Poor old Ming.
Beware the ides of October - Lying there, in a figurative pool of blood, whilst his good friends Simon and Vince announce his resignation for him. It’s not so much Ming that was merciless - more the Fib Dems.
If Ming hasn’t said it, someone ought to tell the ones with the knives: "You too my son, will have a taste of power"
Monday, 15 October 2007
New stealth tax on Pub quizzes & soccer teams
Gordon Broom Breeks appears particularly have it in for pub goers and has unleashed his stealthiest stealth tax yet. A tax so stealthy it makes a mouse tiptoeing in rubber soled shoes sound like a cart horse tap-dancing on a wooden floor.
Before he left the treasury old Broon Breeks put together new tax guidelines for a review of business premises. He carefully avoided the normal practice of putting it on line so people could see what he was up to. It only found it’s way into the House of Commons library after questions from MPs.
What were these secret changes? He has ordered inspectors to watch out for things like TVs, quiz nights and quiz, pool, darts, or football teams. They are to use them to hike the rateable value of the premises, drive up the rates for such pubs by hundreds of pounds.
That is likely to have one of two possible effects. Either the cost will be passed on to the customers, or the facility may be withdrawn.
Yet again Broon’s hand in your pocket.
Domestic council tax bills have already risen at double the rate of inflation since Nu-Lab came to power.
There have been concerns that an equivalent review of people's homes the Government have planned is very likely see council tax bills rocket.
Based on this example of sly practice on non domestic local taxation it is a virtual racing certainty that they will…
Before he left the treasury old Broon Breeks put together new tax guidelines for a review of business premises. He carefully avoided the normal practice of putting it on line so people could see what he was up to. It only found it’s way into the House of Commons library after questions from MPs.
What were these secret changes? He has ordered inspectors to watch out for things like TVs, quiz nights and quiz, pool, darts, or football teams. They are to use them to hike the rateable value of the premises, drive up the rates for such pubs by hundreds of pounds.
That is likely to have one of two possible effects. Either the cost will be passed on to the customers, or the facility may be withdrawn.
Yet again Broon’s hand in your pocket.
Domestic council tax bills have already risen at double the rate of inflation since Nu-Lab came to power.
There have been concerns that an equivalent review of people's homes the Government have planned is very likely see council tax bills rocket.
Based on this example of sly practice on non domestic local taxation it is a virtual racing certainty that they will…
Noted public figure notices that the UK Government does not deliver on it’s promises.
You would think that a seasoned pressure group campaigner would be a little less naive.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, a leading environmentalist, is complaining that ‘soaring’ speeches made by Gordon Broon Breeks, at the Nu-Lab party conference, about making the UK a global leader in fighting alleged anthropocentric Global Warming; "make Britain a world leader in tackling climate change", were not backed up by action.
Hello! Exactly what else was he expecting? This is a man who will not even honour his party’s manifesto pledges. This is a party that was promising to ‘save’ the NHS over a decade ago. That spoke of instant fines for antisocial behaviour where the police were going to march offenders to the nearest cash point – Yeah right.
That is exactly what this party does – make ‘soaring’ speeches and memorable sound bites.
Sir Jonathon should do the decent thing , not call them on it and let it get forgotten and buried, like previous ‘soaring’ speeches, under other, newer, ‘soaring’ speeches promising the earth. Just like the electorate is expected to do…
Sir Jonathon Porritt, a leading environmentalist, is complaining that ‘soaring’ speeches made by Gordon Broon Breeks, at the Nu-Lab party conference, about making the UK a global leader in fighting alleged anthropocentric Global Warming; "make Britain a world leader in tackling climate change", were not backed up by action.
Hello! Exactly what else was he expecting? This is a man who will not even honour his party’s manifesto pledges. This is a party that was promising to ‘save’ the NHS over a decade ago. That spoke of instant fines for antisocial behaviour where the police were going to march offenders to the nearest cash point – Yeah right.
That is exactly what this party does – make ‘soaring’ speeches and memorable sound bites.
Sir Jonathon should do the decent thing , not call them on it and let it get forgotten and buried, like previous ‘soaring’ speeches, under other, newer, ‘soaring’ speeches promising the earth. Just like the electorate is expected to do…
Sunday, 14 October 2007
The UK asylum system unable to cope.
The Government’s obsession with it’s ill judged and useless targets chalks up another resounding success – not!
Despite the fact that, according to the figures (yes I know you can’t trust them – but for the sake of argument) so-called ’refugees’ are at a 14 year low, never-the-less our wonderful Government and it’s highly effective and ever expanding army of client employees have somehow contrived to foul up the asylum system so badly it is in turmoil.
