The UK Home Affairs select committee’s are concerned about how effective the police are. The acting chairman, David Winnick, said: "We know the police have had a major increase in funding over the past decade but it is much more difficult to tell what they have done with it." The committee said the number of officers actually rose by 11% in that time.
According to the British Crime Survey (BCS) (the credibility of which was called into question by the Smith Review of crime statistics), crime had fallen by a third from 1997 to 2006, whilst recorded violent crime had risen by 21%.
One has to question the official figures to some extent in any case. There is strong anecdotal evidence that the targets are actually driving police behaviour away from effective policing and towards producing results that look good on paper. Taking minor easy win offences, or in some cases non offences and turning them into multiple detections. It would also seem changes in the law and organisational practices are resulting in officers spending more instead of less time on paperwork.
Despite the official figures the public appear to be unconvinced.
It seems, according to the authoritative Prof Ken Pease and Prof Graham Farrell that the BCS underestimates figures by around 3 million offences per year by only counting crimes committed against repeat victims up to 5, so if for instance, you report your car has been vandalised 10 times in a year only half of them will count.
Nil desperandum, as they used to say in Rome, it seems ministers are now planning to launch a new strategy to ‘move public perception of crime’ into line with official falling figures…
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
BBC Trust to Quiz Director General about 'lapses'
The BBC trust, which represents UK TV Tax (licence) payers, will be meeting the corporation's Director General, Mark Thompson, to discuss BBC1's autumn launch promotion that created the false impression that the Queen had stormed out of a photoshoot by ‘manipulating the chronology’ of the video and their faking a children’s TV competition winner.
One hopes they will discuss more than just this visible tip of the iceberg.
Mr Thompson has said he will lay out his plans to minimise the risk of similar "totally unacceptable incidents ever happening again", despite the controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham, saying he was not planning to resign.
Mr Thompson informed BBC staff that: "We cannot allow even a small number of lapses, whether intentional or as a result of sloppiness, to undermine our reputation and the confidence of the public."
Too late Mr Thompson – You already did.
One hopes they will discuss more than just this visible tip of the iceberg.
Mr Thompson has said he will lay out his plans to minimise the risk of similar "totally unacceptable incidents ever happening again", despite the controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham, saying he was not planning to resign.
Mr Thompson informed BBC staff that: "We cannot allow even a small number of lapses, whether intentional or as a result of sloppiness, to undermine our reputation and the confidence of the public."
Too late Mr Thompson – You already did.
UK Doctors call for organ harvesting on death unless prior objections registered
Sir Liam Donaldson the UK Nu-Lab Government’s Chief Medical Officer is calling for a change in the law so only those who actually register their objections will be exempt from organ harvesting on death, for the ‘common good’.
If you have to specifically opt out it is certainly no longer donation. Something Joyce Robins, of Patient Concern was obviously thinking of when she stated: "Organ donation is a generous gift, not an obligation. It is, of course, less trouble to take the easy way and make assumed consent the norm.”
Predictably the BMA are fully on board. The Chairman of their medical ethics committee Dr Tony Calland said: "The BMA fully supports an opt-out system for organ donation. We must increase the number of donors available and the BMA believes that a system of presumed consent with safeguards, will help to achieve this.”
He does seem to be aware that they will need tobrainwash‘educate’ the public before introducing any change ”it is essential that a public information campaign is launched”
A spokesman for UK Transplant stated: "There is no evidence that introducing a system of presumed consent would, on its own, increase transplant figures.” Observing that an opt-out system could in fact damage public confidence in the transplant programme.
Sir Liam is apparently concerned that the shortage of spare parts is fuelling "transplant tourism" where UK patients travel abroad often paying for a donor organ, which according to Sir Liam, puts them at unnecessary risk.
One has every sympathy with those who need transplants and are unable to find suitable donors, but this is not a comfortable or proper direction to go in. What would be next on their list if they got their way and that did not do the trick compulsion, a sort of organ death tax? The opt-out is the start of a slippery slope.
An individual’s right to control their own body should not be compromised, or stampeded.
You wouldn’t expect it from interacting with your average GP, but what is it about the medical profession that it appears to attract so many patrician, collectivist, authoritarians, especially it would appear to it’s upper echelons?
People who seem to believe (the non ruling classes) most of us should be treated as some sort of wards and regulated by the state, in as many aspects as possible of our lives, from cradle to grave? They seem to see nothing amiss in promoting fascist controls at the drop of a hat.
