology is not nearly as effective as is generally advertised by the warmist camp as it can only harvest energy when the wind actually blows and then only in proportion to how much it blows. It occurs to me that if it was used to pump water up a column or compress air it could at least be used to store energy from a windy day until it was needed.
Tidal energy is ever present unfailing and surrounds us. It would seem a far more reliable bet Unfortunately the energy harvesting technology seems much less developed and effective.
Finally there is the nuclear option. Personally I believe this can fill the looming energy gap, exacerbated by green Luddite resistance to the construction of new power stations, particularly nuclear. More effectively and efficiently and much sooner than anything else.
Currently the entire volume of high level nuclear waste from the entire life time energy use of a single individual takes up a lump of matter about the size of a household roll of duct tape.
The merits, benefits and dis-benefits of nuclear energy are material for another entire post.
Belief in the theory influences may public decisions and where much public money is expended.
Possibly even Met office predictions, confounded by cool damp summers and frozen snowy winters. Predictions, it has been suggested, that are influenced by an evangelical conviction in Anthropocentric Global Warming of the Met offices boss and his hiring policy.
Lots of shorthand terms are bandied about. “Global warming”, “Climate change”, etc.
So lets examine the facts. Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact. There is overwhelming evidence accrued over years and over recorded history to back it up.
At various times the earth has lazed under balmy tropical temperatures over much of it’s surface, at others ice has covered vastly more of it’s surface than it does today. There is evidence that the climate has swung from warm to cold and back again countless times.
It did so before mankind existed and could not possibly have influenced it. It has continued to do so since he walked the earth, again before mankind could conceivably had any impact on it.
So then, climate change incontrovertibly exists - and would still exist if mankind had never existed, it will continue if we were to cease to exist.
What causes it? Well probably a complicated mix of many things. How far the earth is from the sun, cloud cover, the arrangements of the continents, sunspot activity, volcanic activity, how much dust and particulate matter is in the atmosphere to list a few.
Even Mars apparently undergoes variations, these must surely be entirely natural. It is difficult to imagine one or two solar powered rovers having much impact on climate.
It is questionable that we and so-called climate scientists have the definitive answer to all the causes of climate change and how they interact. To be honest I suspect if they are honest they are still trying to work it out.
Now currently all the evidence suggests we are in the middle of a series of coolings and warmings that fluctuate over millennia, with smaller fluctuations, or beats within the larger ones.
Most of recorded history happens to have taken place within a period of warming where the ice sheets retreated and vast amounts water, locked up in ice sheets on the land melted and the sea levels varied as water was added to them and some parts of the earth that had been squashed down under the weight of miles of ice rebounded and rose and surrounding areas that had been pushed up correspondingly sank.
One suspects we have been able to advance and support increasing numbers at least partly because warming of the climate has helped us survive and prosper.
So global warming? Yes that too must exist along with global cooling and the current warming has been going on since before the start of recorded history.
35,000 years ago, not so long in the grand scheme of things, There was ice sheet just north of where London is now. To the south tundra with caribou. There was no north sea or channel.
The ice began to melt, things began to get warmer. If that hadn’t happened then right now, where I am just now you could probably see a wall of ice.
This was not influenced by Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal four wheeled drive vehicles, or by the methane emitted by cows that went into their burger chains. Maybe planes full of teeming bison, caribou, wooly rhinoceros and mammoths are just as windy…
The logic is inescapable global warming can and does happen absolutely independent of the influence of mankind.
Left to it’s own devices it is overwhelmingly likely that some time in the next few thousand years things would have all changed round and started to get colder again.
The earth has seen much colder climate than it is now, but it has also seen much warmer, even in recorded history.
There have been little fluctuations over the last few thousand years that made things more or less comfortable for humans.
Most recently there was what is known as “The little ice age” a cooler period where the river Thames in London froze regularly enough for there to be annual ice fares held on it. When we regularly had snow.
Before that, around 1,000 years ago, there was what is known as “the little climatic optimum”, when the climate in Greenland was relatively balmy and vineyards did well in England.
So the real question is have our actions had any effect on top of all that? Over and above the large natural fluctuations that are incontrovertibly continuously taking place even now.
Can we really definitively spot anything we may have done to influence the climate amongst the complicated backdrop of what we know must be naturally varying the climate? Do we really know enough to be able to?
It seems we can’t really fully understand the natural mechanisms yet so we are left trying to spot trends in statistics and trying to work out if they correlate in any way and if any do is it direct or indirect. One suspects there is a lot of interpretation involved.
It is interesting to note even the UK’s Met Office, prominent proponents of the theory of manmade global warming doesn’t seem to be bale to get it right, having apparently got their long range forecasts wrong for the past decade by it seems inflating expected temperatures in line with theory and being consistently disappointed.
One thing that concerns me, as (I like to think) a reasonably educated and informed and logical layman are the instances of mistakes, exaggerations and possibly outright fraud in the so-called science of man made global warming. From sea level ‘adjustments’, to models that produce a hockey stick, no matter what data is input, to the scandal of the recently leaked emails.
Speaking of which it has now come out that Professor Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit according to the Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith committed offences from 2007 to 2008 under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act in that they intentionally prevented the disclosure of requested information.
They have apparently only avoided prosecution because of the way the statute of limitations on the offences are being generously interpreted.
There is also now an independent review chaired by Sir Muir Russell attempting to establish if there is evidence that data was manipulated or suppressed in a way which was "at odds with acceptable scientific practice".
These are cutting edge so-called climate scientists of world renown who have committed offences by concealing or destroying data that they feel might me ‘misleading’ and who are apparently essentially suspected by the authorities of fiddling their results.
These same results are certainly still being used to bolster warmist claims/predictions.
Then there is the sheer vitriol, name calling and reflexive denigration heaped by all ‘believers’ (including the PM recently) on anyone who remotely seems to question the warmist agenda or theory. I don’t trust it.
That to me reeks of the rage and offence taken by a true believer when their deeply held religious or political beliefs are challenged.
It is my experience that the word of such people is not particularly reliable. There is a danger that their deeply held beliefs may make it seem ok to basically lie to bolster their case, especially if they are convinced they are right anyway.
