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.
Friday, 12 October 2007
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.
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
As Advertised on TV – The UK Election petition
That epetition for an election, as advertised on TV, by Mr Smug himself, Gordon Broon Breeks, in PM’s question time.
Go on - you know you want to…
Go on - you know you want to…
Cheap as chips? Will the UK ePassport work for more than a couple of years?
Remember the ePassport introduced in 2006, to comply with new international requirements? An absolute rip off snip at only £72 and rising.
The Home Office's Identity and Passport Service (IPS) are no doubt congratulating themselves for apparently accomplishing the unlikely feat of bringing in the scheme, on time and on budget. Note 'Identity' in the name – another brick in the wall of Nu-Lab's total surveillance society.
But wait – These are ten year ePassports and they contain a microchip with your data on it.
That microchip is only guaranteed for, wait for it, two years.
That’ll be fun then, when it packs up after 6 years while you are trying to go through US customs and they think you are a terrorist sneaking in on a fake passport.
And exactly who is going to pay for a new one when it stops working?
The Home Office's Identity and Passport Service (IPS) are no doubt congratulating themselves for apparently accomplishing the unlikely feat of bringing in the scheme, on time and on budget. Note 'Identity' in the name – another brick in the wall of Nu-Lab's total surveillance society.
But wait – These are ten year ePassports and they contain a microchip with your data on it.
That microchip is only guaranteed for, wait for it, two years.
That’ll be fun then, when it packs up after 6 years while you are trying to go through US customs and they think you are a terrorist sneaking in on a fake passport.
And exactly who is going to pay for a new one when it stops working?
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
Police Officer threatens to arrest young lad playing with toy gun
An unidentified Wiltshire police officer working in Swindon threatened to arrest an 8 year old lad playing with a black and orange toy gun outside his own home.
He ludicrously attempted to justify this by claiming the toy was an ‘imitation firearm’. Presumably not a particularly convincing one, or surely the officer would have called in a firearms unit as back-up.
When the lad’s stepfather came out to see what the problem was the officer forced him to smash the toy, reducing the lad to tears.
Not content with this he returned later to bully the boy's six year old sister riding in a battery powered Barbie car on the pavement. No doubt to warn her it was an offence to drive on the pavement and threaten her with arrest.
There are usually two sides to every story but, this officer would appear, on the face of it , to be unfit to perform the office of constable. If only for being so inept at his role that he ended up in the situation he did - One must seriously question weather he is safe to allow out on his own.
This seems, at best, misguided, 'political correctness', taken to ridiculous lengths.
He appears to have behaved more like a petty tyrant, or a member of a foreign occupying force, than what we had traditionally come to expect of a British Police Officer. Just as well for his own good name his Force (or is that service these days? – Some ‘service’ he provided) is keeping his name under wraps for the moment.
Police powers are extensive and their proper exercise requires extensive training, common sense, maturity , objectivity and the ability to exercise discretion.
The toy gun, by the description, was extremely unlikely to be mistaken by anyone of normal intelligence or fortitude for a firearm, so can hardly have been honestly regarded as an 'imitation firearm' in the normal sense of the phrase.
Presumably it was offered on sale in a toyshop perfectly legally and purchased for the lad perfectly legally, so no one else saw it in that light.
He ludicrously attempted to justify this by claiming the toy was an ‘imitation firearm’. Presumably not a particularly convincing one, or surely the officer would have called in a firearms unit as back-up.
When the lad’s stepfather came out to see what the problem was the officer forced him to smash the toy, reducing the lad to tears.
Not content with this he returned later to bully the boy's six year old sister riding in a battery powered Barbie car on the pavement. No doubt to warn her it was an offence to drive on the pavement and threaten her with arrest.
There are usually two sides to every story but, this officer would appear, on the face of it , to be unfit to perform the office of constable. If only for being so inept at his role that he ended up in the situation he did - One must seriously question weather he is safe to allow out on his own.
This seems, at best, misguided, 'political correctness', taken to ridiculous lengths.
He appears to have behaved more like a petty tyrant, or a member of a foreign occupying force, than what we had traditionally come to expect of a British Police Officer. Just as well for his own good name his Force (or is that service these days? – Some ‘service’ he provided) is keeping his name under wraps for the moment.
Police powers are extensive and their proper exercise requires extensive training, common sense, maturity , objectivity and the ability to exercise discretion.
The toy gun, by the description, was extremely unlikely to be mistaken by anyone of normal intelligence or fortitude for a firearm, so can hardly have been honestly regarded as an 'imitation firearm' in the normal sense of the phrase.
Presumably it was offered on sale in a toyshop perfectly legally and purchased for the lad perfectly legally, so no one else saw it in that light.
Monday, 8 October 2007
PM puts brakes on ‘Snap’ UK Election
Evidently Gordon Broon Breeks, having considered all the options, has now decoded against calling a snap general election.