In fact they often seem to reach for these sorts of solutions to problems almost before considering anything else. It is like some sort of sinister, creeping, menace.
If you have to specifically opt out it is certainly no longer donation. Something Joyce Robins, of Patient Concern was obviously thinking of when she stated: "Organ donation is a generous gift, not an obligation. It is, of course, less trouble to take the easy way and make assumed consent the norm.”
Predictably the BMA are fully on board. The Chairman of their medical ethics committee Dr Tony Calland said: "The BMA fully supports an opt-out system for organ donation. We must increase the number of donors available and the BMA believes that a system of presumed consent with safeguards, will help to achieve this.”
He does seem to be aware that they will need to
A spokesman for UK Transplant stated: "There is no evidence that introducing a system of presumed consent would, on its own, increase transplant figures.” Observing that an opt-out system could in fact damage public confidence in the transplant programme.
Sir Liam is apparently concerned that the shortage of spare parts is fuelling "transplant tourism" where UK patients travel abroad often paying for a donor organ, which according to Sir Liam, puts them at unnecessary risk.
One has every sympathy with those who need transplants and are unable to find suitable donors, but this is not a comfortable or proper direction to go in. What would be next on their list if they got their way and that did not do the trick compulsion, a sort of organ death tax? The opt-out is the start of a slippery slope.
An individual’s right to control their own body should not be compromised, or stampeded.
You wouldn’t expect it from interacting with your average GP, but what is it about the medical profession that it appears to attract so many patrician, collectivist, authoritarians, especially it would appear to it’s upper echelons?
People who seem to believe (the non ruling classes) most of us should be treated as some sort of wards and regulated by the state, in as many aspects as possible of our lives, from cradle to grave? They seem to see nothing amiss in promoting fascist controls at the drop of a hat.
In fact they often seem to reach for these sorts of solutions to problems almost before considering anything else. It is like some sort of sinister, creeping, menace.
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
UK School wins right to ban Christian ‘purity’ ring
The Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex in the UK banned a pupil from wearing a ‘purity’ ring as it contravened the schools uniform policy.
She was one of a dozen girls who wore the ring, engraved with a verse from the Bible, as a sign of their intention to abstain from sex until they married.
She took the school to court on the grounds that it was as "unlawful interference" with her fundamental rights to express her Christian faith, but the court rejected this.
A school that banned a teenage girl from wearing a "purity" ring to symbolise her opposition to sex before marriage did not discriminate against her religious beliefs, the High Court ruled today.
The judge ruled, that the ring could not be regarded as ‘a proper Christian symbol’, and so the school had not breached the Human Rights Act. The decision does seem a little perverse and one wonders at how qualified he was to make the decision and what advice he may have taken.
This is the same school that had no problem allowing Moslem girls to wear headscarves. These scarves are clearly no more a (in the words of the court) ‘proper’ Moslem symbol, originating as they do with certain Middle Eastern ethnicities and not necessary to all Moslem women.
The Koran talks about modesty, but there is no specifically prescribed dress code for Muslim men and women.
The details regarding women's dress differ in various Muslim countries according to local cultural traditions. It ranges from any form of modest but not specifically Moslem dress to the extreme, all-covering chador, or burqa.
In fact the scarves when they are worn are worn to symbolise their ‘modesty and purity’ fulfilling much the same roll as the ring albeit far more overtly - and with just as much, or as little, ‘proper ness’ as the ring. Modesty might be regarded as a requirement but not the wearing of the scarf
Some in the Moslem world regard the headscarf and other more extreme versions of dress for Moslem women as an agenda being pushed by the more the ‘fundamentalist’ to assert a strict Middle Eastern homogenising control over Muslims in Europe.
Surely to be fare it should be one rule for all - and it does not look all that much like one rule for all at the moment.
Will the school, having won it’s argument on this basis, now be banning headscarves on the same basis? Or will they reconsider allowing the rings?
How likely is that?
She was one of a dozen girls who wore the ring, engraved with a verse from the Bible, as a sign of their intention to abstain from sex until they married.
She took the school to court on the grounds that it was as "unlawful interference" with her fundamental rights to express her Christian faith, but the court rejected this.