The data in the IPCC reports is now revealed to be of extremely dubious merit, especially concerning dodgy claims of the rate of deglaciation. So dubious that scientists are daring to complain about a lack of proper peer review.
If these claims and it seems others as well are not to be trusted then just how much else that comes out of the IPCC can be?
So for myself I find myself in the position of being unable to trust the so-called data, those ‘climate scientists’ who earn a good living out of the theory and the politicians who find it such a good excuse to raise taxes and enact progressively draconian laws. I am also equally unsure of the motives of many deniers. I am left in a position of not knowing what to believe either way on the anthropocentric theory.
These are many of the same politicians who brought us WMD and the 45 minute deployment claim. It could be those claims were over egged too.
Of course the argument will probably be settled in 25 years time. Either the warmist predictions will have come to pass or not. If they are still arguing by then with nothing definitive to show then the theory is probably wrong in some way. I still wonder exactly what is responsible for the cycle of ice ages.
So meanwhile what to do?
Well it seems to me that we do need energy self sufficiency and it is desirable to avoid air pollution. We don’t want to be breathing smog, chemicals, particulate matter. It might also be good to avoid deforestation and the loss of species and complex habitat involved.
So in some respect it would seem to be desirable to proceed with developing green power generation and energy self sufficiency regardless of the accuracy of the theory of manmade global warming or not. I do feel strongly it would be very desirable to avoid crippling our economies with prohibitive taxes and red tape while doing it , especially after the recession has focussed our minds.
Maybe better if done with logic and honesty, without the largely unnecessary argument and without the quasi-religious zeal and vitriol. Done efficiently and cheaply. There could be manufacturing and employment benefits too.
Clearly the existing wind technology is not nearly as effective as is generally advertised by the warmist camp as it can only harvest energy when the wind actually blows and then only in proportion to how much it blows. It occurs to me that if it was used to pump water up a column or compress air it could at least be used to store energy from a windy day until it was needed.
Tidal energy is ever present unfailing and surrounds us. It would seem a far more reliable bet Unfortunately the energy harvesting technology seems much less developed and effective.
Finally there is the nuclear option. Personally I believe this can fill the looming energy gap, exacerbated by green Luddite resistance to the construction of new power stations, particularly nuclear. More effectively and efficiently and much sooner than anything else.
Currently the entire volume of high level nuclear waste from the entire life time energy use of a single individual takes up a lump of matter about the size of a household roll of duct tape.
The merits, benefits and dis-benefits of nuclear energy are material for another entire post.
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
UK Glorious Leader's New Year Speech
The Glorious Leader and saviour of the world Gordon Brown delivers his New Year’s message to his grateful people.He warned voters not to "wreck the recovery", presumably by voting for someone other than him in next year’s election that has been forced on him.
One wonders if he sees voters who don’t wholeheartedly support him as “saboteurs” and “wreckers”. Maybe they need to be lured out and dealt with for the good of the nation.
One fears the speech may be open to misunderstanding so I have helpfully provided a commentary to assist with certain passages…
Gordon: “important legislation making long-term changes in energy, climate change, health, pensions, planning, housing, education and transport, 2008 will be a year of measurable changes in public services. important legislation making long-term changes in energy, climate change, health, pensions, planning, housing, education and transport, 2008 will be a year of measurable changes in public services.”
Translation: “we will be legislating (as quietly as possible) massive tax hikes to try to cover our pissing away tax payers hard earned cash. We will hide this by pretending it is to save the planet. Maybe we will set some more target that will mess everything up and fiddle the figures to pretend we met them.”
Gordon: ”we will not shirk but see through changes and reforms in the vital area for our future - secure energy, pensions, transport, welfare, education, health and national security.
We will strengthen the democracy and unity of our country. Our priority at all times, our guiding purpose: One Britain of security and opportunity for all the British people.”
Translation: ”So say good-by to some more ancient rights, liberties and freedoms. We will be building power stations where we want and really don’t want to be bothered by your reasonable objections. Oh and if you think you will be allowed to just do things like taking a picture of Nelson’s column or possibly a member of the constabulary shoving an old man over then think again. You can be harassed and arrested for that now.”
Gordon: “ Our strong economy is the foundation. And with unbending determination, in 2008, we will steer a course of stability through global financial turbulence.
The global credit problem that started in America is now the most immediate challenge for every economy and addressing it the most immediate priority.”
Translation: “Our economy that I badly damaged when I was chancellor and carried on treating like my personal piggy bank as PM is pretty shot, but maybe, if I keep saying it’s strong some of you might be stupid enough to believe it. In any case it is the nasty American’s fault and in no way nothing to do with me whatsoever and I do hope you don’t notice everyone else seems to be starting to recover so much more quickly."
Gordon: ”To lead in the skills of the future and create a full employment Britain, we will guarantee young people the right to school or college, an apprenticeship or training free of charge until the age of 18. This is the greatest change in education in our country in half a century.”
Translation: “Unfortunately young people don’t have much hope of getting a job since I did so much to bugger the economy… so I will make sure they stay in full time education - and off the unemployment books as long as humanly possible.”
Gordon: ”To lead in safeguarding the environment, the climate change bill will make Britain the first country to legislate legally-binding cuts in carbon emissions.
And because a good environment is good economics, we will take the difficult decisions on energy security - on nuclear power and renewables - so British invention and innovation can claim new markets for new technologies and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.“
Translation: ”We will tie a stealth taxation ball and chain round the economy’s leg and as I said build Wind farms and Nuclear Power stations where we damned well please – Got it?”
Gordon: "To build for the future of our families and our economy, we are starting the biggest housing programme to boost owner occupation - and will provide historic levels of investment in transport and infrastructure through Crossrail, at Heathrow and across the country.
Translation: ”We will build crap housing and instant sink estates where we please and by historic we mean something as useful and popular as the Beaching cuts. There’s historic for you”
Gordon: ”we will not be deflected from our commitment to cleaner hospitals and to change to increase the opening hours of GP surgeries.”