According to a leaked memo the Telegraph got sight of the Home Office has been set a Government target of resolving 40% of all next year's asylum claims within 6 months.
This would in all likelihood result in all the older cases being put on the ‘back burner’. In recognition of this the home office are trawling staff for "quick win" ideas to tackle the problem. Amnesties anyone?
Already they are conducting an exercise to clear 450,000 ‘legacy’ cases by more-or-less just granting them amnesty.
It seems there is unrest in detention centres (Why? They are safe and being fed and clothed) and also claimants are just doing a runner before cases their cases are decided.
On top of that it seems fewer and fewer bogus/failed asylum seekers are actually being deported.
What is the actual point of an asylum ‘system’, if the Government grants amnesties at the drop of a hat when it becomes too much bother to process asylum seekers?
If the system functioned, no one should be allowed to stay once asylum was refused and all claims should be properly processed with no amnesties. Any offences committed in detention centres should have some influence on any asylum claim made by the perpetrator.
If the system, as it exists, is to be taken seriously then surely very few should be granted asylum in the UK if they have travelled through other countries that they could have claimed asylum in to get to the UK. The whole point of the idea is that they are supposed to be seeking safety not picking and choosing somewhere they particularly fancy living.
Why is this a problem with all this in the first place? The welfare State.
It makes the UK very attractive to asylum seekers/economic migrants. It also makes them a problem because too many of them could be a drain on the system.
What will this be used to help justify? ID cards that won’t actually be compulsory to start with for citizens - just impossible to do a lot of things without, and the ‘soft’ fascist state.
See where Government ‘incompetence’ leads to…
Despite the fact that, according to the figures (yes I know you can’t trust them – but for the sake of argument) so-called ’refugees’ are at a 14 year low, never-the-less our wonderful Government and it’s highly effective and ever expanding army of client employees have somehow contrived to foul up the asylum system so badly it is in turmoil.
According to a leaked memo the Telegraph got sight of the Home Office has been set a Government target of resolving 40% of all next year's asylum claims within 6 months.
This would in all likelihood result in all the older cases being put on the ‘back burner’. In recognition of this the home office are trawling staff for "quick win" ideas to tackle the problem. Amnesties anyone?
Already they are conducting an exercise to clear 450,000 ‘legacy’ cases by more-or-less just granting them amnesty.
It seems there is unrest in detention centres (Why? They are safe and being fed and clothed) and also claimants are just doing a runner before cases their cases are decided.
On top of that it seems fewer and fewer bogus/failed asylum seekers are actually being deported.
What is the actual point of an asylum ‘system’, if the Government grants amnesties at the drop of a hat when it becomes too much bother to process asylum seekers?
If the system functioned, no one should be allowed to stay once asylum was refused and all claims should be properly processed with no amnesties. Any offences committed in detention centres should have some influence on any asylum claim made by the perpetrator.
If the system, as it exists, is to be taken seriously then surely very few should be granted asylum in the UK if they have travelled through other countries that they could have claimed asylum in to get to the UK. The whole point of the idea is that they are supposed to be seeking safety not picking and choosing somewhere they particularly fancy living.
Why is this a problem with all this in the first place? The welfare State.
It makes the UK very attractive to asylum seekers/economic migrants. It also makes them a problem because too many of them could be a drain on the system.
What will this be used to help justify? ID cards that won’t actually be compulsory to start with for citizens - just impossible to do a lot of things without, and the ‘soft’ fascist state.
See where Government ‘incompetence’ leads to…
Saturday, 13 October 2007
Barroso pro EU speech to Oxford students
The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, who, like Gordon Broon Breeks, is so keen on avoiding any democratic input into the new Constitutional ‘Treaty’ was busy pushing his agenda to students in Oxford on Thursday.
He said: "I find it frankly strange that the debate on this side of the Channel so often seems to suggest that the UK is fundamentally at odds with the Continent. - I don't believe this reflects the reality here in the UK. With your long-held international outlook, I don't believe that your arms can be open to the world while your hearts and minds are closed to Europe."
What he carefully avoids mentioning is that our ‘international outlook’ was aimed at the world in general rather that Europe as a super state. It involved trading and worked perfectly well managed by individuals and companies without particular need for the ‘institutions’ he loves so much.
We, as a nation have a long history of perfectly warranted suspicion towards the idea of a European super state that was keen to have us incorporated in it - and those that promote the idea.
Napoleon was all for it. He liked to codify and organise everything. Granted he was more ‘direct’ about it than Barrosso. He wanted to do it by force, rather than softly softly.