A school that banned a teenage girl from wearing a "purity" ring to symbolise her opposition to sex before marriage did not discriminate against her religious beliefs, the High Court ruled today.
The judge ruled, that the ring could not be regarded as ‘a proper Christian symbol’, and so the school had not breached the Human Rights Act. The decision does seem a little perverse and one wonders at how qualified he was to make the decision and what advice he may have taken.
This is the same school that had no problem allowing Moslem girls to wear headscarves. These scarves are clearly no more a (in the words of the court) ‘proper’ Moslem symbol, originating as they do with certain Middle Eastern ethnicities and not necessary to all Moslem women.
The Koran talks about modesty, but there is no specifically prescribed dress code for Muslim men and women.
The details regarding women's dress differ in various Muslim countries according to local cultural traditions. It ranges from any form of modest but not specifically Moslem dress to the extreme, all-covering chador, or burqa.
In fact the scarves when they are worn are worn to symbolise their ‘modesty and purity’ fulfilling much the same roll as the ring albeit far more overtly - and with just as much, or as little, ‘proper ness’ as the ring. Modesty might be regarded as a requirement but not the wearing of the scarf
Some in the Moslem world regard the headscarf and other more extreme versions of dress for Moslem women as an agenda being pushed by the more the ‘fundamentalist’ to assert a strict Middle Eastern homogenising control over Muslims in Europe.
Surely to be fare it should be one rule for all - and it does not look all that much like one rule for all at the moment.
Will the school, having won it’s argument on this basis, now be banning headscarves on the same basis? Or will they reconsider allowing the rings?
How likely is that?
It's the truth Jim - But not as we know it.
How the media (in this case the BBC) misdirect, even as they present the facts. The main 6 pm UK BBC News on Monday the 16th ran the story of Dr Andrew Wakefield who raised questions over the safety of the Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine.
He is in trouble with the UK General Medical Council (GMC) over the matter and is up on charges brought by them of acting ‘unethically and dishonestly’. Something he and his colleagues strenuously deny.
The background is: He, together with two colleagues, published a research paper in the Lancet in 1998 that raised the possibility that the new MMR vaccine was linked to both autism and the bowel disorder Crohn's disease.
The Government and medical establishment have repeatedly rejected the suggestion that there was any increased risk to the new vaccine.
Now regardless, of the merits, or not, of the current case, for the moment let’s look at the BBC reporting of it. Really look at the way it was put together.
The BBC report showed a graph indicating the drop in the take up of the MMR vaccine against an increase in the incidence of measles and explained it in these terms, the strong implication being that Dr Wakefield and his colleagues had been responsible for what amounted to almost a measles epidemic and a child had died. Practically a mass murderer then…
I shall not go into the careful phrasing of thepropaganda report, that suggested that there could be no question the vaccine was not safe as houses and had a certain hint of ‘scientific consensus’ about it in a massive body of evidence.
They even trotted out a Mother (and indeed, who should know better?) who told us all that her G.P. (General Practitioner, or Dr) had ‘assured her the MMR vaccine was perfectly safe’. Much more convincing than all those parents who had turned out demonstrating in Dr Wakefield’s favour.
It may be the BBC were only repeating what they had been told. In that case the researcher in this case may also be interested in purchasing some attractively fancy looking shares in a Bolivian gold mine I can make available to them at short notice - as soon as the ink has dried.
The fact is those who had concerns about the new joint vaccine had wanted to ensure that the previous single vaccines continued to be available for parents to request, precisely in order to avoid any risk of epidemic.
It was actually the Government and the medical establishment that made it almost impossibly difficult to obtain the single vaccines and effectively forced parents to choose between the new MMR vaccine, or no vaccine at all.
Despite strong campaigning from parents to be able to choose, in August 1999, the government de-licensed the single measles vaccine and banned the widespread importation of the vaccine into the UK. Such a fine example of patient choice and the free market in action. Some parents who could afford it even took their children abroad to be vaccinated using the single jab.
After that, the old vaccine was and may still be, available in this country - but only if parents were able to persuade a doctor to organise importation "for personal use", then administer it, even if newly unlicensed, in the face of massive official disapproval.
In 2001, the heavy guns of the World Health Organization (WHO) waded in, issuing afatwa statement, "strongly supporting the use of MMR vaccine on the grounds of its convincing record of safety and efficacy."