Translation: ”Lets hope the thicko voters don’t remember we have had over a decade to fix all this stuff already and just made it noticeably worse. Especially GPs hours with that cocked up new contract we came up with, everyone knows you used to be able to get your own Doctor to visit your home in an emergency, now you have to talk to NHS direct on the phone and then get to make your own way to a centre or call an ambulance if they think you need it.”
Gordon: “We have other promises to keep, from neighbourhood policing in every community to the renewal of our democracy and the revival of confidence in our political process. We will define a new citizenship of rights and responsibilities - and establish a new points system as a condition of living and working in Britain.”
Translation: ”Yes I know you don’t trust the police much anymore after we politicised them got them arresting law abiding members of the public instead of criminals and tied them up with targets and red tape so they cant patrol. But we hope if we start to pick on those immigrants we encouraged in the first place as stealth ideological social engineering maybe you won’t vote for that bastard Griffin.”
Gordon: ”And in 2008, with firm conviction and resolve, we will make the case for the United Kingdom - standing up for the cause of the Union and against secession, showing people in all parts of the country that for so many of the challenges our country faces - from climate change to terrorism - there are no Wales-only, Scotland-only or England-only solutions.”
Translation: ”…and talking of bastards... You little shit Salmond! If you think you are cutting away what’s left of my political support you have another think coming. You just want to be a big frog in a small pond and are throwing away the large big UK pond the Scots are already in charge of - Idiot!!”
Gordon: "And in 2008, with firm conviction and resolve, we will make the case for the United Kingdom - standing up for the cause of the Union and against secession, showing people in all parts of the country that for so many of the challenges our country faces - from climate change to terrorism - there are no Wales-only, Scotland-only or England-only solutions.”
Translation: ”In your face Salmond. – one peep from you and we will nail you with being soft on terrorism, especially after you let that Libyan out of jail”
Gordon: "This season is above all a time to pay tribute to those who serve and sacrifice for our country, often in places far away. And we pledge that the men and women on the frontlines of our security, at home and overseas, will have all the resources they need for our defence and their own safety.”
Translation: ”Hurrah for our good old troops!! See how patriotic I am folks… don’t you pay any mind to the fact that we have looked down on the sort of people who are willing to defend their country for decade. Or that we have cut their numbers, equipment and funding to the bone - while expanding the civil service and useless parasitic Quangos. Or the fact that to actually supply half decent kit after a public outcry we are going to gut other areas of defence funding even more. Hurrah for the troops!”
And hey folks! Don't forget you can take a Labour Manifesto Promise straight to the failing bank of Neverpay.
It's Legal, it's official you can't reasonably expect them to deliver on them.
Saturday, 5 December 2009
No room for science that is not "on message"
It has been a while since I have posted, as has been pointed out to me.
The reason is twofold. I have far less time to spare for blogging than I used to and I frankly despair that it makes any difference. The public sometimes seem indifferent to the lies, obfuscations and fiddles of politicians.
I listen sometimes to a sound bite or even news report and the broken logic and confused reasoning is truly incredible to behold. And they do it with straight faces too. You can practically see the fishing hook in the reporters mouth sometimes.
It’s certainly not because there was nothing to post about.
There is something that has disturbed me quite a lot recently. You see it every now and then in the news.
Most recently, ahead of the Copenhagen talks, over the fuss caused by those leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, in the UK that suggest leading ‘climate scientists’ may have fiddled figures and destroyed data to bolster the anthropomorphic theory of climate change, Man Made Global Warming.
The UK Premier and Glorious Leader Gordon Brown came out strongly in defence of consensus global warming with another personal contribution of hot air in the Guardian ranting:
"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,"
Now why anyone in their right mind would by now imagine Gordon Brown to be competent in anything - let alone “climate science”, when he is clearly a complete buffoon in his own claimed area of expertise… economics, I fail to grasp. Better for the warmists camp if he had kept quiet.
His mere mention of it almost makes one want to seriously review everything one knows about “flat earth science”, in case there just might be something in it after all :-)
Surely it is "anti science" to fiddle results? To bolster your own research? To destroy data that someone who is questioning your figures asks for? To discount evidence against your theory. Or indeed to shout down opponents, denigrate them.
The language becomes even more suspect when another politician Ed Miliband (David Milliband’s not so famous younger brother), branded anyone who is not fully on New Labour’s political message as, “dangerous and deceitful, climate saboteurs”.
David is the one Hills seems to like.
Ed, like David, soaked up Marxist Theory at his father Ralph’s knee so he probably knows a thing or two about class enemies and re-education. One wonders when they will enact legislation to lock these climate saboteurs in mental institutions and outlaw their deceitful lies.
That it is all over climate change in this particular instance is almost irrelevant to my point. If the science is good it can stand on it’s own feet. It can stand up to scrutiny, It does not fear verification. It certainly does not need the sort of language employed by religious or old style soviet leaders.
As soon as one hears things couched in that sort of intemperate hyperbole Brown and Milliband deployed you know you are dealing with a deep belief like a religious or political conviction, not subject to being moved by reason or proof and willing to do anything to protect and support their dogma or belief.
But it is not in relation to just one of the state’s pet enthusiasms you see this dubious attitude wherever it surfaces in a certain mind set.
Recently it was discovered by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) that the original recommendations for an individual’s average daily calorie intake, which were made in 1991, underestimated the average requirement by up to 16%.
The official UK guidelines were and still are at the time of writing, 2,000 calories for women, 2,500 calories for men and 1,800 calories for children aged five to 10, 16% below the real figure.
The first official thoughts seem to be concern that revising the guidelines might risk sending "mixed messages", rather than concern for accuracy.
It was reported that health campaigners were concerned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to "sweep this report under the carpet" in a bid to avoid sending out “mixed messages “in the middle of an “obesity epidemic”. Especially as New Labour are looking at the introduction of new food-labelling schemes. The FSA has spent two years evaluating new methods of labelling and this will change things
This view was bolstered when The National Obesity Forum partnered with the government’s Department of Heath chipped in warning that it was a ‘dangerous assumption’ that adults could consume more calories each day.