Many Brits are often bright enough to work out that it might not be in their best interests when they are actually being physically attacked to promote it.
They can be inclined to resist and become difficult. When it’s just boring old politics the turkeys will vote for Christmas every time - or at least not pay enough attention and make enough fuss, to avoid getting stuffed in the end ;-)
Then there was that German chancellor, who was very keen on a European Super state. Not Merkel, sly author of the Constitutional ‘Treaty’. A chap called Hitler. He came pretty close, but at the time not all our politicians were as keen on the idea as Mosley. Now the political elite are much more signed up to the idea, a much more receptive lot. Poor old Adolph was obviously just a little ahead of his time, born half a century too early…
He said: "I find it frankly strange that the debate on this side of the Channel so often seems to suggest that the UK is fundamentally at odds with the Continent. - I don't believe this reflects the reality here in the UK. With your long-held international outlook, I don't believe that your arms can be open to the world while your hearts and minds are closed to Europe."
What he carefully avoids mentioning is that our ‘international outlook’ was aimed at the world in general rather that Europe as a super state. It involved trading and worked perfectly well managed by individuals and companies without particular need for the ‘institutions’ he loves so much.
We, as a nation have a long history of perfectly warranted suspicion towards the idea of a European super state that was keen to have us incorporated in it - and those that promote the idea.
Napoleon was all for it. He liked to codify and organise everything. Granted he was more ‘direct’ about it than Barrosso. He wanted to do it by force, rather than softly softly.
Many Brits are often bright enough to work out that it might not be in their best interests when they are actually being physically attacked to promote it.
They can be inclined to resist and become difficult. When it’s just boring old politics the turkeys will vote for Christmas every time - or at least not pay enough attention and make enough fuss, to avoid getting stuffed in the end ;-)
Then there was that German chancellor, who was very keen on a European Super state. Not Merkel, sly author of the Constitutional ‘Treaty’. A chap called Hitler. He came pretty close, but at the time not all our politicians were as keen on the idea as Mosley. Now the political elite are much more signed up to the idea, a much more receptive lot. Poor old Adolph was obviously just a little ahead of his time, born half a century too early…
Friday, 12 October 2007
Al Gore nets Nobel Peace Prize.
OK I know this subject is going to get a hammering on the blogsphere so I’ll keep it brief…
But, Al Gore, Nobel Peace prize? Please…
This guy is a politician. He made a film promoting Anthropocentric Global Warming, spoiled by gilding the lily with OTT conclusions for the sake of drama. He has done some lectures.
Al Gore and Mother Theresa, not exactly a pair you would naturally put together in the same breath, like say, eggs and bacon, are they?
I guess the candidates must have been pretty thin on the ground. The committee might have demonstrated more integrity just to have given it a miss this year.
But, Al Gore, Nobel Peace prize? Please…
This guy is a politician. He made a film promoting Anthropocentric Global Warming, spoiled by gilding the lily with OTT conclusions for the sake of drama. He has done some lectures.
Al Gore and Mother Theresa, not exactly a pair you would naturally put together in the same breath, like say, eggs and bacon, are they?
I guess the candidates must have been pretty thin on the ground. The committee might have demonstrated more integrity just to have given it a miss this year.
Heather Mills reportedly looking for £50 million from McCartney
Paul McCartney, has apparently offered around £20 million, to his estranged wife Heather Mills. However it seems this is not nearly enough for her, as she is reportedly looking for around £50 million and he could end up shelling out around £70 million.
They were married in 2002, amid rumours his children, prophetically, didn’t think it was a good idea and speculation that she was a gold digger - it all went pear shaped in 2006 - so that’s about 4 years. During that time Heather mills Gave birth to a child.
Now Paul McCartney is not short of a bob or two, but he and his first wife earned it - with no help from Heather Mills, in fact one suspects she was probably a net drain on his finances.
Twenty million sounds like a sum a reasonable person could live on comfortably for the rest of their days, properly invested it would actually grow.
So how does 4 years marriage entitle anyone to demand 50 million quid? That’s twelve and a half million for each year!!
They were married in 2002, amid rumours his children, prophetically, didn’t think it was a good idea and speculation that she was a gold digger - it all went pear shaped in 2006 - so that’s about 4 years. During that time Heather mills Gave birth to a child.
Now Paul McCartney is not short of a bob or two, but he and his first wife earned it - with no help from Heather Mills, in fact one suspects she was probably a net drain on his finances.
Twenty million sounds like a sum a reasonable person could live on comfortably for the rest of their days, properly invested it would actually grow.