It may, or may not, be relevant that a significant number of members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, two Department of Health committees responsible for reviewing the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine, are reported to have had links with companies that manufacture it including some as actual as share holders.
One could also be forgiven for thinking that if the authorities had ever really been concerned about the possibility of an increase in the number of cases of Measles they would have allowed parental choice between the original viable alternative and the MMR vaccine, rather than trying to bully them with an all, or nothing, choice.
So, that rise the BBC mentioned in the number of measles cases, can be squarely laid at the door of the government and the medical establishment for effectively banning any alternative to MMR.
That is what the BBC failed to mention and by doing so is effectively actually covering up. A work of art using only actual facts, Jo Goebbels would have been proud.
Talk about show trials and rewriting history to suit. It all has a certain worrying familiarity,
He is in trouble with the UK General Medical Council (GMC) over the matter and is up on charges brought by them of acting ‘unethically and dishonestly’. Something he and his colleagues strenuously deny.
The background is: He, together with two colleagues, published a research paper in the Lancet in 1998 that raised the possibility that the new MMR vaccine was linked to both autism and the bowel disorder Crohn's disease.
The Government and medical establishment have repeatedly rejected the suggestion that there was any increased risk to the new vaccine.
Now regardless, of the merits, or not, of the current case, for the moment let’s look at the BBC reporting of it. Really look at the way it was put together.
The BBC report showed a graph indicating the drop in the take up of the MMR vaccine against an increase in the incidence of measles and explained it in these terms, the strong implication being that Dr Wakefield and his colleagues had been responsible for what amounted to almost a measles epidemic and a child had died. Practically a mass murderer then…
I shall not go into the careful phrasing of the
They even trotted out a Mother (and indeed, who should know better?) who told us all that her G.P. (General Practitioner, or Dr) had ‘assured her the MMR vaccine was perfectly safe’. Much more convincing than all those parents who had turned out demonstrating in Dr Wakefield’s favour.
It may be the BBC were only repeating what they had been told. In that case the researcher in this case may also be interested in purchasing some attractively fancy looking shares in a Bolivian gold mine I can make available to them at short notice - as soon as the ink has dried.
The fact is those who had concerns about the new joint vaccine had wanted to ensure that the previous single vaccines continued to be available for parents to request, precisely in order to avoid any risk of epidemic.
It was actually the Government and the medical establishment that made it almost impossibly difficult to obtain the single vaccines and effectively forced parents to choose between the new MMR vaccine, or no vaccine at all.
Despite strong campaigning from parents to be able to choose, in August 1999, the government de-licensed the single measles vaccine and banned the widespread importation of the vaccine into the UK. Such a fine example of patient choice and the free market in action. Some parents who could afford it even took their children abroad to be vaccinated using the single jab.
After that, the old vaccine was and may still be, available in this country - but only if parents were able to persuade a doctor to organise importation "for personal use", then administer it, even if newly unlicensed, in the face of massive official disapproval.
In 2001, the heavy guns of the World Health Organization (WHO) waded in, issuing a
It may, or may not, be relevant that a significant number of members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, two Department of Health committees responsible for reviewing the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine, are reported to have had links with companies that manufacture it including some as actual as share holders.
One could also be forgiven for thinking that if the authorities had ever really been concerned about the possibility of an increase in the number of cases of Measles they would have allowed parental choice between the original viable alternative and the MMR vaccine, rather than trying to bully them with an all, or nothing, choice.
So, that rise the BBC mentioned in the number of measles cases, can be squarely laid at the door of the government and the medical establishment for effectively banning any alternative to MMR.
That is what the BBC failed to mention and by doing so is effectively actually covering up. A work of art using only actual facts, Jo Goebbels would have been proud.
Talk about show trials and rewriting history to suit. It all has a certain worrying familiarity,
Monday, 16 July 2007
Cilivl Liberty Group has concerns over EU arrest warrants
It seems the European Arrest Warrants (EAW), requiring the arrest and extradition of suspects from one EU country to another may be being abused. Why would we be surprised?
Statewatch, the civil liberties group has obtained a secret (it would be) EU report. Campaigners are concerned that the EAW does not allow refusal, if the offence does not exist under national laws and makes no requirement for a proportionality test.
The Secret report concedes: "The principle of proportionality requires that in each case a comparison be made between the seriousness of the offence and resources to be deployed in the executing state and, in particular, that it involves the deprivation of liberty of an individual."