Advice Service Diet Scotland representative Lorraine McCreary, said: “People have lived with these established guidelines for a long time and most people understand if they go above the recommended intake they are likely to put on weight” she went on to say she thought it would be “very confusing for people.”
Again, when New Labour’s drug aviser complained that government policy on drugs didn’t fit with the science or the advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) were giving the government he was ruthlessly forced out by Alan Johnson the UK Home Secretary to shut him up.
The unfortunately named Professor, David Nutt had criticised Labour politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs. Pointing out that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illegal drugs.
UK police boss Johnson said the Professor’s comments “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs”.
Time and again we see those who run the UK state have scant regard for whatever may, or may not, be the actual facts.
Their prime concern seems to be that science is "on message", that it should be forced to bolster whatever policy they happen to have, shoehorned to fit with any square corners roughly hacked off to fit the round hole they insist it will be going in.
Whether it is to enable them to criminalise and control vast swathes of the British public or to find new and inventive ways of stealthily taxing them (for their own and the planet’s good of course) in these straightened times.
The party dogma machine just grinds away. Anyone who questions it, right or wrong, is shouted down, ground under, called bad names, briefed against.
No wonder people are more interested in voting for the X-Factor TV show, at least they get the chance to do that once a year and their vote influences the outcome of the contest.
The reason is twofold. I have far less time to spare for blogging than I used to and I frankly despair that it makes any difference. The public sometimes seem indifferent to the lies, obfuscations and fiddles of politicians.
I listen sometimes to a sound bite or even news report and the broken logic and confused reasoning is truly incredible to behold. And they do it with straight faces too. You can practically see the fishing hook in the reporters mouth sometimes.
It’s certainly not because there was nothing to post about.
There is something that has disturbed me quite a lot recently. You see it every now and then in the news.
Most recently, ahead of the Copenhagen talks, over the fuss caused by those leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, in the UK that suggest leading ‘climate scientists’ may have fiddled figures and destroyed data to bolster the anthropomorphic theory of climate change, Man Made Global Warming.
The UK Premier and Glorious Leader Gordon Brown came out strongly in defence of consensus global warming with another personal contribution of hot air in the Guardian ranting:
"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,"
Now why anyone in their right mind would by now imagine Gordon Brown to be competent in anything - let alone “climate science”, when he is clearly a complete buffoon in his own claimed area of expertise… economics, I fail to grasp. Better for the warmists camp if he had kept quiet.
His mere mention of it almost makes one want to seriously review everything one knows about “flat earth science”, in case there just might be something in it after all :-)
Surely it is "anti science" to fiddle results? To bolster your own research? To destroy data that someone who is questioning your figures asks for? To discount evidence against your theory. Or indeed to shout down opponents, denigrate them.
The language becomes even more suspect when another politician Ed Miliband (David Milliband’s not so famous younger brother), branded anyone who is not fully on New Labour’s political message as, “dangerous and deceitful, climate saboteurs”.
David is the one Hills seems to like.
Ed, like David, soaked up Marxist Theory at his father Ralph’s knee so he probably knows a thing or two about class enemies and re-education. One wonders when they will enact legislation to lock these climate saboteurs in mental institutions and outlaw their deceitful lies.
That it is all over climate change in this particular instance is almost irrelevant to my point. If the science is good it can stand on it’s own feet. It can stand up to scrutiny, It does not fear verification. It certainly does not need the sort of language employed by religious or old style soviet leaders.
As soon as one hears things couched in that sort of intemperate hyperbole Brown and Milliband deployed you know you are dealing with a deep belief like a religious or political conviction, not subject to being moved by reason or proof and willing to do anything to protect and support their dogma or belief.
But it is not in relation to just one of the state’s pet enthusiasms you see this dubious attitude wherever it surfaces in a certain mind set.
Recently it was discovered by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) that the original recommendations for an individual’s average daily calorie intake, which were made in 1991, underestimated the average requirement by up to 16%.
The official UK guidelines were and still are at the time of writing, 2,000 calories for women, 2,500 calories for men and 1,800 calories for children aged five to 10, 16% below the real figure.
The first official thoughts seem to be concern that revising the guidelines might risk sending "mixed messages", rather than concern for accuracy.
It was reported that health campaigners were concerned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to "sweep this report under the carpet" in a bid to avoid sending out “mixed messages “in the middle of an “obesity epidemic”. Especially as New Labour are looking at the introduction of new food-labelling schemes. The FSA has spent two years evaluating new methods of labelling and this will change things
This view was bolstered when The National Obesity Forum partnered with the government’s Department of Heath chipped in warning that it was a ‘dangerous assumption’ that adults could consume more calories each day.
Advice Service Diet Scotland representative Lorraine McCreary, said: “People have lived with these established guidelines for a long time and most people understand if they go above the recommended intake they are likely to put on weight” she went on to say she thought it would be “very confusing for people.”
Again, when New Labour’s drug aviser complained that government policy on drugs didn’t fit with the science or the advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) were giving the government he was ruthlessly forced out by Alan Johnson the UK Home Secretary to shut him up.
The unfortunately named Professor, David Nutt had criticised Labour politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs. Pointing out that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illegal drugs.
UK police boss Johnson said the Professor’s comments “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs”.
Time and again we see those who run the UK state have scant regard for whatever may, or may not, be the actual facts.
Their prime concern seems to be that science is "on message", that it should be forced to bolster whatever policy they happen to have, shoehorned to fit with any square corners roughly hacked off to fit the round hole they insist it will be going in.
Whether it is to enable them to criminalise and control vast swathes of the British public or to find new and inventive ways of stealthily taxing them (for their own and the planet’s good of course) in these straightened times.
The party dogma machine just grinds away. Anyone who questions it, right or wrong, is shouted down, ground under, called bad names, briefed against.
No wonder people are more interested in voting for the X-Factor TV show, at least they get the chance to do that once a year and their vote influences the outcome of the contest.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
New Labour State Reclassifies Cannabis
It seems the New-Labour State has, in the face of it’s own advisors best advice, decided to reclassify cannabis as a class b drug.