So how does 4 years marriage entitle anyone to demand 50 million quid? That’s twelve and a half million for each year!!
Are Ming’s days as leader numbered?
It looks like Ming the Merciless’ days may be numbered.
The Fib Dems may be trying to work up the courage to give him a Roman send off, with the "Et tu, Brute" treatment. He had better keep a wary eye out for gatherings of his front benchers.
The Fib Dems may be trying to work up the courage to give him a Roman send off, with the "Et tu, Brute" treatment. He had better keep a wary eye out for gatherings of his front benchers.
Thursday, 11 October 2007
UK Police Chief advocates legalisation of drugs
Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales has announced that he will be ‘campaigning hard’ for drugs such as heroin to be legalised.
This has attracted reflex criticism from certain politicians.
Nu-Lab’s Mark Tami, MP for Alyn and Deeside attacked the idea, in an unconscious self parody, as "blinkered and dangerous". Fair enough, if that’s what he genuinely thinks and it is not politician noise.
But he went on: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."
Parse that sentence again - That is three statements that do not follow on one from another.
Clearly, like much of the government, the man is not strong on joined up thinking, or following through a train of thought to a logical conclusion.
Why exactly is it that drug users are responsible for so much crime?
The policeman Richard Brunstrom knows. It is because illegal drugs are expensive and addicts regularly commit crime to acquire enough money to regularly support their habit. Committing crime like that is an effort for a heroin addict, one they would probably prefer to avoid if they had the choice.
They also often end up with product of unknown strength and quality often dangerously adulterated, to the extent where they get the dose wrong and die.
When addicts use a substance that interferes less with their ability to function and earn, like cocaine and when they earn enough they do not go out to commit crime to support their habit, they just buy it with honestly acquired cash.
Many addicts are driven to commit crime because they can not afford to support their habit any other way.
If addicts such as heroin users could support their habit cheaply and legally they would at least not need to commit crime to support their habit and would be less at risk from misjudging the dose. They might even be more willing to seek help giving up as it could finally be dealt with openly.
Now looking at the matter of crime in a wider context. We all know how prohibition, during the early part of the last century in the US, fostered and promoted the growth of organised crime. The same factors are at work in the case of drugs, except it is not just organised crime that profits from the illegal trade in drugs, terrorists get funding from it also.
Get regulated legal control over the market and you cut off funding to organised crime and terrorism. It should also remove the root cause for much day to day crime, a huge economic drain of society and a source of inconvenience and misery to many of it’s victims.
Nu-Lab and Gordon Broon Breeks take note, you also have a new source of Tax revenue - and a chance to actually meet one of your precious ill thought out targets for once.
This has attracted reflex criticism from certain politicians.
Nu-Lab’s Mark Tami, MP for Alyn and Deeside attacked the idea, in an unconscious self parody, as "blinkered and dangerous". Fair enough, if that’s what he genuinely thinks and it is not politician noise.
But he went on: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."
Parse that sentence again - That is three statements that do not follow on one from another.
Clearly, like much of the government, the man is not strong on joined up thinking, or following through a train of thought to a logical conclusion.
Why exactly is it that drug users are responsible for so much crime?
The policeman Richard Brunstrom knows. It is because illegal drugs are expensive and addicts regularly commit crime to acquire enough money to regularly support their habit. Committing crime like that is an effort for a heroin addict, one they would probably prefer to avoid if they had the choice.
They also often end up with product of unknown strength and quality often dangerously adulterated, to the extent where they get the dose wrong and die.
When addicts use a substance that interferes less with their ability to function and earn, like cocaine and when they earn enough they do not go out to commit crime to support their habit, they just buy it with honestly acquired cash.
Many addicts are driven to commit crime because they can not afford to support their habit any other way.
If addicts such as heroin users could support their habit cheaply and legally they would at least not need to commit crime to support their habit and would be less at risk from misjudging the dose. They might even be more willing to seek help giving up as it could finally be dealt with openly.
Now looking at the matter of crime in a wider context. We all know how prohibition, during the early part of the last century in the US, fostered and promoted the growth of organised crime. The same factors are at work in the case of drugs, except it is not just organised crime that profits from the illegal trade in drugs, terrorists get funding from it also.
Get regulated legal control over the market and you cut off funding to organised crime and terrorism. It should also remove the root cause for much day to day crime, a huge economic drain of society and a source of inconvenience and misery to many of it’s victims.
Nu-Lab and Gordon Broon Breeks take note, you also have a new source of Tax revenue - and a chance to actually meet one of your precious ill thought out targets for once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