This is clearly because he calculates that if he were to have called one he would be in danger of reducing his majority, possibly even to the point where it actually became a minority – So Snap election, not a good move then.
The problem is that he has apparently been teetering on calling one for some time. Doing it by remote control of course to try and maintain deniability. Hence his minions have been dropping hints and scurrying round laying the ground for one and generally talking the idea up. There is no way all this would have been going on without Gordon’s approval behind the scenes. If it was it would have to make him a pathetically weak leader.
Plus, no doubt he calculated, it might help steal, or drown out, some of the opposition’s conference thunder.
Never-the-less he must have felt pressured to decide, with his window due to close.
Like a hesitant motorist at a roundabout, he had almost plucked up the courage to go - when he realised the opportunity had gone and he would have to wait if he wanted to be safe.
This must have seriously damaged his reputation. Especially after all his hot air about running stuff like that past parliament first, rather than the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.
Maybe he will argue that all MPs had the chance to watch the show so he was actually using it as a means to address parliament. It’s the sort of dodgy spin Nu-Lab love so much.
Still, as PM he is in a position to use the resources of Government to do his best to undo the damage over the coming months and take the wind out of the opposition’s sales.
We can probably expect some smoke and mirrors to distract us from his brown breeks any minute. Taxes? Troop withdrawals? Maybe even a referendum – though he probably is not that keen to distract us.
So now we have a Government that was elected with a different leader, on a manifesto they have not honoured, quite the reverse in fact Gordon himself has, to date, been twisting to avoid honouring it - If Gordon’s Government can not be said to have a mandate, then where is his?
This is clearly because he calculates that if he were to have called one he would be in danger of reducing his majority, possibly even to the point where it actually became a minority – So Snap election, not a good move then.
The problem is that he has apparently been teetering on calling one for some time. Doing it by remote control of course to try and maintain deniability. Hence his minions have been dropping hints and scurrying round laying the ground for one and generally talking the idea up. There is no way all this would have been going on without Gordon’s approval behind the scenes. If it was it would have to make him a pathetically weak leader.
Plus, no doubt he calculated, it might help steal, or drown out, some of the opposition’s conference thunder.
Never-the-less he must have felt pressured to decide, with his window due to close.
Like a hesitant motorist at a roundabout, he had almost plucked up the courage to go - when he realised the opportunity had gone and he would have to wait if he wanted to be safe.
This must have seriously damaged his reputation. Especially after all his hot air about running stuff like that past parliament first, rather than the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.
Maybe he will argue that all MPs had the chance to watch the show so he was actually using it as a means to address parliament. It’s the sort of dodgy spin Nu-Lab love so much.
Still, as PM he is in a position to use the resources of Government to do his best to undo the damage over the coming months and take the wind out of the opposition’s sales.
We can probably expect some smoke and mirrors to distract us from his brown breeks any minute. Taxes? Troop withdrawals? Maybe even a referendum – though he probably is not that keen to distract us.
So now we have a Government that was elected with a different leader, on a manifesto they have not honoured, quite the reverse in fact Gordon himself has, to date, been twisting to avoid honouring it - If Gordon’s Government can not be said to have a mandate, then where is his?
Sunday, 7 October 2007
Free speech a shilling for you thoughts
I must admit I had never heard of billionaire Uzbek Oligarch Alisher Usmanov, not being an Arsenal fan. Nor indeed had I ever heard of Schillings Lawyers - unless any of them are related to the lady known for wearing interesting hats to well known race meetings.
Now I have heard of Mr Usmanov - and now I know Craig Murray, is a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and that Mr Murray has written a book that had a thing or two to say about Mr Usmanov. I understand they also featured in a speech made to the European Parliament.
I have not read the book, but I am aware of the substance of the allegations. I have no idea if they may be true or not.
What I do know is that Mr Usmanov has apparently been throwing his financial weight around via Schillings, silencing web sites that commented on the substance of what was said.
In fact that's how I heard about him and took the trouble to look into what has been said. So if he was hoping to contain interest in what was said, or stifle it, then maybe this was not the best way to have gone about it.
Surely if he feels he has been libelled then the court is the place to prove it and be vindicated.
Now I have heard of Mr Usmanov - and now I know Craig Murray, is a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and that Mr Murray has written a book that had a thing or two to say about Mr Usmanov. I understand they also featured in a speech made to the European Parliament.
I have not read the book, but I am aware of the substance of the allegations. I have no idea if they may be true or not.
What I do know is that Mr Usmanov has apparently been throwing his financial weight around via Schillings, silencing web sites that commented on the substance of what was said.
In fact that's how I heard about him and took the trouble to look into what has been said. So if he was hoping to contain interest in what was said, or stifle it, then maybe this was not the best way to have gone about it.
Surely if he feels he has been libelled then the court is the place to prove it and be vindicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