Given that this decision is not based on the merits of the case, especially as having it de classified saw a 4% drop in its use, the immediate question that arises is, “What is their agenda?”
Interestingly, they effectively plan to record a persons details on the first “offence” and fine them on the second “offence”.
I don’t know what the percentage of the UK population is that at some time has tried cannabis but I suspect it is very significant. I would imagine thousands of essentially law abiding otherwise non criminal users are detected by the police every year.
To give an idea of the numbers, when surveyed 10% of people asked actually admitted they had used an illegal drug in the past year, that is around 3,100,000 people. Given that many of the repondants may not have admitted using drugs and that the majority of drug use involves cannabis that is a huge pool of potential cannabis users.
One effect of these new rules is likely to be a massive increase in the number and rate of additions to the New Labour State’s disguised National DNA Database.
Another effect is likely to be a considerable increase in revenue for the State in the form of fixed penalty or so-called “on the spot” fines.
Could either of these considerations influenced a cash strapped government anxious to push through a massively unpopular national DNA database?
Then there is the matter of pretending to be ”tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”…
Given that this decision is not based on the merits of the case, especially as having it de classified saw a 4% drop in its use, the immediate question that arises is, “What is their agenda?”
Interestingly, they effectively plan to record a persons details on the first “offence” and fine them on the second “offence”.
I don’t know what the percentage of the UK population is that at some time has tried cannabis but I suspect it is very significant. I would imagine thousands of essentially law abiding otherwise non criminal users are detected by the police every year.
To give an idea of the numbers, when surveyed 10% of people asked actually admitted they had used an illegal drug in the past year, that is around 3,100,000 people. Given that many of the repondants may not have admitted using drugs and that the majority of drug use involves cannabis that is a huge pool of potential cannabis users.
One effect of these new rules is likely to be a massive increase in the number and rate of additions to the New Labour State’s disguised National DNA Database.
Another effect is likely to be a considerable increase in revenue for the State in the form of fixed penalty or so-called “on the spot” fines.
Could either of these considerations influenced a cash strapped government anxious to push through a massively unpopular national DNA database?
Then there is the matter of pretending to be ”tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”…
Friday, 2 January 2009
When is a Terrorist not a terrorist?
Has anyone else noticed how “terrorists” are suddenly “militants”?
I first noticed it when all the UK news channels suddenly seemed to start referring to the terrorists who attacked Bombay as “Militants”. Murdering scum encapsulates it nicely for me. Certainly they are terrorists. Undoubtedly Islamicist ones as well.
Difficult to think what else to call them but terrorists.
The term “militants” brings to mind the industrial unrest of the 70s in the UK, maybe Arthur Scargill’s lamentable comb over look and donkey jackets. The unions generally didn’t go in for suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or tote Kalashnikovs. Even the IRA drew the line at suicide bombings.
Now the people firing missiles into Israel, who seem to be the proximate cause of the recent flair up, are also “militants”, at least to the mainstream media.
It is difficult to imaging two such organisations as the BBC and Sky randomly and spontaneously starting to use the term at the same time, or to understand why they might - so one must presume it is not spontaneous.
Who’s agenda then? Unless they are running some sort of news cartel then logically it is likely to be the UK Government.
Why would it suit New Labour to phase out the term terrorist? News-Speak? Or more NewSpeak?
What don’t they want us thinking now…
I first noticed it when all the UK news channels suddenly seemed to start referring to the terrorists who attacked Bombay as “Militants”. Murdering scum encapsulates it nicely for me. Certainly they are terrorists. Undoubtedly Islamicist ones as well.
Difficult to think what else to call them but terrorists.
The term “militants” brings to mind the industrial unrest of the 70s in the UK, maybe Arthur Scargill’s lamentable comb over look and donkey jackets. The unions generally didn’t go in for suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or tote Kalashnikovs. Even the IRA drew the line at suicide bombings.
Now the people firing missiles into Israel, who seem to be the proximate cause of the recent flair up, are also “militants”, at least to the mainstream media.
It is difficult to imaging two such organisations as the BBC and Sky randomly and spontaneously starting to use the term at the same time, or to understand why they might - so one must presume it is not spontaneous.
Who’s agenda then? Unless they are running some sort of news cartel then logically it is likely to be the UK Government.
Why would it suit New Labour to phase out the term terrorist? News-Speak? Or more NewSpeak?
What don’t they want us thinking now…
Saturday, 13 December 2008
Democracy and the EU
If there was any doubt as to just how profoundly undemocratic the EU and those who promote it’s dubious benefits are, then they should be dispelled by the fact that those behind the European project clearly do not intend to let a little thing like a democratic rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by the people of the Irish Republic become an obstacle in their unstoppable path.
Democracy only suits the Eurocrats if things go the way they want. Then it is a useful justification, or fig leaf, for their plans. The heart of the European project is not so much undemocratic as antidemocratic. The commissioners hold office by appointment, by dictat.
They did appear more subtle than the likes of Robert Mugabe, at least until the home office started having opposition MP’s arrested, for the time honoured use of leaks from a whistleblower to highlight where the current government were risking security by such poor vetting they were employing illegal immigrants in it’s offices.
Now it seems the Irish people’s clearly voiced democratic rejection of the treaty will not be allowed to stand. They will be bludgeoned with repeated referenda until the Eurocrats get a result they can spin as and acceptance. Meanwhile they go ahead anyway, behind the scenes, as if the Treaty had never been rejected.
The new Taoiseach has said he intends to steer a second Irish referendum to a successful “Yes” conclusion next May. Ireland was the only country where the people were actually allowed the chance to reject the treaty, which they did decisively.
The UK was promised a vote by New-Labour in their election manifesto, but Gordon Brown, cunningly if dishonourably, reneged on this when in office to avoid such a problem.
In a similar vein it will be interesting to see how the much propagandised congestion charging stealth tax beloved of New Labour manages to body swerve the massively decisive rejection dealt it by the people of Manchester in their recent referendum.