"The EAW does not include any obligation for a proportionality check either by the issuing or executing member state, nor does it include any grounds for non-recognition related to it,"
It seems fast-track extradition warrants are often being issued for relatively minor offences, demanding the costly extradition of people for offences such as possession of 0.45 grams of cannabis, the theft of two car tyres - and in one instance piglet rustling. Officials are concerned that the warrants are being used "disproportionately" to the seriousness of offences.
The Warrants can even be applied when the offence is not even an offence under the laws of the country the warrant is executed in.
Statewatch, the civil liberties group has obtained a secret (it would be) EU report. Campaigners are concerned that the EAW does not allow refusal, if the offence does not exist under national laws and makes no requirement for a proportionality test.
The Secret report concedes: "The principle of proportionality requires that in each case a comparison be made between the seriousness of the offence and resources to be deployed in the executing state and, in particular, that it involves the deprivation of liberty of an individual."
"The EAW does not include any obligation for a proportionality check either by the issuing or executing member state, nor does it include any grounds for non-recognition related to it,"
It seems fast-track extradition warrants are often being issued for relatively minor offences, demanding the costly extradition of people for offences such as possession of 0.45 grams of cannabis, the theft of two car tyres - and in one instance piglet rustling. Officials are concerned that the warrants are being used "disproportionately" to the seriousness of offences.
The Warrants can even be applied when the offence is not even an offence under the laws of the country the warrant is executed in.
Sunday, 15 July 2007
Can the BBC be trusted?
The BBC has finally gone a step too far. I have generally defended it against those who call for it’s abolition but I now feel less inclined and the reason?
The controversy over the manufacturing of a ‘tiff’ between the queen and photographer.
Anyone of moderate intelligence will find it very difficult to accept that cutting various clips together out of chronological order to manufacture a story could in any way be an accident. Someone somewhere in all probability knew exactly what they were doing.
It appears in this instance an independent production company called RDF Television actually edited the trailer. If the BBC don’t permanently publicly disassociate themselves from the company, all of it’s directors and anyone who worked on the editing of the documentary then they can only be seen as ambivalent towards honest reporting.
Then there is the controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham. Apparently being supported by the BBC hierarchy. There was something quite unpleasant in the way he stoked things in the first place smugly suggesting that the Queen had "lost it" and walked out in a "huff".
It seems they have also done something similar to Gordon Brown. Apparently they are also planning to produce some sort of dramatisation concerning Paula Yates life, now she is not here to defend herself. A documentary is one thing, but making stuff up to spice a story up, as the appear to be planning is beyond the pale.
There is also the matter of the BBC ‘5 Live’ website carrying anti-Semitic comment apparently based on or originating from “The Talmud Unmasked”, a core anti-Semitic text written at the end of the 19th Century by Justin Praniatis.
The comment goes: ”Zionism is a racist ideology where Jews are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud.
It also claims the anti-Semitic ’Baba Mezia’ propaganda is true.
the BBC feel this is ok
Apparently justifying it with “we have decided that it does not contravene the House Rules and are going to leave it on site”.
The BBC is supported by a special Tax Televisions called the licence fee.
It is staffed by people who are largely unrepresentative of the country as a whole. The staff having a profile that is more urban, left wing, younger and does not match the mix of the population it serves racially either. This would not really be desirable in a private broadcasting company. It is unacceptable in a publicly funded one.
The only justification the BBC ever had was the Reithian public service ethic that educated and provided honest, objective and unbiased news reporting. The BBC used to have a worldwide reputation for doing that. It has largely lost it.
If the BBC can not get it’s own house in order - and it looks very much as if it can, or will, not then the government needs to step in and reshape it, root and branch.
That or stop forcing the population to subsidise this cuckoo in the nest through taxation.
The controversy over the manufacturing of a ‘tiff’ between the queen and photographer.
Anyone of moderate intelligence will find it very difficult to accept that cutting various clips together out of chronological order to manufacture a story could in any way be an accident. Someone somewhere in all probability knew exactly what they were doing.
It appears in this instance an independent production company called RDF Television actually edited the trailer. If the BBC don’t permanently publicly disassociate themselves from the company, all of it’s directors and anyone who worked on the editing of the documentary then they can only be seen as ambivalent towards honest reporting.