Apparently entirely by coincidence, my spell checker keeps trying to change Eurocrats to Autocrats or Euro rats…
Democracy only suits the Eurocrats if things go the way they want. Then it is a useful justification, or fig leaf, for their plans. The heart of the European project is not so much undemocratic as antidemocratic. The commissioners hold office by appointment, by dictat.
They did appear more subtle than the likes of Robert Mugabe, at least until the home office started having opposition MP’s arrested, for the time honoured use of leaks from a whistleblower to highlight where the current government were risking security by such poor vetting they were employing illegal immigrants in it’s offices.
Now it seems the Irish people’s clearly voiced democratic rejection of the treaty will not be allowed to stand. They will be bludgeoned with repeated referenda until the Eurocrats get a result they can spin as and acceptance. Meanwhile they go ahead anyway, behind the scenes, as if the Treaty had never been rejected.
The new Taoiseach has said he intends to steer a second Irish referendum to a successful “Yes” conclusion next May. Ireland was the only country where the people were actually allowed the chance to reject the treaty, which they did decisively.
The UK was promised a vote by New-Labour in their election manifesto, but Gordon Brown, cunningly if dishonourably, reneged on this when in office to avoid such a problem.
In a similar vein it will be interesting to see how the much propagandised congestion charging stealth tax beloved of New Labour manages to body swerve the massively decisive rejection dealt it by the people of Manchester in their recent referendum.
Apparently entirely by coincidence, my spell checker keeps trying to change Eurocrats to Autocrats or Euro rats…
Saturday, 29 November 2008
If the cap fits
It’s generally considered a bad sign for democracy - in any country, when it’s government starts having members of the opposition arrested in order to intimidate or to prevent them from exposing it’s incompetence, mistakes, or shenanigans.We all look on with disapproval at such regimes, and I am sure we can all think of examples in South America, Africa and on our own continent.
Often the population is too supine, or cowed to protest.
I have pointed out on a number of occasions that New-Labour is in the habit of passing draconian legislation with the alleged purpose of combating “terrorism” and “Organised crime”. If anyone raised any concerns over it’s misuse then they are accused of being "soft on crime", etc.
We always hear the lie trotted out, to suppress the natural concerns of those who do care about liberty, that “if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear”. The BBC can usually find a gullible old lady, or bereaved parent, to back the claim up.
Well “anti terror” legislation is actually repeatedly used by the current government and it’s minions to do things like eject elderly party members from party conference who loudly tell one or two home truths too many.
It is used by local officials to spy on large numbers of ordinary members of the public to establish if they are committing such terrorist related offences as fibbing about their addresses on a school application forms, or putting their rubbish out on the wrong day, or over filling their rubbish bins…
Or it seems... if you happen to be a senior opposition member of the shadow cabinet trying to expose New-Labour’s habitual lies and spin, then it is used to arrest and attempt to silence you.
Worse still it tramples on parliamentary privilege.
Not just anti terror legislation was used this time - but elite anti terror officers were used to do the deed too...
One wonders if anyone in government felt now would be an excellent time to bury this particular “bad news”, what with the terrible events that have unfolded in Bombay.
It is a shame the Anti terror officers weren’t devoting themselves to actual anti terror work of some sort. It’s not like the Indian government probably couldn’t do with them looking to see what they can find out here that might possibly be of help.
It is only half tongue in cheek to conjecture how long before they get a trendy uniform redesign, possibly involving lots of black, calf length leather boots… and their own special logo on their collars, or lapels?
It is perhaps as well for Mr clunking fist, Gordon “Stalin” Brown, that the current opposition never used such tactics when he was in opposition, he was very fond of political leaks then and his ministers still are - when it is to his advantage.
Worryingly the senior ranks of the UK’s police seem to have long since been purged of virtually anyone interested in actually trying to keep law and order, or provide the sort of service and presence the public actually want. These days it appears to be largely run by New-Labour apparatchiks and mostly occupied with/driven by directives and policies that are designed to help give the bogus impression the state is meeting it’s targets…
When it isn’t using anti terror legislation in ways it was never intended on the state’s behalf.
One can’t help but wonder - the cynical amoungst us will have noted the outgoing Met Commissioner Ian, Blair has a reputation for being “comfortable” with the New-Labour state and is outgoing because he has been popularly ousted by London’s new Conservative Mayor.
Probably nothing to do with the latest incident though...
It is truly difficult to believe even the most insensitive, incompetent, flatfoot would have blundered in so heavy handily, or even at all, entirely on their own. One would have thought self preservation alone would have made even the brain dead think twice...
One can’t help but think they must have felt their actions would go down well at the highest level. Certainly condemnation of their actions, or Speaker Martins inaction, have been slow in coming from New-Labour’s front bench.
One hopes that complaints will be made against the officers involved for their, quite possibly illegal activity. Behaviour that strikes at the heart of the way, what is left of, our parliamentary democracy functions. They should be suspended pending the outcome of a parliamentary investigation and hopefully disciplined.
I would have thought it was in the country's interest to have things like the fact that the home office were employing illegal immigreants to look after their security, and the incompetence of those who employed them, exposed to parliamentary scrutiny. Rather than allow the home office to use possibly illegal big brother tactics to conceal such things.
This should be part of an MPs job. It is in the public interest. He should not be arrested whan he does it.
Civil wars were fought over this matter in the days when parliament had more intestinal fortitude.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Repent at leisure?
Apparently the Government are going to rush through legislation to ensure there will never be another “Baby P” case.
Ed Balls the “Children's Secretary” is planning to put forward legislation make local services more accountable forcing them to chart their progress in intervening at an early stage.
Now any right thinking individual would wish to prevent any such dreadful thing ever happening again. But one fears hurried I’ll considered legislation is not the solution.
It is almost certain there is perfectly effective legislation already in place that would be adequate to the purpose - if only it had been used. Similarly there was an enquiry after the last dreadful failure of Harringay Council with Victoria Climbié. An enquiry made recommendations, were they ever actually implemented properly? Were all existing guide rules adhered to?
One suspects not.
The last thing this country needs is yet another piece of New Labour legislation that only does what other legislation, if actually enforced, already does, or invents new subdivisions of existing offences.
You can be sure it will not be any better and will almost certainly eventually be found to have unexpected and detrimental consequences, in this case probably to ordinary families.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC) observed “Haste in every business brings failures.” This seems to have entirely escaped the attention of the current government, with their hatred of any history not post 1945 and not spun.
Ed Balls the “Children's Secretary” is planning to put forward legislation make local services more accountable forcing them to chart their progress in intervening at an early stage.
Now any right thinking individual would wish to prevent any such dreadful thing ever happening again. But one fears hurried I’ll considered legislation is not the solution.
It is almost certain there is perfectly effective legislation already in place that would be adequate to the purpose - if only it had been used. Similarly there was an enquiry after the last dreadful failure of Harringay Council with Victoria Climbié. An enquiry made recommendations, were they ever actually implemented properly? Were all existing guide rules adhered to?
One suspects not.
The last thing this country needs is yet another piece of New Labour legislation that only does what other legislation, if actually enforced, already does, or invents new subdivisions of existing offences.
You can be sure it will not be any better and will almost certainly eventually be found to have unexpected and detrimental consequences, in this case probably to ordinary families.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC) observed “Haste in every business brings failures.” This seems to have entirely escaped the attention of the current government, with their hatred of any history not post 1945 and not spun.
Monday, 27 October 2008
French appeal to the ref over Agincourt
I find reveisionist so-called ‘historians’ truly incredible.
Now it seems they have set their sites on Agincourt of all things.
The fact is the French were thrashed by a numerically inferior force, thanks to a large extent to the longbow and the trained English archers who used it to such effect.
Apparently French revisionists are trying to excuse the defeat by claiming the poor French were the outnumbered underdogs and the English ‘war criminals’, though there is nothing to suggest the English violated the rules of war that existed at the time. Talk about sore loosers…
The documentary evidence in favour of the accepted versions is pretty solid. Maybe they should concentrate on finding the historical equivalent of the urban myth.
Now it seems they have set their sites on Agincourt of all things.
The fact is the French were thrashed by a numerically inferior force, thanks to a large extent to the longbow and the trained English archers who used it to such effect.
Apparently French revisionists are trying to excuse the defeat by claiming the poor French were the outnumbered underdogs and the English ‘war criminals’, though there is nothing to suggest the English violated the rules of war that existed at the time. Talk about sore loosers…
The documentary evidence in favour of the accepted versions is pretty solid. Maybe they should concentrate on finding the historical equivalent of the urban myth.
Monday, 20 October 2008
Brown banks on the taxpayer to bail him out
It’s a funny old world as they say...
Sub prime lending by banks to people who were likely to default on their loans got the world into a terrible two & eight, now more sub prime borrowing, this time by the banks from the UK government is going to get us out of it, according to the newly endowed superhero of our times...
...who is about to be outed by theevil Lex Luthor Lord Mandleson as none other than mild mannered Gordon Broon.
It may do, but one suspects as much for psycological reasons as economic.
Who is really lending the dosh? The British Taxpayer is who. Why does the Government not have the readies to hand? Well one reason might be that Gordon sold off half the countries gold reserves precisely when the price of gold had bottomed out. Now of course it is riding sky high. Just like government borrowing that has now hit an all time high.
If he had actually been canny or even prudent, as he likes to spin himself and hung onto it to a more opportune moment (almost any other time since, but now would have been good) maybe he could have got a good price for it and not hocked us all up to our eyebrows.
What strikes me as crazy is that there are people out there who believe the spin and feel safer with him in charge than anyone else.
Sub prime lending by banks to people who were likely to default on their loans got the world into a terrible two & eight, now more sub prime borrowing, this time by the banks from the UK government is going to get us out of it, according to the newly endowed superhero of our times...
...who is about to be outed by the
It may do, but one suspects as much for psycological reasons as economic.
Who is really lending the dosh? The British Taxpayer is who. Why does the Government not have the readies to hand? Well one reason might be that Gordon sold off half the countries gold reserves precisely when the price of gold had bottomed out. Now of course it is riding sky high. Just like government borrowing that has now hit an all time high.
If he had actually been canny or even prudent, as he likes to spin himself and hung onto it to a more opportune moment (almost any other time since, but now would have been good) maybe he could have got a good price for it and not hocked us all up to our eyebrows.
What strikes me as crazy is that there are people out there who believe the spin and feel safer with him in charge than anyone else.
Friday, 17 October 2008
Good times to bury unwanted stories
Hasn’t it been a really good time to bury bad news recently…
The political equivalent of building a new overpass with lots of concrete.
Amid all the blanket reporting of the problems with the banking system and stock markets globally the MSM have had such a problem paying attention to things like the New Labour State’s obsessive desire to control and spy on it’s own Citizens.
Even 24hr news channels only seem able to find room for one or two story lines, repeated endlessly, or they cut to an empty podium and talk rubbish waiting for a speech. God forbid they should actually report a wider variety of news.
So the leopard does not change it’s spots. New Labour does not trust the citizen. It apparently does not believe the average citizen is capable enough adult enough to run their own lives and affairs.
They cannot be trusted, they need to be kept safe from the malice of others and their own stupidity. They even need to be told what they can eat and drink.
They need a patrician socialist class to govern every aspect of their lives… And if they object then doesn’t that show how foolish and irresponsible they are?
The silly citizen has a foolish traditional belief in their hard one ancient rights and liberties, but these just get in the way of shiny new legislation that the state needs to protectitself and it’s interests the public.
There is little that can be does to amend this pernicious attitude. New Labour need to be removed from power for a generation to contemplate the error of their thinking and the ripe contempt they apparently hold the citizen in. It would appear that this sort of medicine can work, ask David Cameron…
The political equivalent of building a new overpass with lots of concrete.
Amid all the blanket reporting of the problems with the banking system and stock markets globally the MSM have had such a problem paying attention to things like the New Labour State’s obsessive desire to control and spy on it’s own Citizens.
Even 24hr news channels only seem able to find room for one or two story lines, repeated endlessly, or they cut to an empty podium and talk rubbish waiting for a speech. God forbid they should actually report a wider variety of news.