Then there is the controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham. Apparently being supported by the BBC hierarchy. There was something quite unpleasant in the way he stoked things in the first place smugly suggesting that the Queen had "lost it" and walked out in a "huff".
It seems they have also done something similar to Gordon Brown. Apparently they are also planning to produce some sort of dramatisation concerning Paula Yates life, now she is not here to defend herself. A documentary is one thing, but making stuff up to spice a story up, as the appear to be planning is beyond the pale.
There is also the matter of the BBC ‘5 Live’ website carrying anti-Semitic comment apparently based on or originating from “The Talmud Unmasked”, a core anti-Semitic text written at the end of the 19th Century by Justin Praniatis.
The comment goes: ”Zionism is a racist ideology where Jews are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud.
It also claims the anti-Semitic ’Baba Mezia’ propaganda is true.
the BBC feel this is ok
Apparently justifying it with “we have decided that it does not contravene the House Rules and are going to leave it on site”.
The BBC is supported by a special Tax Televisions called the licence fee.
It is staffed by people who are largely unrepresentative of the country as a whole. The staff having a profile that is more urban, left wing, younger and does not match the mix of the population it serves racially either. This would not really be desirable in a private broadcasting company. It is unacceptable in a publicly funded one.
The only justification the BBC ever had was the Reithian public service ethic that educated and provided honest, objective and unbiased news reporting. The BBC used to have a worldwide reputation for doing that. It has largely lost it.
If the BBC can not get it’s own house in order - and it looks very much as if it can, or will, not then the government needs to step in and reshape it, root and branch.
That or stop forcing the population to subsidise this cuckoo in the nest through taxation.
Friday, 13 July 2007
EU admits UK’s so-called treaty red lines are worthless
On Wednesday Margot Wallström, the European Commission Vice-President, insisted that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights will apply to three quarters or more of British law because it is derived from EU legislation and Britain's "red line" opt-outs are worthless.
She said: "Citizens will be able to claim before the courts the rights enshrined in the Charter," "The Charter will be binding for the European institutions, and also for member states when they implement EU law, even if it does not apply to all of them."
The commission's legal service describe British opt-outs as "limited" as German studies indicate up top to 80%of national law now originates in Brussels.
Sensitive national legislation, such as Britain's opt-out on a Brussels directive that sets the length of the working week will, officials predict, be challenged in the EU courts because it implements European laws.
A legal source described the opt-out as “potentially very thin."
If Gordon Brown is foolish enough to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty signed up to by Tony Blair he will soon discover the charter, including a "right to strike", will be enforceable in the European courts if trade unions seek to challenge the UK’s reforms of the 1980s.
According to the Daily Telegraph, a senior European Parliament source revealed that Euro-MPs are planning to sponsor early challenges to Britain's opt-outs.
"We are going to make sure that this issue is constantly before the European Court of Justice,"
"There is 30 years of EU jurisprudence to say there can be no two-tier system of European rights."
The think-tank Open Europe has research that indicates EU judges are not likely to be backward in applying the charter. Their Director Neil O'Brien said:
"The Court of Justice will decide for itself whether member states are implementing European law and interpret their national laws for them,"
"Trying to stop the charter changing our laws will be like trying to carry water in a sieve."
If Gordon Brown is getting a bit fed up by now, with always playing second fiddle to someone, or something else, then he would be wise to agree to a referendum on the constitutional 'Treaty' sooner rather than later. He did say he would if the red lines were threatened.
She said: "Citizens will be able to claim before the courts the rights enshrined in the Charter," "The Charter will be binding for the European institutions, and also for member states when they implement EU law, even if it does not apply to all of them."
The commission's legal service describe British opt-outs as "limited" as German studies indicate up top to 80%of national law now originates in Brussels.
Sensitive national legislation, such as Britain's opt-out on a Brussels directive that sets the length of the working week will, officials predict, be challenged in the EU courts because it implements European laws.
A legal source described the opt-out as “potentially very thin."
If Gordon Brown is foolish enough to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty signed up to by Tony Blair he will soon discover the charter, including a "right to strike", will be enforceable in the European courts if trade unions seek to challenge the UK’s reforms of the 1980s.
According to the Daily Telegraph, a senior European Parliament source revealed that Euro-MPs are planning to sponsor early challenges to Britain's opt-outs.
"We are going to make sure that this issue is constantly before the European Court of Justice,"
"There is 30 years of EU jurisprudence to say there can be no two-tier system of European rights."