So the leopard does not change it’s spots. New Labour does not trust the citizen. It apparently does not believe the average citizen is capable enough adult enough to run their own lives and affairs.
They cannot be trusted, they need to be kept safe from the malice of others and their own stupidity. They even need to be told what they can eat and drink.
They need a patrician socialist class to govern every aspect of their lives… And if they object then doesn’t that show how foolish and irresponsible they are?
The silly citizen has a foolish traditional belief in their hard one ancient rights and liberties, but these just get in the way of shiny new legislation that the state needs to protect
There is little that can be does to amend this pernicious attitude. New Labour need to be removed from power for a generation to contemplate the error of their thinking and the ripe contempt they apparently hold the citizen in. It would appear that this sort of medicine can work, ask David Cameron…
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
UK’Stamp Duty’ suspended for 12 months
Has anyone noticed?
New Labour’s much trumpeted partial holiday on ‘Stamp duty’ (for non UK residents this is a sales tax imposed by the state on house sales) is, if it is of benefit to anyone, mostly likely to be of benefit in the north, which at least historically was demographically more New Labour friendly.
New Labour are talking about a holiday for stamp duty under £175K This should cover quite a few properties for sale in the North and proportionately far less in the South, due to regional differences in house prices. Any figures the Government states one suspects will be 'spun' averages.
Could it be that they calculate they have terminally burned their bridges already with the South, so they want to minimise the coming electoral debacle for at least some of their sitting MPs
House sales depend on chains, with new time buyers going in at the bottom of the market and the others in the chain trading up, How far up the chain will theis make a difference?
Of course if you can't get a mortgage in the first place – and that is the major actual problem with the housing market, mortgages having effectively dried up because of the credit crunch. Then what difference will reducing the sales tax of around £1.7K imposed on a few of the sales make?
And let’s not forget that any improvement in the housing market that may actually be had from this piece of spin will have to be paid for in reverse, at the end of the ‘holiday’ in a year’s time, when ther will be a corresponding rush then a step back down in sales.
New Labour’s much trumpeted partial holiday on ‘Stamp duty’ (for non UK residents this is a sales tax imposed by the state on house sales) is, if it is of benefit to anyone, mostly likely to be of benefit in the north, which at least historically was demographically more New Labour friendly.
New Labour are talking about a holiday for stamp duty under £175K This should cover quite a few properties for sale in the North and proportionately far less in the South, due to regional differences in house prices. Any figures the Government states one suspects will be 'spun' averages.
Could it be that they calculate they have terminally burned their bridges already with the South, so they want to minimise the coming electoral debacle for at least some of their sitting MPs
House sales depend on chains, with new time buyers going in at the bottom of the market and the others in the chain trading up, How far up the chain will theis make a difference?
Of course if you can't get a mortgage in the first place – and that is the major actual problem with the housing market, mortgages having effectively dried up because of the credit crunch. Then what difference will reducing the sales tax of around £1.7K imposed on a few of the sales make?
And let’s not forget that any improvement in the housing market that may actually be had from this piece of spin will have to be paid for in reverse, at the end of the ‘holiday’ in a year’s time, when ther will be a corresponding rush then a step back down in sales.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Gordon Brown blames UK consumer for rising food prices
OK. I heard this on the radio news today. Apparently, according to Gordon Brown, the reason why food is much more expensive of late is because of… wait for it…
The consumer wasting vegetables, buying them and then throwing them away because they don’t know how to look after them properly and have gone off - and the evil supermarkets making ‘two for the price of one’ offers tempts them into it too.
I am now waiting for Gordon’s performing seals on, say the GMC, to start calling for VAT on vegetables to be doubled to eliminate this problem. Or maybe consumers to be licensed to purchase food, license cost £25 renewable yearly, 2,500 civil servants to administer.
Next they will be quoting little old ladies on how a robust national ID card system will help curb the wastage and prevent illegal immigrants from depriving 'hard working families' of their carrots.
I am so glad it has nothing whatsoever with the drop in the value of the pound against the Euro that by weird coincidence happened about the same time as food costs rose
Or the cost of oil rising and therefore petrol rising (most of the cost of which is due to punitive taxation) and therefore transportation rising in turn. Also coincidentally happening at the same time.
Oh and we must not forget Gordon’s Government slavishly following the EU dictat of pushing bio fuel production, that takes acres and acres of productive land out of food production and into fuel production.
Does he really expect anyone to believe it?
One can hardly imagine even one so stupid as to sell off half the nations gold reserves when the market had bottomed out to believe such complete nonsense himself.
Gordon’s pork pies anyone?
Still, thanks to all his New Labour cronies, he and they, have just secured access to new 'John Lewis' fridges in all their second homes, to help keep their veggies and pork pie collections fresh in...
The consumer wasting vegetables, buying them and then throwing them away because they don’t know how to look after them properly and have gone off - and the evil supermarkets making ‘two for the price of one’ offers tempts them into it too.
I am now waiting for Gordon’s performing seals on, say the GMC, to start calling for VAT on vegetables to be doubled to eliminate this problem. Or maybe consumers to be licensed to purchase food, license cost £25 renewable yearly, 2,500 civil servants to administer.
Next they will be quoting little old ladies on how a robust national ID card system will help curb the wastage and prevent illegal immigrants from depriving 'hard working families' of their carrots.
I am so glad it has nothing whatsoever with the drop in the value of the pound against the Euro that by weird coincidence happened about the same time as food costs rose
Or the cost of oil rising and therefore petrol rising (most of the cost of which is due to punitive taxation) and therefore transportation rising in turn. Also coincidentally happening at the same time.
Oh and we must not forget Gordon’s Government slavishly following the EU dictat of pushing bio fuel production, that takes acres and acres of productive land out of food production and into fuel production.
Does he really expect anyone to believe it?
One can hardly imagine even one so stupid as to sell off half the nations gold reserves when the market had bottomed out to believe such complete nonsense himself.
Gordon’s pork pies anyone?
Still, thanks to all his New Labour cronies, he and they, have just secured access to new 'John Lewis' fridges in all their second homes, to help keep their veggies and pork pie collections fresh in...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)