The think-tank Open Europe has research that indicates EU judges are not likely to be backward in applying the charter. Their Director Neil O'Brien said:
"The Court of Justice will decide for itself whether member states are implementing European law and interpret their national laws for them,"
"Trying to stop the charter changing our laws will be like trying to carry water in a sieve."
If Gordon Brown is getting a bit fed up by now, with always playing second fiddle to someone, or something else, then he would be wise to agree to a referendum on the constitutional 'Treaty' sooner rather than later. He did say he would if the red lines were threatened.
Thursday, 12 July 2007
Government Researchers call for tax on fatty foods
There are Food Nazis everywhere - UK Department of Public Health researchers, at Oxford University, are claiming that more than 3,000 fatal heart attacks and strokes could be prevented in the UK each year if Value Added Tax (VAT) was slapped on a vast range of foods.
Dr Mike Rayner, who worked on the study, said: “the time is right for more debate on the issue of 'fat taxes'”
Such a tax would, of course, be music to the ears of the EC who are pushing to completely remove the UK’s zero rated category for VAT applied to such things as books and some food.
It is absolute unalloyed health fascism. They want to force you to do what they believe is good for you – and it will cost you money.
Basically they plan to drive up the price of ‘unhealthy’ foods through taxation to the point where people are effectively forced to resort to more ‘healthy’ foods. They calculate this would initially inflate household food bills by 4.6%.
There is no pretence that they imagine the average individual is capable, or entitled, to manage their own eating habits, or by extension even own their own bodies. Even if their claim is true their proposal is still something to be vigorously resisted on principle alone.
Downing Street's strategy unit was reportedly flirting with the idea in 2004, but Tony Blair rejected it.
Such a move would probably suit any government wishing to make concessions to the EC by falling in line, by providing something else to blame the move on. Something like saving the NHS from the criminal recklessness of the general greedy fat over eating population who gain weight specifically to drain the coffers of the NHS. Though it would lead, rightly, to accusations of nanny-statism.
Maura Gillespie, of the British Heart Foundation, indicated that they aren’t yet convinced by the idea saying: "Further evidence is needed on the effect of targeted food taxes before we can support a 'fat tax'."
The thing is though , to some extent all this is only playing with statistics. No matter what, until they come up with a way of indefinitely extending healthy life, you are just shifting the balance of the causes of death around. One less heart attack will be one more stroke, or Alzheimer’s. Even if you could live forever it would be stats on what accident finally did for you.
Eventually some Health & Safety Fascist would be banning you from using plastic eating utensils because they were too dangerous to you any anyone nearby.
Dr Mike Rayner, who worked on the study, said: “the time is right for more debate on the issue of 'fat taxes'”
Such a tax would, of course, be music to the ears of the EC who are pushing to completely remove the UK’s zero rated category for VAT applied to such things as books and some food.
It is absolute unalloyed health fascism. They want to force you to do what they believe is good for you – and it will cost you money.
Basically they plan to drive up the price of ‘unhealthy’ foods through taxation to the point where people are effectively forced to resort to more ‘healthy’ foods. They calculate this would initially inflate household food bills by 4.6%.
There is no pretence that they imagine the average individual is capable, or entitled, to manage their own eating habits, or by extension even own their own bodies. Even if their claim is true their proposal is still something to be vigorously resisted on principle alone.
Downing Street's strategy unit was reportedly flirting with the idea in 2004, but Tony Blair rejected it.
Such a move would probably suit any government wishing to make concessions to the EC by falling in line, by providing something else to blame the move on. Something like saving the NHS from the criminal recklessness of the general greedy fat over eating population who gain weight specifically to drain the coffers of the NHS. Though it would lead, rightly, to accusations of nanny-statism.
Maura Gillespie, of the British Heart Foundation, indicated that they aren’t yet convinced by the idea saying: "Further evidence is needed on the effect of targeted food taxes before we can support a 'fat tax'."
The thing is though , to some extent all this is only playing with statistics. No matter what, until they come up with a way of indefinitely extending healthy life, you are just shifting the balance of the causes of death around. One less heart attack will be one more stroke, or Alzheimer’s. Even if you could live forever it would be stats on what accident finally did for you.
Eventually some Health & Safety Fascist would be banning you from using plastic eating utensils because they were too dangerous to you any anyone nearby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)